For companies, geopolitical risk is fundamentally about the probability that a political action or environment will significantly affect their business – whether positively or negatively.[1] In this context, the next decade will be a period of political uncertainty across the globe. Business leaders can expect to face daunting leadership and strategic challenges amid the turbulence and policy ambiguity – in particular with respect to a shifting economic landscape, accelerated technological change, and an increasingly disaffected and divided society.

Organizations have a choice to make – manage geopolitical risks or be managed by them.

– Dalynn Hoch, Chief Financial Officer, Zurich North America[2]

A particularly concerning issue for business is that western democratic states and institutions appear to be under increasing strain from a potent combination of external and internal challenges – with particular consequences for business nationally and internationally. The lack of coherence and cooperation at the international level, with countries and allies pursuing competing agendas, is provoking additional uncertainty, anxiety, and division across Western society – including undermining a stable ‘rules-based’ international order.[3]

Unequal distribution of wealth and economic opportunity (as a result of globalization and technology), challenging labour markets, social and cultural unrest, political polarization, election meddling[4] and political disarray (i.e. burgeoning nationalist and populist movements from both the left and right of the ideological spectrum[5]), corruption,[6] tariffs and trade protectionism, climate change,^[7] terrorism and war, etc., are among the factors playing a role in undermining trust in government and business, and weakening democratic institutions and market legitimacy and effectiveness.^[8]

Not surprisingly, this has – and will continue to have – an impact on the long-term strategy, growth, and sustainable value creation for businesses nationally and around the world.

In the G-Zero, the world’s major powers set aside aspirations for global leadership—alone, coordinated, or otherwise—and look primarily inward for their policy priorities. Key institutions that provide global governance become arenas not for collaboration but for confrontation. Global economic growth and efficiency is reduced as a result.

– David Gordon, Research Director, Eurasia Group[9]

Overview

In what appears to be a global environment of political polarization and lack of trust in politicians and government and business, complicated truths may become distorted into simplistic narratives.[10] There will likely be significant unrest and transformation, and it will test corporate leadership teams profoundly – national economies and labour markets will likely be reshaped, and the rules of the game in many industries will likely be changed.[11]

Loss of trust in our institutions is one of the central issues of our time – leading to social, economic, and political tension. Without trust, institutions do not work effectively, societies and economies falter, and people lose faith in their leaders.[12] A compromised society and political process is bad for nations and bad for business: when trust is depleted in formerly bedrock institutions, when people come to believe that the “system” does not reflect their values, is not under their control, and no longer works to their benefit, economies will underperform.[13]

Economists note that sustainable economic growth and macroeconomic stability requires addressing inequality,[14] as an economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year is significantly undermined by lowered growth, [15] and economic, financial and political instability (leading to poor public policy choices).[16] As well, faced with increasing market imbalances and growth-stifling levels of inequality, markets will not be seen as ‘efficient and self-regulating coordinators of value creation,’ but rather as part of the problem (if not the problem).[17]

Today, stakeholders – customers, shareholders, suppliers, employees, political leaders and society as a whole – rightfully expect companies to assume greater social responsibility. Social value is becoming the benchmark for a company’s performance. … we call this ‘Business to Society’.

– Joe Kaeser, President and CEO, Siemens[18]

Corporate social responsibility now has a significant impact on an organization’s brand and reputation – particularly impacting ‘trust’ and financial performance.[19] In this environment, stakeholders today are taking an intense look at the impact organizations have on society, and their expectations for corporate purpose and social responsibility – good corporate citizenship – are rising.[20] An accomplished CEO and leadership team can achieve more than simply avoiding catastrophe, they can also create sustainable value and benefits in the corporation,[21] in the marketplace, and in the broader national and global community. This ultimately creates the basic trust which is the foundation for corporate durability and sustainability, and which endures beyond changes in governments.^[22]

The next decade is a pivotal time period for business and corporations to build trust and a corporate advantage, but it will require strategic new thinking about long-term sustainable value creation, corporate stakeholders, and corporate purpose.

The right strategy includes principled leadership and participation in the national and international conversations. The hard news is that C-suite leadership teams, corporate boards, and in-house legal leaders will face some difficult choices in the years ahead as they grapple to balance the organization’s strategic vision (corporate purpose, values, culture, and bottom line), with rising geopolitical issues, the challenges of civil society and anti-establishment populism, activist stakeholders, and the demands of an increasingly volatile business environment.[23]

It’s a dramatically-changed world.  I think the idea of steady as she goes has gone out the window.

– Charles Bronfman, former Seagram Company co-Chairman[24]

Introduction

The world faces a crisis of trust in institutions that continues to deteriorate[25] – posing a significant challenge to government, the international order, and business. Three-quarters of people around the world say their country’s society is divided – and the majority think their country is now more divided than it was 10 years ago. Differences in political views are seen as the greatest cause of tension, followed by differences between rich and poor.[26] Many corporate leaders are of the opinion that a disaffected and divided society is a significant threat to the success of business,[27] with Apple CEO Tim Cook stating that “addressing inequality” is “an economic necessity”[28] and one of the biggest issues facing the world today.[29]

The World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Risks Report noted that “rising income and wealth disparity” (as a result of globalization and technology) is rated as the “most important trend in determining global developments over the next 10 years” (in particular risks related to economic security/employment and social stability, and the health of democracy).[30]

Although free markets have historically brought unprecedented prosperity across the world, in recent decades – for Western democracies and their advanced economies – the benefits have been unequally experienced with widening inequalities of income and wealth, precarious employment and heightened job insecurity.[31]  Persistent inequality, particularly in the context of comparative global economic weakness, risks undermining the legitimacy of market capitalism. At the same time, deepening social and cultural polarization risks impairing national government decision-making processes and obstructing global collaboration.[32] Economic inequality and cultural polarization have contributed to a fragmentation in the political process in Western democracies that has complicated forming stable co-operative governments or implementing effective policies.[33]

Too much of the GDP over the last generation has gone to too few of the people. [Income inequality is] responsible for the divisions in the country. The divisions could get wider. If you can’t legislate, you can’t deal with problems. [If] you can’t deal with problems, you can’t drive growth and you can’t drive the success of the country. It’s a very big issue and something that has to be dealt with.

– Lloyd Blankfein, CEO and Chairman, Goldman, Sachs[34]

There is a perception that democracies and their elected governments have struggled to perform their own basic functions: to articulate and act in the public interest for the common good, and initiate policy that achieves both growth and equity. At this point in time, it appears that few, if any, democratic nations are effectively coping with capitalism’s negative side effects – in particular that more and more of the economic growth has gone to those at the top while most people are doing worse year after year (leading to a growing sense of injustice in the economy, social tension, and anger).[35]

Even though democracy was designed to address these very issues in constructive ways, there is a growing sense of political powerlessness[36] in Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, etc. as “the public’s worst fears”[37] appear to be borne out in respect to how government, elections, and public policy appear to be influenced – and in some cases driven – by self-interested ‘big money’ and ‘dark money’ corporate and financial elites with the deepest pockets and biggest bullpen of lobbyists[38]:[39]

“The United States [the UK, Australia, Canada] is not alone in this big-money corruption[40] … Democracy around the world is being undermined … by money, a lot of it. With the world’s politics awash in money, several world leaders are currently charged with corruption, most recently France’s Nicolas Sarkozy [Ex-President],[41] Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu [Prime Minister],[42] and South Africa’s Jacob Zuma [Ex-President],[43] with two more recently convicted: Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva [Ex-President][44] and South Korea’s Park Geun-Hye [Ex-President][45].”

The world is facing a crisis of trust in institutions across all sectors that shows no sign of abating. In 20 out of the 28 countries surveyed by the Edelman Trust Barometer for 2018, average trust in government, business, NGOs and media was below 50%.

– Chrisine Lagard, International Monetary Fund, There’s a reason for the lack of trust in government and business: corruption [46]

It appears too many commentators that “there is a growing crisis in ethics and integrity” among “our leaders in both the public and private sector”,[47] that at “any minute now” we “could be living in a very different world”^[48] negatively impacting the economy and business environment, and potentially undermining an organization’s strategy, values, stakeholders and bottom line. As noted by a U.S. President at the height of the great depression “unhappy events” have taught two simple truths:[49]

“The first truth is that … democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is … ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

[R]ising income and wealth disparity … points to the need for reviving economic growth, but the growing mood of anti-establishment populism [and backlash against globalization] suggests we may have passed the stage where this alone would remedy fractures in society. … More fundamental reforms to market capitalism may be needed to tackle, in particular, an apparent lack of solidarity between those at the top of the national income and wealth distributions and those further down.

– Global Risk Report 2017, World Economic Forum[50]

There are clear reasons to be concerned about the risks associated with the health of our governments and Western democratic institutions, systems of international cooperation (trade, security, climate, etc), and the challenges related to economic dislocation and social and cultural polarization.[51]  As these geopolitical issues of extraordinary scale and complexity impact corporations and their stakeholders across the world, companies and their leadership teams will need to consider and respond to these broader societal challenges. What this may look like will vary across organizations, but leading organizations will review – and where strategically appropriate – embrace the idea of corporate purpose, and even political responsibility.[52] This may well be the defining challenge for business today – “and because the economic stakes are so high, business leaders must play an important role in the process”.[53]

In this respect, most leading organizations are making corporate purpose a core part of their strategy and identity.[54] Not necessarily because it is ‘politically correct’, but because it may now be the only path forward to long-term competitive advantage and sustainable value creation for the organization.[55] In this new political era successful corporate strategies will require corporate leaders who can lead, reach out and build trust – “a critical factor of companies’ license to operate”.[56] Democracy and corporate leadership is not a spectator sport. If there is going to be a healthy and honest counter-balance of policy and discussion from the private sector, then CEOs like Apple Tim Cook, LinkedIn Jeff Weiner, and others will likely continue to take firm public positions and engage on policy discussion.[57] As a geopolitical corporate strategy, corporate leadership within each organization will have to make a decision – maintain their corporate status quo or “be part of the public debate”.[58] As noted by Blackrock CEO Larry Fink:[59]

“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society”. ….

Mr. Fink’s declaration is different because his constituency in this case is the business community itself. It pits him, to some degree, against many of the companies that he’s invested in, which hold the view that their only duty is to produce profits for their shareholders, an argument long espoused by economists like Milton Friedman.”

Personally, I’ve never found being on the sideline a successful place to be. The way that you influence these issues is to be in the arena. So whether it’s in this country, or the European Union, or in China or South America, we engage. And we engage when we agree and we engage when we disagree. I think it’s very important to do that because you don’t change things by just yelling. You change things by showing everyone why your way is the best. In many ways, it’s a debate of ideas. … … What we do is focus on the policies.

– Tim Cook, CEO Apple[60]

Corporate Strategy and Leadership

Stewardship at the institutional level involves ensuring that organizational values, missions and strategies remain appropriate, and the business sustainable.  To support long-term corporate strategy and sustainable value creation, C-suite leadership teams and Boards must be equipped to identify and understand the full breadth of problems facing economies and societies that are undergoing extensive transformations. The most effective organizations will have three important points in common: they will take political risk seriously, they will approach it systematically and with humility, and they will lead from the top.[61]

Globalization, automation and digitalization, inequality, social unrest, climate change, and the rise of populism and nationalism is compelling corporate leadership to master difficult and complex matters of local and international jurisdiction and political impact, including the challenges of more diverse and unpredictable business situations and industry trends. However, the tricky part is that, considered in isolation, many 21^st century political risks may seem like low probability events.[62] However, organizations operate today in a highly transparent world where internal and external behaviour will generally come to light, as is apparent from constant national and international headlines.

Effective management of political risk will require today’s Boards and C-suite executive teams to consider multiple diverse perspectives, integrating ‘business-in-the-economy’, public policy and ‘business-in-society’ perspectives. Failing to do so could result in substantial corporate damage, as an organization that leads in such a restricted manner (i.e. a “business of business is business” outlook) will likely be blind to outcomes they should be able to anticipate, since they are not positioned to understand and encompass the full dimension of the risk and opportunity in its’ corporate activity.^[63]

Leadership acumen on business-in-society issues is imperative in addressing fundamental corporate issues, from business strategy to compliance to ethical standards to risk management.^[64]

The ability to mitigate risk will involve identifying, understanding, and prioritizing the diverse economic and non-economic threats to the corporation and its stakeholders,^[65] especially those that present difficult geopolitical threats. Questions about corporate performance, values and strategy should be front and center for executive leadership teams – and this includes meetings of the Board of Directors. Corporate Boards, CEOs, and C-suite executives (including the General Counsel)[66] must understand these risks and their impact on business, as it is apparent that they will continue to play out and they are likely to be profound and consequential across Western society.[67]

Boards that fail to address or understand alternative points of view on corporate strategy can never be fully confident that management’s view of a jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) is the best one in the circumstances. In short, the outcome in such an environment may be unexpected and unpleasant.^[68]

Having said that, given the complexity of the global and digital world, appropriate corporate strategy is becoming more difficult to ascertain, and of shorter duration than ever before. As such, Boards should consider whether it is appropriate for their company to “insist that strategy be on the agenda of each and every board meeting, so that the directors can be assured that they are investing their time in the most important function: helping to figure out and navigate the way ahead.”^[69]

A disaffected and divided society must be looked at closely and carefully – to the “deeper sources” of the issues and concerns and “how governments around the world are likely to respond to them”.[70] At the end of the day, lack of trust and growing inequality is not just bad economics, it is bad public policy and governance – as such, many governments will likely step in and deliver public interest legislation, actually addressing the economic and societal problems that technological change and globalization have brought to their front door.[71]  And, as governments are unique actors sitting outside the marketplace, they can set (or reset) the rules when faced with destabilizing economic and social turmoil:[72]

Individual governments will come from different starting points in facing the economic challenges of the coming decades. But as the custodians of market governance and social policy, many governments may reset their role in the marketplace when faced with economic and social turmoil. If history is a guide, governments will not only discern a need to intervene, their societies will demand it. …

The collision of demographics, automation and inequality will shape a new era. Populations suffering severe economic dislocation could view jarring levels of income and wealth inequality as a form of social failure—a failure to provide the vast majority of the population with the chance to earn a decent living despite the nation’s technological and economic wherewithal. Today’s level of inequality already has prompted growing public concern and debate. It seems reasonable to expect that at significantly higher levels, popular criticism would intensify and increase pressure for social policies to address it. …

History shows that states can move quickly in response to economic crises. … A more interventionist government would affect the business environment in multiple ways.[73] … If wealth and income inequality become increasingly acute, some nations may use wealth or asset taxation as a tool for redistribution. … Governments may also expand entitlement programs, particularly in healthcare and family benefit spending. … Some countries may expand unemployment safety nets designed for short-term transitional unemployment to address the long-term unemployment caused by automation or even provide universal basic income. … To address labor market imbalances, governments could invest in retraining programs. Most countries provide free education through high school. Some may expand this basic framework. … Governments could expand monetary policy further, using it to create negative real interest rates as a form of social policy targeted directly toward households (rather than businesses), providing zero to negative interest rates for consumers. … They could also wield business and antitrust regulation either to exert more direct control over economic means and outcomes or to benefit new entrants over incumbents.

Each country’s approach and philosophy to regulation varies. … Government involvement in the economy is likely to increase in response to rising inequality and market imbalances, particularly toward the end of the next decade or the early 2030s, with variations based on local market conditions.”

[T]he kind of change that really matters is going to require action from the federal government. That which creates monopoly power can also destroy it; that which allows money into politics can also take it out; that which has transferred power from labor to capital can transfer it back.

– Matthew Stewart, The Atlantic[74]

There are no easy answers to restoring the compact between business and society – getting there is the challenge – but the issues will require the right mix of good policies, good governance, and good institutions. But possibly the most important issue to address will be good leadership – that promoting growth, addressing inequality and cultural polarization, and sharing prosperity makes both economic and political sense.[75]

This will require a discussion of public policy, the rising role of ‘big money’ influence in politics and government, the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small financial elite, and campaign finance reform.  Inequality makes it easier for corporate and financial elite – intentionally or otherwise – to affect political and policy outcomes through campaign contributions and lobbying. However, in a functioning democracy, lawmaking should be based on the power of ideas and the public interest, not the powerful ‘big money’ interests behind them. The fundamental laws of western democracies protect lobbying as a legitimate means to redress concerns and/or grievances, but when ‘big money’ is married to both elections and lobbying, the inequality and process of deliberation may be seen as a game of “pay-to-play”. To increase public confidence in business and democratic systems across the world, arguably support by business for improvement in the integrity and transparency of the political process would be a strategic position to take – particularly in light of the small (relatively speaking)[76] number of ‘big donors’ that are perceived to undermine and fuel distrust of the political systems[77] across Western democracies. Such a step would require the establishment of bright-line rules between lobbying, conflicts of interest, and political donations.[78]

However, a solution to this issue must be a clear delineation of the boundary, for it is unlikely business generally – even if their corporate Boards and C-suite executives were in complete agreement – would “risk ceding any political advantages to competitors”[79] if everyone is not playing by the same common-sense rules. This type of solution would be aimed at preventing undue influence and/or corruption, ensuring an even playing field, and engendering trust in business and public institutions.

Organizations today are judged for more than their success as a business; they’re now being held responsible for their impact on society at large.

– Deloitte[80]

These type of factors, among others, are threatening the capacity of nations and business to collaborate and solve critical problems from employment and the economy to climate change to security, trade and immigration to education.[81] The Board and C-suite will need clear and reliable information and advice about business, legal, regulatory, ethical, and political risks in order to drive strategic decisions and future outcomes, and minimize exposure to the organization and its stakeholders.[82]

As noted by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and other corporate leaders, there is currently an imbalance that exists between what the market is providing and the needs of society.[83] The BlackRock CEO’s position was made in “the context society’s rising expectations for companies. People are demanding that companies have a social purpose and demonstrate leadership on key issues”. And, according to this business leader, “they are right to: without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential or meet its obligations to society”[84] – recognizing that an organization’s financial performance appears to be linked to its social purpose and corporate social responsibility.[85]

This may be a watershed moment on Wall Street, one that raises a number of questions about corporate responsibility and purpose, and the reasonable expectations of capitalism:[86]

“In a candid assessment of what’s happening in the business world – and perhaps taking a veiled shot at Washington at the same time – Mr. Fink wrote that he is seeing ‘many governments failing to prepare for the future’.”

In this light, corporate purpose and/or citizenship “is no longer simply a corporate social responsibility program, a marketing initiative, or a program led by the CHRO”. For leading organizations it is a “CEO-level business strategy” defining the organization’s identity. Issues such as diversity and inclusion, income inequality, immigration, and global warming “are being openly discussed by individuals, families, and political leaders around the world”. [87]

Many stakeholders are frustrated with political solutions to these problems and now expect businesses to help address these key problems.[88] And, the evidence is mounting that long-term strategic perspectives and service to a broader agenda benefiting  all stakeholders (including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate) drives not just trust and brand reputational value, but success as well.[89] Boards, CEOs and their executive leadership teams would be strategic to rethink the long view over “short-termism”, and the role of business in society. The way forward: “the company’s health—not its shareholders’ wealth—should be the primary concern of those who manage corporations. That may sound like a small change, but it would make companies less vulnerable”[90]:[91]

“As stakeholder expectations rise, an inauthentic or uneven commitment to citizenship can quickly damage a company’s reputation, undermine its sales, and limit its ability to attract talent. For organizations, a new question is becoming vital: When we look in the mirror held up by society, do we like what we see?”

Most important, the dialogue has clarified for me the nature of the deep reform that I believe business must lead—nothing less than a shift from what I call quarterly capitalism to what might be referred to as long-term capitalism.

– Dominic Barton, Global Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company^[92]

Corporate leaders will need to make a decision whether to maintain their corporate status quo or provide responsive and principled leadership – to engage in open dialogue and a common search for solutions – to address these collective challenges.  This is a unique opportunity for organizations to consider making purpose and corporate social responsibility a core part of their long-term sustainable strategy and identity, addressing ways to strengthen the political, economic, and social systems of the communities in which they operate. For example, generating more inclusive growth, reconciling identify nationalism and multiculturalism,[93] and rebuilding public trust in both leaders and society’s important institutions (which must include the political process). ‘Trust’ will be a particularly difficult issue:[94]

“This work needs to start with the recognition that some valid concerns underlie the rise of anti-establishment sentiment. For example, studies have shown that the preferences of constituents in the lowest third of income groups are not reflected in the votes of their representatives, which are instead overwhelmingly skewed toward the wealthy. Other studies demonstrate the extent to which the “revolving door” between government and business drives growing inequality. The challenge is to deliver the short-term change voters demand, while also reforming institutions in a way that maintains the continuity of government and established checks and balances.”

What may be particularly important from business may be something as basic – but demanding – as “a renewed sense of commitment to the health of the country and its democratic institutions – above party, economic self-interest, and ideology”:[95]

“That’s critical because the competition between opposing views of government seems to prove most fruitful when it takes place in the context of such a shared commitment: disagreements may be intense, but they are taken only so far. … Revitalizing [the] culture of democracy [in the U.S., the UK, Europe, Australia, etc.] is essential. Everyone has a role to play, but business leaders can take … steps to make a difference:

Speak out for democracy: CEOs should make it clear at every turn that a vibrant [country] is the foundation of a strong economy, and that all [citizens] – including business leaders – must be careful not to let their zeal for winning overshadow their commitment to the integrity of the political process.

Clarify public priorities: CEOs should build a bipartisan council on public priorities. The goal should be not merely to split the difference between [political parties] but to help each side articulate its highest priorities, with an eye toward facilitating the implementation of the best of both over time.”

In setting strategy at a multinational (or even a mid to large national corporation), the CEO and executive leadership team will have to navigate among different politico-economic systems that may range from state capitalism to government-centric industrial policy nations to market-centric mixed economies. This, in turn, involves sorting out different ideologies in those systems about how government should function: from the libertarian to the conservative to the populist to the liberal to the socialist.  To assure legal compliance and mitigate legal hazard, the CEO and executive leadership must confront complex, conflicting, and uncertain issues, rules, enforcement practices, and legal cultures across myriad regional, national, and subnational jurisdictions.  The CEO and Board may also want to avoid operating to narrowly or shying away from broad debates about corporate behaviours and consider voluntarily setting global ethical or corporate and social standards beyond what the law requires. Setting such standards involves nuanced balancing of the interests of the corporation and its stakeholders.^[96]

This time of disruption and loss of trust – and the threat posed by even more competition and disruption on the horizon – create real, genuine pressures (and even inappropriate incentives) within a corporation that may undermine appropriate long-term strategy and corporate purpose.[97] Boards must be the “first line of defense against short-term pressures”,[98] assisting management in understanding, developing and implementing appropriate strategies to balance appropriate short-term and long-term objectives.[99]  Boards and executives “must infuse their organizations with the perspective that serving the interests of all stakeholders” – including shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, and the communities in which they operate – “is not at odds with the goal of maximizing corporate value; on the contrary, it’s essential to achieving that goal”.[100]

The main source of the problem, we believe, is the continuing pressure on public companies from financial markets to maximize short-term results.

– Harvard Business Review[101]

When people do not feel that their leaders are working in their interest or addressing genuine needs, they lose confidence. To restore it businesses must ensure that they are working effectively for all of their stakeholders.[102]  What does this look like? Ultimately, this will depend on how corporate management and their Boards ultimately understand and define these risks; integrate different perspectives into proposed solutions; and ultimately forge agreement on a solution, and implement it in a way that makes a difference to the organization and its stakeholders.

The state of geopolitics and corporate risks today – with their complicated challenges and conflicting ‘truths’ – means there are no single right answers. To lead in such an environment requires authentic identity, purpose and mindful intention.[103] Navigating the pathway forward for long term sustainable value creation in these times will require exercising principled, responsible, and responsive leadership.

True leadership in a complex, uncertain, and anxious world requires leaders to navigate with both a radar system and a compass. They must be receptive to signals that are constantly arriving from an ever-changing landscape, and they should be willing to make necessary adjustments; but they must never deviate from their true north, which is to say, a strong vision based on authentic values.

– Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum^[104]

The Real World – A Conversation: 20^th century institutions struggling in the 21^st century

So, what is happening to national politics and governments in the western world? Exhaustion, hopelessness, the dwindling effectiveness of old ways: these are the themes of politics all across the world. For the first time in seven decades[105] – as Americans have grown weary of their historical leadership role in the world[106] – there appears to be no single country or alliance of powers ready to take on the challenges of global leadership.[107]

Why is this happening? The answer is not self-evident, however, it may be in part that the 20th-century political, social, and economic structures are drowning in a 21st-century ocean of politics and governments awash in ‘big money’ and ‘dark money’ from competing financial elites,[108] political party polarization and partisan “zero-sum” ideology (that is disconnected from the wider society),[109] widening economic inequality and cultural division, deregulated finance, globalization, and autonomous technology.[110] These are profound changes that are transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies[111]:[112]

“For increasing numbers of people, our nations and the system of which they are a part now appear unable to offer a plausible, viable future. This is particularly the case as they watch financial elites[113] – and their wealth – increasingly escaping national allegiances altogether. Today’s failure of national political authority, after all, derives in large part from the loss of control over money flows. At the most obvious level, money is being transferred out of national space altogether, into a booming “offshore” zone.[114] These fleeing trillions undermine national communities in real and symbolic ways. They are a cause of national decay, but they are also a result: for nation states have lost their moral aura, which is one of the reasons tax evasion[115] has become an accepted fundament of 21st-century commerce.”

Concentration of Private Power: new class of financial elite

Today, many companies are larger economic entities (with potentially greater influence) than the countries in which they operate.[116] Individually, the richest 1% own half the world’s wealth[117] – eight individuals own the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion people,[118] and three billionaires own as much wealth as half the population of the United States.[119] This new class of transglobal economic elites began to emerge in the 1990s:[120]

“[E]nriched by the opportunities created by globalizing industrial firms, deregulated financial services, and new technology platforms. This new class is an order of magnitude richer in absolute terms than previous generations of the ultra-wealthy. …

The great fortunes of the late 19th and early 20th century were built on the [labour] of masses of worker-consumers in primarily inward-looking national contexts. By contrast, today’s plutocrats make their fortunes selling their goods and services globally— in real terms, therefore, their ongoing success is less connected to the fortunes of their fellow national citizens than was that of previous generations. Moreover, the two signature types of massive wealth accumulation in the early 21st century have been software and financial services—both industries that do not rely on masses of laborers, and whose productivity is, therefore, detached from the health of any particular national middle class. The result has been a dramatic rise in inequality within countries, even as wealth inequality transnationally has narrowed.”

In this environment, ‘big money’ – including untraceable ‘dark money’ – appeared to permeate, polarize, and undermine the world’s political and government systems,[121] introducing influential private interests where only the public interest – the common good that benefits society as a whole[122] – should be considered.[123]  To often ‘big money’ appears to call the shots, with politicians across the spectrum frequently guilty of unduly favouring the demands of their ‘big money’ corporate and financially elite donors over the needs of their constituents. Some studies have found corporations and the billionaire economic elite have obtained as much as a 22,000 % return on their financial investment into politicians and the political system.[124]

Our country today, and indeed much of the world, is run by and for billionaires [and corporations] actively manipulating the political process. They have the means, power, influence and muscle to get their way.

– Jeffrey Sachs, Professor and Economist, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs[125]

Geopolitical shifts have made today’s world multipolar. As new national and global players bring different ideas about how to shape national systems and the international order, including business, the existing world order is increasingly perceived as becoming more fragile.^[126] And corporations – in respect to moving work around the globe, optimizing tax footprints,[127] focusing on “myopic short-termism” and quarterly capitalism,^[128] the entrenchment of corporate misconduct in business,[129] influencing government policy,[130] etc. — are seen as part of the problem.^[131] They are seen as the ‘sand (private interests) in the gears (public interest)’ of a functioning political system and an economy that works for citizens across the socio-economic spectrum.

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.

– President Franklin Roosevelt, April 1938[132]

According to a report produced by the House of Commons library, the research arm of the UK’s parliament, the world’s richest 1% of people will control close to two-thirds of all global wealth by the year 2030 – that is 64% of global wealth in twelve years time. The report’s commissioner noted that if steps are not taken now “to rewrite the rules of how our economies work” society may find itself condemned “to a future that remains unequal for good” creating a situation that is “economically disastrous, risking a new explosion in instability, corruption and poverty”:[133]

“World leaders are being warned that the continued accumulation of wealth at the top will fuel growing distrust and anger over the coming decade unless action is taken to restore the balance. … In a sign of the concern about the accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few, the move has gained support from across the political divide [in the UK]. …

If the system of capitalist liberal democracy which has triumphed in the west is to pass the big test of globalisation – and … its own internal pressures from post-crash austerity – we need some new thinking on ways to widen opportunity, share ownership and philanthropy. Fast.”

The sort of world that is being produced by the market managerialism that the business school sells is not a pleasant one. It’s a sort of utopia for the wealthy and powerful, a group that the students are encouraged to imagine themselves joining, but such privilege is bought at a very high cost, resulting in environmental catastrophe, resource wars and forced migration, inequality within and between countries, the encouragement of hyper-consumption as well as persistently anti-democratic practices at work.

– Professor Martin Parker, University of Bristol[134]

Unfortunately, the current state of political parties appears to be designed around competing financial elites (billionaires and influential corporations) who are insiders in the system.[135] It is in fact the top 0.1% who have been the big winners in the growing concentration of wealth and influence over the past half century – if one is looking for the kind of money that can buy elections, you’ll find it inside the top 0.1% alone.[136]

In this vein, some authorities have noted that “today’s plutocrats make their fortunes selling their goods and services globally— in real terms, therefore, their ongoing success is less connected to the fortunes of their fellow national citizens than was that of previous generations. Moreover, the two signature types of massive wealth accumulation in the early 21st century have been software and financial services—both industries that do not rely on masses of laborers, and whose productivity is, therefore, detached from the health of any particular national middle class”. The result has been the dramatic rise in inequality within countries[137] that we have seen over the last few decades.

It has been noted that the defining feature of this concentration of private wealth and power “is the effort on the part of holders of this ideology to defund or de-provision public goods, in order to defang a state that they see as a threat to their prerogatives”. Practically speaking this “takes the form of efforts to lower taxes,[138] which necessitates the cutting of spending on public goods; to reduce regulations that restrict corporate action or that protect workers;[139] and to defund or privatize public institutions, such as schools, health care, infrastructure, and social spaces”. The political strategy “is to use austerity in the face of economic shocks to rewrite social contracts on the basis of a much narrower set of mutual social obligations, with the ultimate effect of decollectivizing social risks. As a palliative for the loss of public goods and state-backed programs to improve public welfare, plutocratic [advocates] typically promote the idea of philanthropy – directed toward ends defined not democratically but by themselves”.[140]

It has been suggested that the strategy is implemented by ‘big money’ and the funding of “an interlocking array of organizations that work in tandem” to influence[141]  and effect academic institutions,[142] think tanks [sometimes referred to as the “weaponizing of philanthropy”],[143] the press,[144] the courts, and politicians.[145]

For not the first time in geopolitics, “among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing”[146] – and while “low taxes, light-touch regulation, weak unions, and unlimited campaign donations are certainly in the best interest of the plutocrats”, that “doesn’t mean they are the right way to maintain the economic system that created today’s super elite”.[147]

In Europe, they actually fine and jail misbehaving CEOs. Why can’t we?  … Increasingly, America is becoming a country owned and run by men like the Koch brothers, who run their multi-billion-dollar business empire while receiving politicians as supplicants, and who are de facto answerable to no one. It’s deeply unhealthy, on a societal level, but we’ve also normalized it.

– Business Insider, May 18, 2018[148]

The evidence[149] appears overwhelming that politicians generally vote the interests of their donors, not necessarily of society at large.[150] Irrespective of the political party, it appears the interests at the top of the income distribution generally prevail.[151]  For example, in the U.S., research shows that economic policies over the last 40 years “strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent, but bear virtually no relationship to the preferences of poor or middle-income Americans”.[152]

House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill “or don’t ever call me again”

– Chris Collins is saying the quiet part loud. – Vox[153]

Inequality and Cultural Polarization: displacement and political anger

The deepening of social and economic inequality is one of the greatest challenges democracy faces today. It undermines the aspirations of working people and their families, eroding hope and trust. As noted by one political scientist, people across the western world live in a time of fear: “workers everywhere fear lost jobs and wages” (as a shifting global economy and technological change leave them behind) and many citizens fear the changing cultural “face and voice of the country they know”.[154] Public anger over the inequitable effects of technology and globalization is cited as a cause of myriad social ills—from rising nationalism and identity politics, to loss of trust and disdain for institutions, and a fracturing of the rules-based international system.[155]

One cannot read international headlines today without touching on the ups and downs of a volatile global economy (globalization, technology and automation, and trade), terrorism, failing security measures, immigration and demographic changes, unemployment, or the growing disparity in both income and opportunity.  As trust and confidence in our institutions has eroded,[156] the International Monetary Fund has noted that too many people in Western societies feel left behind by globalization and technological change.[157] This broad perception is unquestionably rooted in fact: “big slices of society, in big chunks of the developed world, have seen real wages stagnate even as returns rapidly escalated in small pockets. Ultimately this creates both growing inequality in wealth and income and — perhaps more troubling — a sense that gaps in opportunity have widened”.[158]

Economic precarity is matched by social division in Brexit Britain.

– Nick Pearce, Wired[159]

In this situation many people feel they “don’t have control over their futures” and are afraid[160] – that they are seeing and beginning to live in a very different world – contributing to displacement and political anger. What explains this phenomenon (i.e. authoritarian leader, nationalism, traditional values, anti-establishment)?[161] There are two leading theories. Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism is the economic insecurity perspective. This theory emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies.[162] The cultural backlash perspective suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change. Throughout advanced industrial society, massive cultural changes have been occurring that seem shocking – even threatening – to those with traditional values[163] who fear cultural displacement (loss of social dominance) and long for a more stable hierarchical past.[164]

Both theories involving cultural anxiety and economic anxiety likely have relevance. For example, in the U.S. presidential election, it is reported that “virtually every Republican presidential candidate” pledged “fealty to the donors’ wish lists as they jockeyed for their support” – tax cuts for the highest brackets, preservation of Wall Street loopholes, toleration of off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and profits, downgrading or privatizing middle-class entitlement programs (including Social Security) – however, although these positions faithfully reflected the agenda of the wealthy donors, “studies showed that they were increasingly out of step with the broad base of not just Democrats but also Republican voters, many of whom had been left behind economically and socially for decades, particularly acutely since the 2008 financial crash”.[165] In Britain the protracted campaign of budget cutting started in 2010, a government led by the Conservative Party, has delivered a monumental shift in Britain:[166]

“Whatever the operative thinking, austerity’s manifestations are palpable and omnipresent. It has refashioned British society, making it less like the rest of Western Europe, with its generous social safety nets and egalitarian ethos, and more like the United States, where millions lack health care and job loss can set off a precipitous plunge in fortunes.”

I think many people have the mistaken impression that Congress regulates Wall Street. In truth that’s not the case. The real truth is that Wall Street regulates the Congress. They are enormously powerful and it remains to be seen whether we have the capability without an uprising of the American people to say enough is enough.

– Senator Bernie Sanders[167]

Unhappiness with the Current Political System – Democratic discontent and Populism in a world where policy outcomes tilt to the financial elite

Public attitudes about the political system broadly and their national governments specifically vary considerably around the world, though many are critical. In many countries, partisanship has a significant impact on attitudes about the functioning of democracy. People who identify with the current governing party or parties are significantly more satisfied with their political system than those who either support the opposition or identify with no political party. The partisan divisions over the functioning of democracy are particularly large in the U.S., the UK, and Europe.[168]

The struggle between the traditional values of Western liberal democracy and the new forces of authoritarianism, intolerance and nationalism has become a defining challenge of the times. … political change [is] inevitable, but it should not mean abandonment of democratic principles. … [Prime Minister of France] Mr. Macron said his goal was to open a critical public debate on what Europe is about. That debate should not be limited to Europe.

– Editorial Board, New York Times, April 18, 2018[169]

While broad majorities in Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada (70%), and Germany (73%) say their political system is functioning well, roughly only half of British (52%) and Australians (58%) say the same, and – not surprising in light of the fact political polarization is said to be a defining feature in U.S. politics today[170] – only 46% of Americans believe their political system is working well.[171]

In this respect, nearly two-thirds or more in southern Europe are unhappy with their democracies, including France (65%).[172]

According to the Economist:[173]

• Nearly 49.3% of the world’s population live in a democracy “of some sort,” but only 4.5% live in a “full democracy.”
• Nineteen countries ranked as a ‘full democracy’ in 2018, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, the UK, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria, South Korea, etc.
• Fifty-seven countries ranked as a ‘flawed democracy’, including the U.S. and France, Japan, Israel, Italy, India, Chile, South Africa, Brazil, Hungary,[174]
• The U.S. was downgraded from a ‘full democracy’ to a ‘flawed democracy’ in January 2017. The cited reason(s) was partisanship, fall in confidence in the functioning of public institutions, and the “erosion of trust” in government, elected representatives, and political parties. Democracy cannot function if its citizens cannot be sure that the elected leader’s “claims are at least grounded in evidence-based reality”.

The EIU [Economist Intelligence Unit] says that while the US maintained its position in the rankings as a flawed democracy, the scores can change if [the country] “addresses underlying distresses and the issue of distrust,” and that “despite the spread of fake news and not being a full democracy, America still tops the rankings for free speech”.

– Quartz: The US is not one of the only 19 ‘fully democratic’ countries in the world[175]

Recent research – from political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University) – suggests that United States’ political order is essentially a corporate and financial plutocracy[176] (of the economic elite) in which policy outcomes “tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations”:[177]

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

That’s a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

It is hardly surprising that the new study is generating alarmist headlines, such as “study: U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democracy,” from, of all places, the BBC. Gilens and Page do not use the term “oligarchy” in describing their conclusions, which would imply that a small ruling class dominates the political system to the exclusion of all others. They prefer the phrase “economic élite domination,” which is a bit less pejorative. …

There can be no doubt that economic élites have a disproportionate influence in Washington, or that their views and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority: the politicians all know this, and we know it, too. The only debate is about how far this process has gone, and whether we should refer to it as oligarchy or as something else.”

Inequality hollows out support for democratic institutions that depend, to varying degrees, on the promise of social and economic equality – or at least the genuine equality of opportunity.[178]  The “veracity and very survival of democracy depends on a strong, prosperous middle-class – one that is able to hold government accountable”. The link between income and stable democracies “is, at a certain level, intuitive. After all, at the heart of democracy is an economic contract between citizens who consent to pay taxes and a government that, in exchange, safeguards the security and welfare of the nation by providing public goods such as education, health care, infrastructure and national security. In essence, any economic challenge that threatens the middle class places this contract – and ultimately, democracy – in peril”.[179]

Mature democracies need to pay close attention to the architecture of their political systems. The combination of globalization, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the digital revolution has undermined the economic and cultural security of the middle and working class and made some of democracy’s most important institutions look outdated.[180] And, inequality fuels populism and makes fertile ground for a deeply polarized and reactionary form of politics unsuited to the complex times in which we live.

Signs of democratic discontent are particularly visible in Anglo-American democracies and other post-industrial societies.[181] In this context, it may be fair to say that contemporary populism[182] has taken a not so surprising twist of late, with rich country electorates in the U.S., the UK, and Europe opting for what appear to be the extreme alternatives to the status quo. Populist leaders are gaining support, votes and seats in Western countries, particularly in Europe.^[183] Commentators have noted that President Trump is “far from unique”, fitting into “the wave of authoritarian populists whose support has swelled in many Western democracies”.^[184]

Although his audience was the European Parliament, French President Emmanuel Macron articulated truths … that resonate for the entire globe. Nationalism and authoritarianism are on the march. Democracy as an ideal and in practice seems under siege. The United States, traditionally a beacon for freedom, has dimmed the light, at least for a time.

– Editorial Board, Washington Post, April 18, 2018[185]

However, when the focus of criticism is on a particular political leader’s shortcomings – or that of the world’s fast-expanding roster of populist leaders – the main point can be missed: the actual underlying crises that lifted them onto the global stage. Responding in this manner makes it “easier to build walls and harder to help those who need help most”.[186] The Economist^[187] notes that the “Western [intellectuals and academics], snug in [their] echo-chamber, [have] done a dismal job of understanding what is going on, either dismissing populists as cranks or demonising them as racists”, observing that populism “comes in a wide variety of flavours, left-wing as well as right-wing and smiley-faced as well as snarling. But populists are united in pitting the people against the powerful” – for example, Spain’s left-wing Podemos condemns “la casta”, Britain’s right-wing UK Independence Party (UKIP) demonizes the liberal elite (leading to a Brexit vote ending over 40 years of membership in the EU),[188] and Italy’s Beppe Grillo [founder of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement] condemns “three destroyers—journalists, industrialists and politicians”.^[189] President Trump was similarly able to exploit the support for populism in the United States,^[190] and Canada – yes Canada – is not immune to populism and polarization.[191]  Populists – among others – are generally united in their distrust of traditional institutions, on the grounds that the institutions have been corrupted by the financial elite acting in their own self-interest[192] and/or their citizens have been left behind economically[193] by globalization and technological change. However, they differ in many ways that make a populist front across political or national boundaries difficult^[194] – however, they are bound by high levels of anxiety, dissatisfaction and emotion (anger). As politics may also be driven by emotion: leaders may attract votes not by necessarily addressing needs or presenting long-term visions, but rather by offering a sense of belonging, nostalgia for simpler times, or a return to national roots.[195]

Unfortunately, the predicament – and irony – is this: instead of mobilizing national and international coalitions to address what are common issues worldwide, we are currently seeing many or our traditionally important international leaders – in particular the U.S. (with its paralyzed polarized politics[196] and battered balance sheet) and the UK (reeling from its self-inflicted Brexit wounds) – touting the doctrine of “every nation for itself”,[197] apparently in “pursuit of a romantic return”[198] down a “yellow brick road”[199] to – according to commentators and international leaders – the “deadly illusion”[200] of a mythical more stable past.[201]   While nationalism or populism gives people a sense of control and local impact, this fragmentation comes with a fundamental downside consequence: “the more trust resides at local and decentralized levels, the less those who are trusted will have the power and authority to address and solve problems that inherently require centralized authority, and, in an increasing number of cases, regional and global cooperation”.[202]

Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’. Although his audience was the European Parliament, French President Emmanuel Macron articulated truths on Tuesday that resonate for the entire globe.

– Washington Post[203]

Rediscovering Political Purpose – adapting to current Geopolitical Environment & Mobilizing Global Leadership in a G-Zero World

Countries are supposed to pursue their national interests – the prosperity and security of their citizens. However, not surprisingly in an interconnected world, more often than nought, national interests overlap with other countries in a global community where “problems without borders” continue to grow. In a world where so many challenges transcend borders—from the stability of the global and national economy and employment (economic prosperity) to political fragmentation to climate change[204] and global health security[205] to mass migration[206] to big data, cyber-attacks, terrorism and the threat of war, and the security of food and water—the need for “strategic” national governments and international cooperation has never been greater.[207]  Without political and economic innovation, global capital and technology will likely continue to exacerbate the economic and societal problems now at our front doors – without any kind of democratic public interest consultation.

Ian Bremmer’s … book, ‘Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World’, isn’t out to refute America’s decline, or, for that matter, to herald or bemoan China’s ascendency. Rather, it outlines the universal difficulties inherent in our current global reality. We live, Bremmer argues, in a G-zero world—which is to say a “world order in which no single country or durable alliance of countries can meet the challenges of global leadership.” Today’s world is one in which the G7 is history and the G20 is more “aspiration than organization.”

– World Policy[208]

While not perfect, U.S. global leadership since 1945 marshalled in an era of peace and economic, political, and military cooperation – and overall an undeniably more prosperous, more secure, more tolerant, more peaceful world.[209] However, for a number of years political and academic commentators have warned that we appeared to be moving toward an “era of G-Zero, a world order” in which no single country or group of countries would have the ability and will, economically and politically, to drive a truly global agenda.[210] The U.S. was said to be losing the political will and economic clout (and possibly lacking the resources to continue as primary provider of public goods in light of domestic battles over debt), and rising powers were identified as too preoccupied with problems at home to welcome the burdens that come with international leadership.[211] The European Union, which commentators once forecast would “run the 21st century”,[212] appears to be in a state of crisis.[213]

There has arguably never been a greater disconnect between the apparent strength of the global economy and the magnitude of geopolitical risk as the U.S. questions its leadership role in the world and – as a result of the rising tides of isolationism – partially abdicates from its historic responsibilities.[214] The current U.S. administration has “disparaged almost every element of the past 70 years of U.S. global leadership: NATO, free trade, European integration, support for democracy, the Iran deal, suspicion of Russia”.[215]  In a world that is both ultra-connected and hyper-fragmented, the Western alliance looks to be more divided and the international order appear to be unraveling.[216]

• The transatlantic alliance has been gradually hollowing out over a period of years.
• The current U.S. administration after more than a decade of war appears sceptical of NATO, reneged on its commitments to the internationally recognized Paris climate agreement,[217] breached the international Iran nuclear agreement,[218] withdrew from the Transpacific Partnership trade deal, and undermines the WTO[219].[220]
• The British are leaving the European Union (Brexit);
• The deepening divisions in the Middle East.
• The global rebalancing of trade and potential for tariffs and trade wars.[221]
• Anti-EU political parties continue to make gains.[222]
• Foreign government interference in democratic elections.[223]

The world’s most important shaping power, the United States—itself a revisionist power bent toward liberalism and democracy—is in strategic flux and appears to be withdrawing from its commitment to supporting and exemplifying democratic standards. The European Union, the other bulwark of the liberal order, has turned inward, facing domestic instability caused by characteristics inherent to a more open order, including economic integration, low trade barriers, and the free movement of people.

– Democracy in the New Geopolitics, Brookings[224]

In addition, it is arguably important not to underestimate the rising influence of the financial, technological and ideological transformations on the national and global “geopolitical landscape” that have enabled the rise of powerful non-state globally mobile actors (private corporations, plutocrats, and financial markets) into their own self-centric “global civil society in the making”.[225] The “concentration of private power” and influence appears to be growing.

According to a number of commentators the transition to a leaderless world – the end of American global leadership – was completed with the 2016 election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency: the “first post-World War II American president to view the burdens of world leadership as outweighing the benefits”.[226]  The current U.S. Administration’s transactional ‘America First’ agenda[227] is identified as a hard turning point that is fundamentally changing the U.S.’ role in the world as the global leader – eroding trust and ultimately the collaborative global community of allies and partners[228] built upon the work of decades:[229]

“It is no surprise Americans have grown weary of their role in the world. As the country recovers from long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, there has been no respite from the rapid pace of globalization or harrowingly complex global problems. ISIS has risen with unusual savagery, Russia has invaded its neighbors and subverted American democracy, and North Korea’s nuclear belligerence has made a new war in Asia a frightening possibility. The dangers beyond our shores feel more real, and the opportunities feel more elusive.

A Pew survey from last May confirmed America’s world-weariness: Only slightly more than a third of Americans felt the U.S. should help other countries with their problems. The election of a President who champions “America first” sentiments — and who wants to slash diplomacy and development funding by a colossal 32% — confirmed it as well. Even if the budget cut lands at a fraction of that number, it will cause lasting damage to our credibility and influence in the world.

But Donald Trump did not cause Americans’ unease with the world; he is better viewed as a symptom of it.”

While the American people enjoy immeasurable advantages from U.S. global engagement, the costs — lives lost in war, dreams deferred by recession — are more palpable than the benefits. The waning appeal of America’s outsize role in the world is a response not only to forces of change, but also failures of communication.

– Time[230]

According to Ian Bremmer,[231] a leader in the field of political risk, “for at least the next four years, America’s interactions with other nations will be guided not by the conviction that U.S. leadership is good for America and the world, but by” the current U.S. Administration’s “transactional approach”.[232]  Time magazine notes that “the inward turn of American foreign policy is unlikely to stop with the conclusion of the Trump presidency”, and the Economist suggests that the steps taken to date “have signalled the end of the US-led global order and the beginning of a new order”. Although the new order will emerge over the next decade, there will be a period of uncertainty as multiple global, regional and middle powers vie for influence.[233] The net result is a world in growing disarray:[234]

“This trend is partly the result of what might be called structural factors—the rise of China, globalization, the emergence of a large number of entities (state and non-state alike) with meaningful capacity and often dangerous intentions, and the failure of regional and international institutions … to adjust sufficiently to new distributions of power and new challenges. In many cases, the gap between the challenge and the ability of the world to come together to manage or regulate it is not just large but growing.”

The consequences of the current U.S. administration’s stance and actions are difficult to foresee, but alienation of its’ partners and allies appears to be a given.[235] However, going forward, the loss of hard-earned trust will hang over the global community of allies and partners for years to come – in a partnership of cooperative nation-states there must be a presumption of continuity in the foreign policy of a great power if allies are to remain allied and if antagonists are to be deterred.[236]

In this current environment, it is crucial to prepare multilateralism for a world where trust and authority are more decentralized.[237] Regional and international institutions must adjust sufficiently to the new distributions of power and new challenges.[238]  It is possible – best case scenario – that other countries will pick up where the U.S. left off in promoting international order.[239] It could result, in the long run, in the strengthening of this order, perhaps by the re-emergence of Europe. Or, there may be the slow erosion of the liberal international order; and/or the rise of a new, not-so-liberal order, championed by China and India, both of them mercantilist and nationalist countries.[240] Time will tell, but in at least the short term, the likely result will be a world of growing disorder, the impairment of economic efficiency, and a rise in serious conflicts.[241]

It is generally accepted that the best way to solve complex challenges in an interdependent world – both national and international – is to work together.[242] Isolated positions – when virtually every serious problem requires international cooperation[243] – suggest that political authority may be running on empty, and isolationist leaders will be unlikely to deliver meaningful material change.[244] In this context, national governments and the international community need to find a balance between the importance of preserving an appropriate alliance or alliances, and the need to protect their national interests.

If we wish to rediscover a sense of political purpose in this period of economic-political-military instability, and era of global finance and trade, big data, mass migration, and ecological upheaval, it would be helpful to avoid isolated positions. There must be an adaptation to the current geopolitical environment where we envision political forms capable of operating cooperatively and at that same scale. The current political system must be supplemented with cooperative global financial and digital[245] regulations, certainly, and probably transnational political mechanisms[246] as well:[247]

“Our multilateral institutions are more critical than ever. The way we rebuild confidence is to make sure that cooperation leads to concrete gains that benefit all people, and that these gains are widely shared. We can restore trust in institutions and larger purposes if we set out to regain the sense that something concrete can be achieved by working together.”

Today, more than ever, there is a necessity of building trust and cooperation between countries in an increasingly integrated global world, and the overlapping national, supranational and international legal norms that are generated by the interaction of these different political systems.[248] Universalist mechanisms cannot function effectively without a foundation of accepted ethics, norms, objectives and expectations (i.e. a ‘rules-based international order’). That is the challenge.

The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations … engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural, and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it. … At every stop in our journey, we delivered a clear message to our friends and partners: Where our interests align, we are open to working together to solve problems and explore opportunities. … Those that choose to challenge our interests will encounter the firmest resolve.

– H.R. McMaster and Gary D. Cohn, Wall Street Journal[249]

Guardrails for Functioning Democracy and Government: some thoughts

Rule of Law

The rule of law is a system in which all people and institutions are subject to the same laws. The laws apply to everyone, including officials of the government, corporations and private citizens, no matter how wealthy or powerful.[250]

Under the rule of law, laws should be administered and enforced fairly and equally.[251]

Citizens of countries that do not recognize or abide by the rule of law risk being unable to stand up against the government or other powerful interests without fear of attack.[252]

The use of arbitrary power is anathema to the rule of law. In democracies, constitutional or legal limits on power require the subjugation of state authority to a country’s laws. The rule of law is the supreme check on political power. Without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts, democracy could not survive.[253]  In a world divided, the rule of law is a foundation of a fair and just society, “one of the greatest unifying factors” and the “nearest we are likely to approach a universal secular religion” for peace and good government[254] – it may in fact be the answer to national and international civility.

In a world divided by differences of nationality, race, colour, religion, and wealth, it [the rule of law] is one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest, the nearest we are likely to approach to a universal secular religion.

– Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law[255]

Today it is generally understood that law and politics are not distinct domains, and to understand where we are along a particular democratic country’s legal/political continuum requires an analysis of the complex relationship of its legal principles and societal values, in the context of history, culture, economics, and political economy.[256] And ‘big money’ – where “the political system is actually relatively united and working very effectively for the riches of the rich. There has never been a better time for the top 1%”.[257]

Accordingly, it is important to analyse and understand how legal rules, norms (mutual toleration, forbearance, and civility), and systems – the guardrails for a functioning political system[258] – augment or undermine representative government and power in society.

Two Harvard University scholars, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, have spent their careers studying how democracies have unraveled, from Germany in the 1930s to Venezuela in the 2000s.[259] In most cases since the end of the Cold War, authoritarians simply hijack democracy’s “referees” — courts[260] (including privatization of the justice system by mandatory arbitration clauses),[261]  law enforcement,[262] intelligence, tax,[263] and regulatory agencies[264] — to crush or silence opponents and then rewrite the rules of the game in their favour.[265] Too often, debates over a democracy’s ostensible decline do not acknowledge more gradual forms of democratic setbacks – in particular long term public trust deficits in our institutions (government, business, NGOs, media)[266] that hollow out democratic elections, judicial independence and a free press.[267] Democracy no longer ends with a bang, but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms.

Journalists deal in facts, and because facts are often uncomfortable, those who unearth them and disseminate them are attacked. That imbalance is not new. What is new is the mainstream assault on journalists and press freedom. Possession of the facts in too many parts of the world has turned deadly. … One reason the media face such attacks is because, no matter the side of the debate, or in extreme cases, which end of the gun you face, everyone knows that journalism matters.

– Democracy’s immutable need for a free press, Globe and Mail[268]

There are solutions – but it means that leaders and citizens within a nation (and across nations as discussed below) must begin to see themselves as being in this together (to step away from a “me first” philosophy, and see “them” as “us”);[269] that a just society requires that we work collaboratively and support each other for the common good; that we each place community before self-interest:[270]

“Is there a way out? Yes, but it’s a very tough path. Plutocracy has a way of spreading like an epidemic until democracy itself is abandoned. History shows the wreckage of democracies killed from within. And yet America has rallied in the past to push democratic reforms, notably in the Progressive Era from 1890-1914, the New Deal from 1933-1940, and the Great Society from 1961-1969.

All of these transformative successes required grass-roots activism, public protests and demonstrations, and eventually bold leaders, indeed drawn from the rich but with their hearts with the people: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Yet in all of those cases, the mass public led and the great leaders followed the cause. This is our time and responsibility to help save democracy.”

Some corporations and billionaires (i.e. oil and gas, finance, etc.) play their politics for personal financial gain. They take advantage of the cultural divide, and fund politicians who promise to cut their taxes, deregulate their industries, and ignore the warnings of science.[271] A narrow self-interested worldview will not only continue to undermine our society and an effective government – as noted by a senior Australian lawyer in an article entitled “Career politicians and the slippery ideological slope” – our democracy itself won’t survive to much more of this.[272] Principled leadership and empathy, respect for one another and their values is critical to ease political polarization:[273]

“[A] whole new set of arguments will be needed to create effective political coalitions … [we] must take the time to really listen to one another, to understand one another’s values and to think creatively about why someone with very different political and moral commitments from their own should nonetheless come to agree with them. Empathy and respect will be critical if we are going to sew our country back together”.

Principled leadership is key.

There is a change in society … The outstripping of the top 0.1% from the rest  … If the top does not need the approval of others – because the distance between us in income, wealth and status has grown so vast – then we cannot make them feel the harm that they do. They do not feel the consequences of not paying tax, rigging markets or bending the rules. They can behave unfairly without consequence. The leaders set the tone; the rest follow and so cheating becomes the norm.

– Will Hutton, We now live in a society so cynical that cheating has become the norm[274]

Moderation and Norms (Civility, Mutual Tolerance and Forbearance)

Principled leadership requires our political leaders to build broad political coalitions (i.e. bring the right stakeholders together), to negotiate and govern with compromise – to balance competing principles – in order to achieve the incremental reforms necessary to solve public problems. The “success of our representative government and its institutions depends on ‘moderation’ because these cannot properly function without compromise, which is the governing manifestation of moderation”.[275] Moderation accepts the complexity of life and distrusts simple ideological solutions. Most public issues involve trade-offs as there are usually two partially true points of view which “sit in tension”.[276]

The alternative is the polarized dysfunctional “politics of perpetual outrage” that we see today at home and abroad: the toxic “radicalization of politics” where “opponents are dehumanized and viewed as enemies” and “the cruel and intemperate come to dominate our political life”.[277]

[T]he fierce competition between opposing views of government may now be degenerating into something toxic. Policy making … is approaching all-out war, where victory is paramount, “compromise” is a dirty word, and virtually any issue or development can become a weapon for bludgeoning the other side. The premium placed on ideological purity and the desire to win at any cost are dangerous trends.

– Professor David Moss, Harvard Business Review[278]

Moderation remains crucial for today’s encounters with new forms of political extremism and fundamentalism nationally and across the world.[279] Moderation, tolerance and forbearance serves the body politic and must find a passion of its own, or the damage will continue for generations:[280]

“Moderates do not see politics as warfare. Instead, national politics is a voyage with a fractious fleet. Wisdom is finding the right formation of ships for each specific circumstance so the whole assembly can ride the waves forward for another day. Moderation is not an ideology; it’s a way of coping with the complexity of the world.”

Moderation is a difficult virtue for people to rally around, since by definition it doesn’t arouse fervor or zealous advocates. But in a time of spreading resentments and rage, when truth is increasingly the target of assault and dialogue is often viewed as betrayal, moderation isn’t simply a decorous democratic quality; it becomes an essential democratic virtue.

– Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (served in last three Republican administrations)[281]

However, functioning democracies depend on two norms: mutual tolerance and forbearance.[282] And, I would argue, civility.[283] In deeply divided societies moderation alone is not enough, there is a need to be able to discuss – and over time construct – a shared notion of the “common good” as part of the political and social worldview. Therefore, at the basic minimum for our governments to function well it must be reinforced by two basic norms or unwritten rules: mutual toleration and forbearance.[284]

• Mutual toleration means politicians across the spectrum accept their opponents as legitimate.
• Forbearance means self-restraint in the exercise of power. When leaders deploy their legal prerogatives without restraint it brings “severe dysfunction and even constitutional crisis”, particularly “when societies divide into partisan camps with profoundly different worldviews”.

Without these democratic norms comes polarization and dysfunction – “parties come to view each other not as legitimate rivals but as dangerous enemies.  Losing ceases to be an accepted part of the political process and instead becomes a catastrophe. When that happens, politicians are tempted to abandon forbearance and win at any cost”. This is how democracy died in Chile.[285]

In addition, civility and public discourse lies at the heart of our democracy in Canada, the U.S., the UK, and Australia, and western countries across the world.[286] Unfortunately there appears to be less civility in society generally today, less courtesy, fewer manners. In the political arena and in public discourse, the rhetoric is harsher and the decibels are higher, and they too frequently overshadow the substance of debates.[287]

According to custom, the government and opposition benches in the British House of Commons are separated by a length equivalent to “two swords and one inch.” The practice harks back to a time when members of Parliament regularly carried blades. … The damage caused by our incivility may not be physical, but it is no less dangerous to democracy. And unlike our forebears who had the “two swords and one inch” rule to compel their good conduct, we operate without constraint, perpetuating a culture of incivility.

– Cynthia M. Allen^[288]

Destructive discourse can have negative consequences for society. It fosters polarization rather than community, enmity and contempt rather than understanding and tolerance, and alienation instead of involvement. It limits the potential for problem-solving, as fewer voices and ideas are heard and factored into decision-making.  It is well-established that democracy cannot function effectively under these conditions. Without a social structure that supports tolerance, a basic level of trust, and a spirit of community, political institutions become hollow. Government becomes less efficient, effective, and responsive. And where government is less responsive, citizens are more likely to respond to conflict with violence rather than rely on civil institutions and the rule of law.[289]

There is currently today a struggle to support civil conversation in our diverse, global, and digital world. People have different views on matters of public concern, and it is the engagement of that diversity that is the political process. Although we have stumbled before in our support of a deliberative democracy in which all citizens can discuss and debate the issues of the day, for the most part over the years we have practiced civil conversation: listening as well as speaking, respecting different — even conflicting and spirited — points of view, speaking the truth and citing evidence, and maintaining a genuine openness to changing one’s mind.[290] For example, as noted by former U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson:[291]

“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom. A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to … recogniz[e] what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not, and to begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness and demand our pursuit of America’s future be fact-based, not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are and guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges.”

Working Toward the Same Ends for Different Reasons.  A better understanding of moral reasoning could help Americans cooperate on improving the country even amid deep disagreements.

– The Atlantic[292]

Civility is not about agreement, but how we conduct ourselves in the midst of disagreement. Deep polarization and loss of trust[293] (in institutions and leaders worldwide) appears to be a fact of political life in many countries the 21st century, but our debates need not stay so overheated. The public has lost trust in government mainly because they do not believe that it contributes to the public interest, what is sometimes referred to as the ‘public good’ as opposed to private interests.[294] What would dial this down? Getting out of our ‘echo chambers and address reality as opposed to shying away from it. Taking steps to provide all citizens, but particularly those citizens left behind (left, right and center), what they have always wanted: government in the public interest, accountability, and contribution to peace and prosperity.[295] As noted by Franklin D. Roosevelt, “democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living”.[296]

In some ways, it has always been in vogue to shoot the messenger. But now more countries, and their institutions, that were previously considered relatively supportive of a free press are facing new threats. The president of the United States is attempting to normalize attacks on journalists and the media. Numerous studies show that his behaviour is a catalyst for the polarization of political debate. It creates a closed and incurious society of us versus them, ironically at a time when we have never enjoyed more free access to argument and facts.

– Editorial, Globe and Mail[297]

Principled Leadership

Principled ‘values-based’ leaders build trust and effective relationships[298] – nationally and internationally – that make governments work. Trust lies at the core of all relationships – individually and collectively, nationally and internationally – and this is the currency of principled leadership and influence, and ultimately an effective functioning government.

Clearly, citizens should be able to expect more from their leaders. To that end, as the deans of the Harvard Kennedy School and the Harvard Business School, respectively, we strive to impart the values of effective leadership to our students. We teach them that leadership is not about opportunism or winning at any cost. It is about advancing the common good and making a difference in the world.

– Douglas Elmendorf and Nitin Nohria, Restoring Trust in Leadership[299]

Without trust, influence wanes, relationships deteriorate, governments and their society fail to prosper for everyone (and eventually crumble) – yes, there may be a relationship in name, but not an effective one: “it takes good relationships fostered by people working there for government to function well. And even though good relationships alone cannot restore the trust in government that has been lost in recent years, they are essential to its revival”.[300]

However, distrust may be the most potent force in national and global politics today. Yet, within this geopolitical environment of distrust and anxiety, leaders in Canada, the U.S., the UK, Europe, Australia, and across the world must continue to face and address challenges of extraordinary scale and complexity, and confront some of society’s most critical issues both at home and abroad – the economy (economic insecurity, globalization, technology, trade and tariffs), human rights (racism), environmental protection (global warming, pollution, global water crisis/drought), civil liberties, national security and terrorism and war (nuclear proliferation), corporate governance and tax avoidance, civil and criminal justice, global population growth, immigration and demographic change, cultural change, and entrenched poverty (malnutrition and hunger, food security, wealth and income inequality).^[301]

So how do we do this? Leadership influences the behaviours, attitudes and thoughts of others, and can guide nations in either a positive or negative direction. To be successful, ethics and integrity in our leaders can be neither a luxury nor an option.[302]  Leadership must possess a willingness to set aside narrow views and parochial interests in order to identify and achieve a vision, mission and goals that are larger than any one individual, corporation, or interest group.[303]

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past – let us accept our own responsibility for the future.

– John F. Kennedy[304]

As noted in the Harvard Business Review twenty years ago, a country is not a company. What people learn from running a business won’t necessarily help them formulate economic policy. A country is not a big corporation. The habits of mind that make a great business leader are not, in general, those that make a great economic analyst; an executive who has made $1 billion is rarely the right person to turn to for advice about, for example, a $6 trillion economy,^[305] and national and international geopolitical issues. The key for such a leader to be effective as a nation builder is to have humility, to control their ego, and exhibit the ability to learn from all appropriate subject matter experts around them. I am convinced that these leadership lessons apply in virtually any context:[306]

“It’s no secret that it’s a complicated time to be a leader … Wherever we are in the world, we face a range of challenges — including financial, political, demographic, and technological ones — that, quite frankly, are unprecedented.

Traditional leadership approaches don’t equip us well to deal with these complex issues. Conventional thinking encourages leaders to think of themselves as heroes who need to act alone to save the day. …

No leader — no matter how accomplished — has all the answers. No leader who wants to create viable, sustainable solutions and avoid burnout can afford to go it alone.

Instead, leaders must use all the assets at their disposal to address the complexity…. This means engaging our whole organization — and our whole community — to find the answers to the biggest … problems we face today. Your organization will not make significant progress toward [the strategy, mission, or] goals without meaningful contributions from people inside and outside of your [organization]. Leaders need to accept that they don’t know it all, be willing to ask for help, and then involve others in the implementation that must follow. …

[L]eaders need to be like band leaders or conductors. … [the leader] can’t play every instrument. … A leader’s job is to make all the musicians sound good together. Otherwise, all we hear is noise. …

Asking questions is just the beginning. Leaders must also listen to the answers with humility because we won’t always hear what we want to hear. We may think we know the answers, but we need to be ready to receive messages that make us deeply uncomfortable. And that’s good because it’s discomfort that spurs innovation, and new ways to think about seemingly intractable problems.

Yes, sometimes heroism … is essential. In an emergency or a major crisis, for example, a command and control leader may be exactly what’s necessary. But I would argue that we need less heroism and more humility to make progress with the ongoing, complex problems that … leaders face every day.”

In nearly every aspect of public and private life, principled leadership inspires trust, cooperation, and the ability in others to work towards positive and ethical change. This is critical to the success of our political and governmental institutions – locally, nationally and internationally – and our communities.  The qualities of ethical and principled leadership matters.[307]

[A]n effective leader is one who promotes free speech, engages in civil discourse, and remains open to compromise. Even when a decision doesn’t go someone’s way, that person will want – and deserves – to be heard. … [E]ffective leadership means delivering excellent and responsive service to one’s customers or constituents…. When people do not feel that their leaders are working in their interest or addressing genuine needs, they lose confidence. To restore it, government officials must build and defend robust civic institutions and political processes that serve the public interest.

– Douglas Elmendorf (Dean and Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School) and Nitin Nohria (Dean, Harvard Business School), Restoring Trust in Leadership[308]

Vision, Strategy, and Government by Design: A Way Forward?

Societies and economies pay a high price when citizens do not have trust in public-sector leaders. Distrust leads to political polarization, widespread anxiety about the future, and uncertainty in domestic affairs and international relations. And these symptoms then reinforce the loss of trust, creating a vicious circle:[309]

“In 2017, 71% of respondents globally considered government officials not credible or only somewhat credible, and 63% of respondents had the same dismal view of CEOs. This should not come as a surprise. Across dozens of countries, people have been airing their grievances against the status quo through social media, protests, consumer choice, and the ballot box.”

Clearly, people should be able to expect more from their leaders.[310] However, in the G-Zero world[311] we currently find ourselves, we have an international order of growing disarray, and governments everywhere face a daunting paradox. On the one hand, they operate in an increasingly complex environment and must deliver on an expanded set of policy objectives. In a world characterized by macroeconomic uncertainty, rapid social change, and technological innovation, people’s expectations of what government ought to deliver are rising. On the other hand, governments are hampered by their own economies, ‘big money’ influence, unsustainable debt burdens and shrinking budgets,[312] and internationally by the diminished economic, political, and military cooperation among formerly strong partners and allies. Against this backdrop – while public trust in government is eroding[313] – governments must not only do more with less; they must do so in highly visible and co-operative ways in order to regain the faith of their constituents.[314]

National, regional and international governments and organizations must adjust to new distributions of power and new challenges.[315] In this respect, in a world of increased risk and volatility, there needs to be – at least in the short term as the international order appears to become increasingly unmoored[316] – a focus on those countries that are most capable of adapting[317] and cooperating and working with each other and with important international organizations (i.e. such as the UN, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, World Bank, World Health Organization, NATO, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development).

Enhanced connections with current partners and allies, and new connections, relationships, and partnerships “to reflect the changing distribution of global” influence are needed to meet evolving challenges. In a time when the current international order may not find the unity necessary to solidify a new, deeper foundation, broadening the conversation on the principles of world order beyond the traditional transatlantic partners to include other “emerging powers” or “emerging markets” could prove more effective at building a wider, if shallower, coalition. If successful, such a grouping would help strengthen many Western countries’ economic and security priorities for managing 21^st century challenges.[318]

In short, the number of global flashpoints and “problems without borders” continues to grow, and there are no credible cooperative plans to manage them, much less to solve the problems that have created them. For now, the G-zero order looks here to stay.

– Ian Bremmer[319]

In other words a movement towards a world of regions that can – at minimum – develop regional solutions and look to more confidently broker global solutions.[320]  Together this form of partnership or alliances may be able to sufficiently provide legitimate and positive global influence and leadership. Although it is not clear at this time what this may look like – as a change in U.S. and UK leadership could see a movement back to stable global leadership[321] – by way of example, we could possibly see: a “WTO minus America” option (a formula similar to what Japan achieved with the TPP as a way of equalizing China’s increasing economic influence in the region and “to send a message to an increasingly assertive China on why global trade rules are good for everyone” after the U.S. pulled out),[322] and/or various regional trade alliances with increased political, economic and legal ties between a whole host of various countries across the world – including, but not limited to, for example:

• Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand (CANZUK would be an opportunity for Canada and the UK to join the existing trade agreement between Australia and NZ).[323]
• the 53 Commonwealth countries (once seen by many as a relic of the colonial era, with 2.4 billion people and US$10-trillion in total economic output the organization is hard to ignore),[324]
• Canada and the EU (CETA).[325]
• improved ties and trust between the U.S., Canada and Mexico (NAFTA plus – referenced as a potential ‘international powerhouse’ by Blackrock’s CEO Larry Fink[326] – represents 28% of the world’s GDP with just 7% of the world’s population, with a combined economy of US$17 trillion $444.1 million people).[327]
• The U.S.[328] or UK[329] – or even eventually China[330] – joining the TPP Asia-Pacific trade deal[331] (that already includes Canada, Australia, and NZ).
• Even a re-unification of the UK with the European Union?
• Or possibly Germany[332] or France[333] filling the global leadership void and undertaking more international responsibilities.

More than two centuries ago, Rousseau’s social contract helped to seed the idea among political leaders that they must serve the public good, lest their own legitimacy be threatened. Indeed, governments and political parties – those with the will, the means, and the inclination – will address innovative ways to meet the needs of the public, by revisiting the social contract that binds citizens and the state. This could mean, for example, rethinking assumptions about the purpose, content, and cost of education – and how it’s provided. It could mean preparing people to compete in a fast-changing economy and providing for their basic needs when they can’t make the leap. It could mean changes in the way governments collect taxes. This type of vision requires that government work with, or clear space for, others to also play a role. It requires open-minded civil discussion and collaboration.[334]

For this to take place – particularly in today’s polarized world[335] – it is critical to address the issues of ‘big money’ influence in the political world and for leaders to escape their echo chambers and find common ground. Although we live in a complicated world, “human beings wrote the rules of this game, so we decide when and how to change them”.[336]

To rebuild trust and restore faith in the system, institutions must step outside of their traditional roles and work toward a new, more integrated operating model that puts people — and the addressing of their fears — at the center of everything they do.

– 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, Global Annual Study^[337]

Countries will need to reach out to each other by developing new ties and by reforming how they work together across regions to accommodate each other’s important needs. The ideal would be a process of cooperative leadership that brings together national governments, multilateral public agencies, and civil society to achieve commonly agreed upon goals:[338]

This means understanding competing perspectives, developing empathy and working towards solutions that satisfy as many different interests as possible.

Much of the time, it works. However, it is clear that today things are not going well for this open, pragmatic view of progress. … Interdependence is seen as weakness. Nationalism has been rekindled to forge newer, harder identities. Anti-globalisation rhetoric is threatening the collaborative economic and trading structures …

Even if they have not always responded as effectively as critics might hope, leaders have not ignored the challenges these phenomena pose. Since the 1980s, it has been difficult to ignore the faults in the global system that led to the current crisis. These include the winner-takes-all nature of the economics of globalisation, and the wide and widening inequality that has followed. Much of this is driven by lightning-fast shifts in the geographical and technological bases of prosperity,[339] producing insecurity and anxiety for workers and managers alike.

All of this is happening beyond the reach of the nation state. Yet just when we need flexible and strong international institutions to manage these shifts, our existing systems for global collaboration are being undermined, partly because they were designed in different times to respond to different pressures.

So what now? Amid a sea of challenges, I see five priorities that those in power must confront — quickly and with requisite force.

First, leaders must agree to build a system of global governance that is inclusive, responds to the fast-moving nature of geopolitics and has the moral authority to enforce effective decisions.

Second, they must work to reform market capitalism, to protect those who have fallen victim to the system’s divisiveness, corruption and short-sightedness.

Third, leaders must work to restore global economic growth. Change is much easier to achieve when growth is brisk.

Fourth, they must seek to shape the great wave of technological change that is breaking over us — the “fourth industrial revolution” — before it shapes us.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, leaders need to address the pervasive identity crisis that has eroded communities and ways of life over the past two decades, resulting in wave upon wave of legitimate anger.

Public anger over the inequitable effects of technology/automation and globalization is often referenced as a cause of a variety of geopolitical issues, including rising nationalism and identity politics, distrust for institutions, and a fracturing of the rules-based international system. Whether that anger persists will depend less on any objective measure of inequality than on how inequality is perceived and managed.[340]

In addition, corporate sustainability and long-term growth will also be adversely impacted. For example, in respect to automation – yes, it will boost productivity and short term profits, and give rise to a few corporate powerhouses, but generally – it will suppress wages for many workers, potentially eliminate millions of jobs,[341] and “hollow out demand”. Middle- and low- income families are likely to be hit hardest, putting downward pressure on consumer spending and growth: fewer workers means fewer people with the means to buy products. Automation and inequality, if not addressed with appropriate public policy, will lead to anemic demand growth which will likely constrain economic expansion, and global interest rates “may again test zero percent”. Faced with market imbalances and growth-stifling levels of inequality, markets will likely not be seen as ‘efficient and self-regulating coordinators of value creation,’ but rather as part of the problem.[342] In this scenario, many societies will likely reset the government’s role in the marketplace.[343]

Today’s level of inequality already has prompted growing public concerns and debate. It seems reasonable to expect that at significantly higher levels, popular criticism would intensify and increase pressure for social policies to address it.

– Bain Report: Labor 2030 – The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality[344]

Policy has an essential “role to play in promoting greater equality, both through redistribution, where taxes and benefits moderate the unequal distribution of market income into a more equitable distribution of disposable income” (i.e. universal basic income for example),[345] and pre-distribution where market forces and rules are engineered to improve the distribution of market income itself”: [346]

“Given the alarming trends in inequality, and the tendency for political stalemate over changes in tax and benefits, attention is increasingly focused on policies that support pre-distribution. Some of the most creative ideas seek to reshape the forces of technology and globalization themselves. For instance, policies can be put in place to incentivize research and development on innovations that generate more jobs. Alternatively, governments can deploy public funds to acquire stakes in technological innovations and their commercialization so that the profits they generate can be shared with citizens rather than benefit only a narrow group of shareholders. With regard to globalization, multilateral efforts can eliminate tax inversions, whereby one corporation acquires another to re-domicile to a lower-tax jurisdiction.

More generally, there can be little doubt that focusing almost exclusively on average incomes and their growth has been a disservice to policymaking and to the economics profession. A growth strategy that doesn’t work for all members of an economy is incomplete and unsustainable, no matter how much redistribution there may be. The definition of economic success must therefore include the extent to which growth is inclusive. Inclusiveness cannot be an afterthought.”

However, the potential solutions, large and small, can only be implemented in societies where government is willing and able to experiment and collaborate, institutions are capable of executing these plans, and citizens believe they share basic values with their fellow citizens (even if it’s limited at this point in time – due to cultural polarization and partisan politics – to a basic respect and allegiance to one’s country).[347]

Shareholders of Canada’s largest grocer rejected a proposal that Loblaw Companies Ltd. determine the feasibility of paying its employees a living wage … The proposal called for Loblaw to review the feasibility, cost and benefits of implementing a living wage policy for its employees, suppliers and contractors. … Loblaw’s board of directors recommended shareholders vote against the proposal, and the majority followed its directive.

– Loblaw shareholders reject proposal to study feasibility of paying a living wage, Globe and Mail[348]

There is no shortage of statistics that illustrate the reality that the benefits of economic growth have been unevenly shared. Government and political leaders — from all political parties and countries — have not done a good enough job addressing the issue and taking care of those who are being left behind. Political and corporate leaders have a collective responsibility to do more. This requires thinking beyond narrow or traditional roles, putting aside self-interest and partisan differences, appropriately collaborating, and committing to the pragmatic work of making meaningful change. In many cases leaders know the direction they must take, they simply need the courage and political will to put the public interest first and get them done. As noted by the President of the European Commission, “we all know what to do; we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”.[349] Rising inequality and precarious employment (an outcome of economic policy)[350] can be addressed with appropriate public policy,[351] standards, and progressive tax reform[352] to ensure middle and working class citizens lead secure dignified lives. Rightly or wrongly, or somewhere in the middle, the reality is that globalization has reduced the bargaining position of individual employees and workers, and corporations have taken advantage of it[353]:[354]

“Today in America, tens of millions of lower- and middle-class workers are routinely subject to poverty wages, unpaid overtime, wage theft, dehumanizing scheduling practices and the constant threat of automation or off-shoring. …

Over the last 40 years, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have increased from about six percent to about 11 percent, while wages as a percentage of GDP have fallen by about the same amount. That represents about a trillion dollars a year that used to go to wages, but now goes to shareholders and executives. …

[M]ost … workers have no union,[355] and thus have no power. … They are paid what they negotiate. And working people have lost their ability to negotiate decent wages. … Union jobs that used to pay people middle-class wages and that delivered the job security and benefits that enabled a dignified, stable and secure life have been eliminated and replaced with minimum-wage jobs. …

I’ll save a detailed policy agenda for another forum, but there’s no getting around the trillion-dollar elephant in the room: the 5 percent of GDP that used to go to wages but now goes to executive pay and record corporate profits. … The most obvious way to address our crisis of growing inequality is to reverse the policies that undermined the older, more equitable norms. … This means restricting the stock buybacks[356] that have propped up executive pay through share price manipulation. This means rethinking our benefits systems and social safety nets to meet the needs of our modern economy. And this means substantially raising taxes on plutocrats like us[357] who continue to capture the bulk of our nation’s economic gains.”

[Employees] were irked that daily warehouse pressures have helped Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos become the richest man in the world. “The metrics are brutally aggressive and most of my colleagues are in a state of constant anxiety that we could be fired at any moment for not meeting metrics,” said one current US employee. “Amazon needs union representation globally. It is modern slavery. Jeff Bezos has become the richest man in the world off the backs of people so desperate for work that we tolerate the abuse.” The employee praised her colleagues in Germany, who last week protested Amazon’s record of paying little tax and its treatment of workers in a union-organised demonstration. The protest took place outside the Berlin headquarters of German publisher Axel Springer, where Bezos was due to collect an award.

– Business Insider[358]

In respect to both the economic insecurity and cultural backlash theories or perspectives supporting the rise of populism across the world, much about the polarization of politics and government can only be truly addressed “in a society committed to genuine pluralism” with leaders across the political spectrum accommodating inevitable change in a way that honours the best of the past.

As noted by President Macron of France, “we have got to listen to the anger of the people. [They]  don’t need a lecture, … we cannot act as we did yesterday”.[359] There must be a direct discussion with citizens aimed at re-engaging them in their democracy, their country and its values, and the critical issues impacting their lives. Listening to and learning from citizens will develop ‘buy-in’ as well as provide invaluable insights that will aid leaders and appropriate experts to craft appropriate policies to tackle complex and novel challenges. When leaders focus on creating opportunities for people from all walks of life, they can build more cohesive societies and equip more people to contribute productively to the economy. This type of public policy rethink is as much about a social benefit as it is an economic necessity. However, by leaving discussions about matters of employment, wages, health care, immigration, trade or alliances to the campaign trail there is a very real risk of politicizing issues that are critical to the well-being of all citizens within a particular country (regardless of political affiliation).[360]

From an economic point of view, as the global economy continues to change more quickly and drastically than ever before – and government looks at how to ease the economic disruption it will cause – a basic income has the ability to act as a stabilizer. It becomes the granite beneath the feet of every citizen. … CEOs realize – as do others – that a basic income has a direct positive impact in the fight against the rapidly increasing nature of inequality, which is exacerbated in part by the automation occurring within different sectors of advanced industrialized economies. A basic income can give those impacted most by these economic changes the ability to get re-educated and retrained.

– Globe and Mail[361]

There must be an initiative to open a critical public debate to engage and empower citizens. That debate and discussion must be heard, and from there steps must be taken to actually develop and implement focused smart solutions to domestic problems, international problems, and “problems at the intersection of foreign- and domestic-policy – such as the economic disruption caused by automation or the fear wrought by violent extremism”.[362]

Through government by design, public-sector leaders can move beyond partisan debates and politicized headlines, and make true progress on society’s most pressing problems.[363] Four basic principles are at its core: implementation of a national strategic plan and use of evidence for decision making; appropriate engagement and empowerment of citizens; thoughtful investments in expertise and skill building; and the removal of ‘big money’ influence from political parties and government.

The good news is that the costs of promoting global order tend to be less than the costs of not; the bad news is that this truth does not seem to be recognized by many … It is a basic fact of living in a global world that no country can insulate itself from much of what happens elsewhere. A foreign policy based on sovereignty alone will not provide security in a global, interconnected world.

– Richard Haass, The Atlantic[364]

National strategic plan & Engagement and empowerment of citizens

A government must know its strengths to prosper, and its weaknesses to survive.  Governance is about the quality of decision-making, and if done properly, should have a positive impact on long-term value creation. Ultimately, what we measure must also be meaningful to governments such that they are motivated to self-reflect and adopt good governance practices, including diversity policies.

Governance is a journey and where we go from here actually hinges on the decisions that each government and political parties take in continuously raising the bar on their governance practices.

We see politics as a negative disrupter, and in today’s environment this appears to be true. Important legislation is not being addressed, fiscal reform is not being considered, it appears stonewalling, gaslighting, and hypocrisy are prerequisite skills for elected office whether here in Canada, the U.S., the UK, Australia, or across the world. But imagine what political parties and elected officials could do if they followed a regular process, took on the critical imperatives facing their country and people, and really cared about an efficient and effective government that is financially sound. In these circumstances, eliminating the current collusion of ineptness may be considered a major disruptor for the good.[365]

Innovative government leaders will make it easier for citizens to be engaged in government and public services. And the most forward-thinking governments are starting to master the shift from simply administering services to regularly engaging and empowering citizens, involving them in the design – and, in some cases, the delivery – of these services. This shift is not just about increasing engagement and well-being; it’s also about boosting government innovation, development and implementation of appropriate solutions that utilize appropriate big data and technology:[366]

“Power must be delegated sparingly, in a few big areas such as monetary policy and entitlement reform, and the process must be open and transparent.

And delegation upwards towards grandees and technocrats must be balanced by delegation downwards, handing some decisions to ordinary people. The trick is to harness the twin forces of globalism and localism, rather than trying to ignore or resist them. With the right balance of these two approaches, the same forces that threaten established democracies from above, through globalisation, and below, through the rise of micro-powers, can reinforce rather than undermine democracy.”

Imagine what evidence-based program reform would do for government – actually using hard data, statistical analysis, and experts to inform decisions. Imagine a bipartisan national summit leading to a national strategic plan that is consistently implemented. Imagine using technology for two-way communications with the people. Imagine agencies being willing to address all programs and make necessary reforms. Principled leadership, mutual toleration and civility, strategy, and a results based orientation would result in an efficient, effective and more accountable government[367] – and dramatically improve governments’ reputation and level of trust with its citizens.

Canada, for example, may be moving in this strategic direction – whether one agrees with their actual economic plan or not – recently outlining a long-term economic vision of 10 to 30 years to address and “quell populist unrest and build a thriving society”:[368]

“[Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau wants to build a Canadian economy that will thrive a decade or more from now — if that means losing a short-term edge to Donald Trump, so be it.

The Canadian prime minister outlined his economic vision Tuesday, championing investments in education and healthcare, targeted immigration and responsible borrowing as ways to quell populist unrest and build a thriving society. Noticeably absent was any talk of tax cuts mirroring those in the U.S., which he called a more “ruthless” economy propped up by unsustainable deficits [noting social unrest could hurt profitability].

“If you’re making a decision purely based on how you could maximize your profits in the short term, maybe Canada is not the right choice for you –but that’s not the way more and more successful companies are really approaching their thinking.” … “We’re not engaging in a race to the bottom. We’re very much looking for where the economy is going — where it’s going to be 10 years from now, where it’s going to be 30 years from now?”

[Prime Minister] Trudeau is an outspoken advocate for policies supporting what he calls inclusive growth. …  It’s an economic philosophy he’s set to champion when he hosts the Group of Seven leaders’ summit next week in Quebec, and one set surely to clash with Trump’s vision. …

“There are an awful lot of companies and wealthy individuals who realize that that is a much more sustainable path for the long term than … the short-term approach that perhaps the U.S. is taking right now.” … Canada’s economy is about more than having a low dollar and low corporate tax rates, he said. “The U.S. has always been much more focused on the ruthless competition of success on the single bottom line.”

Maybe because of the winters or the great distances between communities, Canadians have “always known that we have to be there for our neighbours. We have to make sure that they’re a success for all of us,” the prime minister said. Far from leading to decline, his policies will bring political stability and consumer-led growth, he said.

“I have no worries that businesses are going to be able to be profitable and do very well when more people have confidence and money to spend,” he said. “Perhaps it flies in the face of the trickle-down economics that people are still clinging to, but I don’t believe in those.”

[G]lobalization has encouraged a race to the bottom on some regulations and redistributive policies, as the mobility of firms, investment, and skilled workers compels governments to match the conditions of their competitors so as to retain and attract business. The effects of technology and globalization on inequality are neither inevitable nor entirely predictable.

– Are technology and globalization destined to drive up inequality? Understanding inequality and what drives it, Brookings Institute[369]

Thoughtful investments in expertise and skill building

Governments face large, intractable challenges with many dimensions, multiple stakeholders, and far-reaching ripple effects. Some are perennial issues, like economic stability, trade, and national security, whereas others may be external shocks such as natural disasters or even a pandemic.[370] Regardless of the nature or origin of the challenge, such problems often affect—and require coordinated responses from—multiple parts of government. Leaders must be equipped to anticipate, assess, and react to these complex problems. That was the impetus for the Singapore government’s creation of the Centre for Strategic Futures, which “aims to develop insights into future trends and discontinuities, and cultivate capacity and instincts to manage strategic surprises.”[371]

New technologies in their infancy—artificial intelligence, blockchain and quantum computing—will be the next disruptors. These technologies will support more effective services and cause internal operations to cost less, be faster, and more accurate. They could enable more secure systems, stronger, more transparent decision-making, and potentially much more.[372]

Governments have an opportunity—perhaps even a mandate, in certain troubled sectors—to play the part of a “systems integrator” that takes a high-level view on an issue and figure out how all stakeholders should work together. For the purpose of this discussion, I have set out four possible areas that may be ripe for consideration:

• Education-to-employment (E2E) system: the issues are unemployment, underemployment, and precarious employment.[373] For example, Canada and the U.S. have a significant number of high-skilled jobs that are available but cannot be filled, because of a lack of people with the right skills.[374] Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has noted that globalization and technology has “reinforced the shift away from lower-skilled jobs that require less education, to higher-skilled jobs that require college and advanced degrees,” and that “the jobs that globalization creates” – serving a global economy of billions of people – “are more likely to be filled by those who have secured the advantage of higher education.”[375] Research on E2E has shown that millions of people are unemployed globally, yet there are continuing issues for employers to find enough qualified entry-level candidates.[376] Governments and business will need to work in partnership to make long-term commitments to invest in their citizens and their workforce.[377] Business leaders will need to be part of this type of “education and training” solution,[378] and in the U.S. this was recently exemplified by a “coalition of Fortune 500 CEOs [technology, airlines, banks, hotel chains, manufacturers, entertainment companies], governors, educators, and non-profit leaders” who stepped up to lobby the Federal government to fund computer science education and training to fill 500,000 U.S. jobs currently available – but unfilled – high-skilled and high-paying software and computing jobs across the U.S. and identified as a “trillion-dollar opportunity”. [379]
• Global financial regulation. Today’s great engines of wealth creation are distributed in such a way as to elude national taxation systems (94% of Apple’s cash reserves are held offshore; this $250bn is greater than the combined foreign reserves of the British government and the Bank of England), which is diminishing all nation states, materially and symbolically. There is no reason to heed those interested parties who tell us global financial regulation is impossible: it is technologically trivial compared to the astonishing systems those same parties have already built. The history of the nation state is one of perennial tax innovation, and the next such innovation is transnational: we must build systems to track transnational money flows, and to transfer a portion of them into public channels. Without this, our political infrastructure will continue to become more and more superfluous to actual material life. In the process we must also think more seriously about global redistribution: not aid, which is exceptional, but the systematic transfer of wealth from rich to poor for the improved security of all, as happens in national societies.[380]
• Healthcare. At least half the world’s population still do not have full coverage of essential health services. Every year, over 100 million people are pushed into extreme poverty because they have to pay for their healthcare out-of-pocket. All UN Member States have agreed to work on achieving universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030, as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.[381] In a recent poll the UK was asked what historical event in British history makes them feel proud – “believe it or not, the creation of the National Health Service in 1948 came out way ahead as the British people’s proudest moment in their history”.[382] Canadians have called universal health care an important source of collective pride, and there continues to be a widespread willingness to pay higher taxes to improve and expand it.[383]
• Anti-trust regulation in the digital ‘winner-take-all’ economy (adversely impacting society and middle class, quashing competition, and exercising monopoly-like powers). Concentration in certain industries isn’t necessarily a problem, but companies that dominate a market don’t get a “free pass” to violate antitrust laws. Big is not necessarily bad, but “big that behaves badly is bad”. Current antitrust oversight may be too focused on “short term price effects”. It may be that governments and regulators “should take a more holistic approach on how mergers and consolidation impact an array of social and economic factors like employment, wages, consumer privacy and control over their users, and the ability to enter a market as a competitor”.[384] For example think Amazon and its impact on jobs, wages, working conditions, and communities nationally and across the world[385] – this would be a tough sell where global companies such as Amazon are larger economic entities (with arguably greater influence on government than their own citizens) than some of the countries in which they operate.[386] The answer may be restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles and applying common carrier obligations and duties.[387]

Report: How Amazon’s Tightening Grip on the Economy Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities.

– Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell[388]

In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, governments will struggle to address the challenges of doing more with less if their employees are not armed with the right skills. A commitment to capability building will allow governments to be able to take a more dynamic and adaptable approach to reform.[389]

Campaign-Finance Reform: removal of ‘Big Money’ influence from politics

Polls suggest that a substantial majority of citizens – 90% according to one U.S. poll[390] – want a reduction in the role of money in politics. ‘Big money’ has the potential to do real damage to sovereignty and the public’s faith in elections when a small number of ‘big donors’[391] may be perceived as undermining and fueling distrust of the political system by exposing democracies to ‘political capture’ (where public decisions are made to benefit donor’s private interests).[392] There’s a difference between contributing to the marketplace of ideas and using ‘big money’ and ‘dark money’ “to gain access and influence over policy”– unfortunately, an expectation of reciprocal exchanges of money for future special consideration is generally considered the dominant rational for ‘big money’ donations.

A system of reciprocal exchange is an abuse of the political system because it insinuates private interests where only the public interest should be considered: “it is corrupt because government can end up producing private goods [for the financial elite and influential corporations] instead of public goods”. [393]

A U.S. Senator has admitted that “career politicians’ ears and wallets are open to the highest bidder”,[394] and a former Vice President of the United States has stated on the record that “American democracy has been hacked”, that the United States Congress “is now incapable of passing laws without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests that control their campaign finances”.[395] In addition:[396]

“Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget director and acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told lobbyists last week what they already knew: Legislators are dependent upon their funders, and their funders are not the people.

Speaking to 1,300 attendees of the American Bankers Association conference, Mulvaney … pleaded with the bankers to use that insight to get Congress to dismantle the consumer protection agency that he now heads, reminding them such influence represents the “fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy.” …

But while this economy of influence of D.C. has been well-known among its players for some time, what is striking now is how open the players have become about sharing this corruption with the public. The only way to break this culture is through radical changes that change how we fund our elections.

Yet Washington seems comfortable with the influence bazaar it has built; it seems wholly unconcerned that some wannabe savior will come to cast the money changers from the temple of democracy.

It cannot be that a system so dependent upon such an unrepresentative few could ever represent the many fairly or effectively. That is the fundamental underpinning of our representative democracy, and that is the simplest way to see its corruption. James Madison [the fourth President of the United States] promised a Congress “dependent on the people alone,” yet Madison’s promise is a fantasy today. Congress is dependent not on the people alone but on the funders of campaigns. …

But maybe now, when politicians have become so open about the corruption of this system, there is a chance to rally at least some to fix it. Not through slogans or personal attacks, but with real reforms to Washington’s economy of influence.”

Many companies are larger economic entities and with potentially greater influence than the countries in which they operate. According to one estimate, 69 of the top 100 wealthiest economic entities in 2016 were corporations, not countries.

– KPMG[397]

Where do we start? The first step is to reduce the influence of ‘big money’ and ‘dark money’ in politics. A critical way to reduce the disproportionate influence of corporations and financial elite on public policy is ‘campaign-finance reform’ – to create a system for financing election campaigns “that lives up to the idea of one-person, one-vote” – to level the playing field and giving every citizen a strong voice.[398] As a U.S. Supreme Court Justice has warned, “where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard” – unless the money comes from the public itself.[399]

The first key is for governments to take appropriate steps to prohibit corporations from directly bankrolling political parties with donations. Corporate money must be removed from politics – “it’s time to end the obvious conflicts of interest when” politicians “seek bags of money from the industries they regulate”. The second key is to limit third party election spending (i.e. so-called super PACs) so that corporations and financial elite are not permitted to influence the political process through the backdoor.  It’s time to reduce the influence of money in politics in Western democracies – using Canada as an example, the Editorial Board of the Globe and Mail (Canada’s national newspaper of record) set out “four basic principles of clean, conflict-free political financing”:[400]

“(1) Ban corporate and union donations. Democracy is about people, not limited liability companies and giant bargaining units. Corporations and unions shouldn’t be able to use massive donations to tilt an election, or to buy exclusive access to government.

It is telling that political parties that still defend corporate and union donations tend to be the ones that have been longest in power. …

[Political parties] defend the practice on the grounds the donations are publicly disclosed. But the disclosure comes long after a donation has been made, and all they show is that oodles of money are given to the [particular political party] by … companies … – who based on the track record of donations must feel they are getting value for money.

In practical terms, disclosure is useless. It does nothing to change the perception that money buys access for the wealthy and the connected; in fact, it reconfirms it. …

(2) Individual donation limits should be low – possibly as low as $100. These rules should apply at all times, including election years and during party leadership campaigns. Within reason, Canadians should be able to freely use their means to support their preferred political party. However, most [jurisdictions] set very high limits, or have no limits at all on individual donations. … Wealthy business owners were contributing the maximum amount and getting their family members, company executives and even their employees to contribute as well. …

(3) Limit party spending at all times – not just for a few weeks every four years, during an election campaign. This is particularly important in a world where the federal government and many provinces now have fixed election dates. This was a problem in the federal campaign last year. Parties and third-party lobby groups were able to spend unlimited amounts on advertising in the months before the writ officially dropped for October’s fixed-date election. If spending limits during official campaigns periods make sense, then so do limits during the unofficial campaign of a fixed-date election year.

(4) Third-party election spending must be regulated and limited – or else parties and donors will form super PACs and get around points 1 to 3. That’s what has been happening in Ontario for years, thanks to the pro-Liberal, union-funded group known as Working Families.

[P]olitical parties can survive without accepting donations from the corporations they regulate and the unions they negotiate with. They also don’t need to be able to raise [large amounts of money] from rich individual donors. The time has come for every [jurisdiction] to join a movement that is making [countries] more democratic.”

Where ‘dark money’ is permitted in some Western democracies – that is, money that cannot be traced back to a donor – a fifth basic principle of campaign finance reform is this: ‘dark money’ is not permitted.[401]  Hiding the identify of ‘dark money’ donors is clearly a ‘no-no’.  The shenanigans – secret or dishonest activity or maneuvering – are obvious.

When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government. . . . Poor people don’t make political contributions.

– Former Republican Senate Leader and presidential candidate, Bob Dole[402]

Money and its potentially corrupting influence – politicians, political parties, and governments beholden to elite wealthy corporate  and elite donors who spend millions or even billions over time –  is at the very heart of complaints about politics in democracies across the world, including such countries as the U.S., the UK, Germany, etc.[403] There are compelling reasons, if not a duty, to take measures designed to guard against the detrimental effects on democracy by corporate spending in elections.[404]  The issue of ‘big money’ corporate and plutocracy influence in politics – government by the wealthy – was recently discussed in the U.S., under the intriguing title “Billionaire vs. Billionaire: A Tug of War Between 2 Rogue Donors:[405]

“Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which supports stricter campaign-finance regulation, said [billionaire] Mr. Uihlein’s political role showed how big donors had come to overshadow traditional political parties.

“The parties are increasingly irrelevant,” Mr. Rothschild said. “Billionaires can just set up their own organizations and just dominate a political campaign.”

Mr. Uihlein has done that to a great degree in Wisconsin this year, Mr. Rothschild said, by giving $3.5 million to a super PAC supporting Kevin Nicholson, a Republican running for the Senate. Mr. Nicholson faces a contested primary against a fellow Republican who is backed by a different billionaire.

Mr. Rothschild said voters should not mistake the emergence of competing billionaires as a sign that the campaign finance system is basically stable and fair.

“Our democracy is not supposed to be a tug of war between a couple of billionaires on the left and a couple of billionaires on the right,” he said.”

In the richest society in human history, nearly half of the population [in the U.S.] lives in poverty or is struggling to make ends meet.

– William J. Barber II[406]

At the end of the day, it is critical to “focus on empowering average people by reinvigorating and expanding the public-financing system for campaigns”.[407] The “Holy Grail for many campaign-finance reformers is publicly-funded elections”.[408]

Again, looking at Canada as an example only, although provincial jurisdictions within Canada are split on public funding (i.e. five provinces have per-vote subsidies to keep ‘big money’ out of government),[409] across the nation there is extensive regulation imposing caps on individual donations and limits on candidate, political party, and third-party expenditure. Canada – at the federal level – and six provinces (including Ontario, the largest province with over 13 million citizens; and Quebec with over 8 million citizens) have specific laws that “no company can make political donations”[410] – only individual citizens may donate. In addition, Quebec is “held up as a gold standard worldwide with strict $100 political donation limits and other stringent controls”.[411] At the national level, with the new Election Modernization Act initiated to preserve the ‘egalitarian model’ of Canadian elections, the federal government has recently taken further steps to “better address the realities facing our democratic institutions in the 21^st Century”:[412]

“[P]olitical parties would be limited under the new law to spending $1.5 million on advertising. … ‘Third-party organizations’ [i.e. SuperPacs] would see their ad spending capped at $1 million[413] [note: similar to Ontario which limits spending to $600,000 on advertising in the 6 months before the campaign and $100,000 during the campaign][414]. …

‘In the absence of spending limits,’ the majority [of the Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that] ‘it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views’. …

A million dollars could still buy a lot of pre-campaign political activity. And while third-party groups would be limited under the new law in how much they can spend on ads that promote or oppose a party or candidate, the bill makes an exception for advertising that merely focuses on an ‘issue’.”

It is up to citizens and corporate leaders in democratic countries to speak up: corporations are not people, money is not speech, and elections are not for sale.[415] A United States Supreme Court Justice (John Paul Stevens) – in a dissenting decision to the infamous 2010 Citizens United ruling “opening the door” to unlimited election spending by corporations (usually funneled to third parties known as ‘super PACs’)[416] – stated:[417]

“Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it … The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

The question left for another day – besides various forms of public financing – “what other proposals could reduce the influence of money in politics”?[418]

We need more public funding for elections to remove some of the pressure on political parties to relentlessly chase the corporate dollar. If we believe in democracy, we need to believe in it enough to invest in it.

– Katharine Murphy, The Guardian[419]

Conclusion

We are in a period of strong headwinds, where today’s businesses do not know what tomorrow will bring, let alone next year.  There is no set formula for managing through significant geopolitical and macroeconomic upheaval.  However, what we do know is that corporate purpose and social responsibility has a significant impact on an organization’s brand and reputation – particularly impacting ‘trust’ and financial performance.[420]

Of course, some say that income inequality is not a problem, but even in the business world their ranks are shrinking. In a 2015 survey, 63% of Harvard Business School alumni said that reducing economic inequality should be a high or very high priority for American society; only 10% said it should not be a priority at all. The Brexit vote and the recent U.S. presidential election shined a spotlight on the ways in which income inequality is giving rise to a global populism that threatens to destabilize governments and economies around the world.

– Corporations in the Age of Inequality, Harvard Business Review[421]

Going forward – from a geopolitical risk perspective – corporate leaders may consider taking a broader view of their mandate in society beyond short-term gains,[422] in particular the strategic benefits of their organizations being perceived by civil society and their corporate stakeholders as part of the solution (working together with governments, NGOs, and citizens) to create space for economic and social policies that benefit society and the communities in which they operate.[423]

Although textbook economics suggest the state is in charge of correcting market failures and income or wealth inequality, this may be an area of particular strategic importance for corporations that operate in jurisdictions in which governments are unable or unwilling to act (i.e. political capture by special interest groups; global nature of the issue; values not shared by law-makers).[424] Society’s demands for corporate purpose and social responsibility as an alternative response to market and redistributive failures are becoming more prominent and continue gaining momentum across the world.

A disaffected and divided society must be looked at closely and carefully – to the “deeper sources” of the issues and concerns and “how governments around the world are likely to respond to them”.[425] At the end of the day, lack of trust and growing inequality across the world is not just bad economics and bad for business, it is bad public policy and governance.

Inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the post-industrial capitalist world…. if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large.

– Growing Inequality Under Global Capitalism[426]

In this time of political uncertainty and turmoil, the geopolitical risks at home and abroad suggest business leaders must lead, reach out, and build trust. Business – like democracy – is not a spectator sport. There are serious and important policy issues at play that are significantly impacting business and society. A healthy counter-balance of policy requires civil discussion not only among leaders in government, but also leaders in academia and business.

To be sure, there must be an appropriate search for smart solutions to the problems emanating at the intersection of foreign- and domestic-policy. However, to the extent that principled corporate leadership is part of the geopolitical discussion, and ultimately its solution, will be a strategic choice by Boards, CEOs and their executive leadership teams.

Eric Sigurdson

 

Endnotes:

[1] Condoleezza Rice and Amy Zegart, Managing 21^st-Century Political Risk, Harvard Business Review, May-June 2018.

[2] Borders vs. Barriers – Navigating uncertainty in the US business environment, Zurich American Insurance Company and Ernst & Young LLP, 2018.

[3] Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018. Also see, for example: James Bacchus, Might Unmakes Right: The American Assault on the Rule of Law in World Trade, Centre for International Governance Innovation (cigionline.org), May 2018.

[4] Rick Noack, Everything we know so far about Russian election meddling in Europe, Washington Post, January 10, 2018; Caroline Baylon, Is the Brexit Vote Legitimate if Russia Influenced the Outcome?, Newsweek, December 12, 2016; Carole Cadwalladr, The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked, The Guardian, Mary 7, 2017; Kate Ferguson, ‘Some Russians think they own Britain’: Senior Tory MP slams Government for failing to tackle Moscow’s dirty money flowing through London, Daily Mail, May 20, 2018; Jamil Anderlini and Jamie Smyth, West grows wary of China’s influence game, Financial Times, December 19, 2017; Tara Francis Chan, A secret government report uncovered China’s attempts to influence all levels of politics in Australia, Business Insider, May 29, 2018; Chris Uhlmann, Top-secret report uncovers high-level Chinese interference in Australian politics, 9News.com.au, May 28, 2018; Tara Francis Chan, A Chinese-Australian billionaire funded UN bribes investigated by the FBI, an Australian politician alleges, Business Insider, May 22, 2018; Licia Corbella, New Report alleges outside influence in Canada’s 2015 federal election, Calgary Herald, May 23, 2017; Alistair Smout and Costas Pitas, Facebook scandal widens to the Brexit leave campaign and targeted Trump voters, Financial Review, March 28, 2018; Alexis Madrigal, What Facebook Did to American Democracy, The Atlantic, October 12, 2017; Jonathan Masters, Russia, Trump, and the 2016 U.S. Election, Council on Foreign Affairs.org, February 26, 2018; Jon Swaine and Marc Bennetts, Meuller charges 13 Russians with interfering in US elections to help Trump, The Guardian, February 17, 2018; Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, Inside a 3-Year Russian Campaign to Influence U.S. Voters, New York Times, February 16, 2018; Ian Talley, Trump Administration Sanctions Russia for Interference in U.S. Elections, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018; Mike Blanchfield, NATO researcher warns of Russian interference in 2019 Canadian election, CBC, February 27, 2018; Kathleen Harris, Elections Canada prepares to fight fake news, foreign influence in 2019 vote, March 20, 2018.

[5] Anti-establishment populism expresses itself differently in different countries: there are left-wing and right-wing strands, and domestic factors are significant. But there are also common themes: appeals to national sovereignty and criticism that elites have failed to protect electorates from the negative impacts of globalization are threads that run through both left- and right-wing strands. In many cases, there are also appeals to the rights of native citizens, as opposed to immigrants, and the importance of restoring “traditional” values and hierarchies. [The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017].

[6] Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Misconduct and Normalization of Deviance: leadership, corporate culture, and the pathway to organizational integrity, Sigurdson Post, March 31, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate and Government Scandals: A Crisis in ‘Trust’ – Integrity and Leadership in the age of disruption, upheaval and globalization, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2017.

[7] Insight Report, The Global Risks Report 2018 (13^th ed), World Economic Forum, January 2018; Ivan Seneniuk, ‘This is an eye-opener’: Changes in global water supply hint at future conflicts and crisis, Globe and Mail, May 16, 2018; United Nations Report, Environment Dominates 2017 Global Risk: WEF Study, United Nations Climate Change Newsroom (newsroom.unfccc.int), January 13, 2017; Carol Clouse, Hundreds of companies are urging Trump to change his mind about climate change, The Guardian, January 10, 2017 (“More than 600 businesses and investors signed and released a letter on Tuesday urging president-elect Donald Trump to fight climate change”); Insurance Bureau of Canada, Why You Should Factor Climate Change into Equity Selection, Advisor.ca, May 2, 2018:

“It’s apparent that extreme weather, as a result of climate change, is here to stay, and it’s no longer just an issue for the property and casualty insurance market. In fact, the entire financial sector needs to pay attention, notes Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

“Fortunately the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has created a blueprint on how to proceed,” adds Forgeron [President and CEO of IBC]. Forgeron points to the recommendations of the TCFD (also known as the Carney-Bloomberg report) that outline the information that companies should disclose to help investors, lenders and insurance underwriters understand how they are managing climate-related risks and opportunities.

Governments should also disclose information about their efforts to mitigate climate risk, Forgeron says. Investments in municipal infrastructure, improvements in building codes and more stringent land-use planning all reduce risk and have an impact on investment and underwriting decisions.

“Because climate-risk disclosure is so complex, many companies, and even investors can’t envision all the scenarios at play,” … investment advisors and portfolio managers need to start asking companies tough questions before including them in a client’s portfolio. Ask: “What analysis have you done to identify your potential risk relative to climate change and extreme weather events, whether that’s a flood, fire or hail impact? What are you doing in response to mitigate risk and maintain continuity of business operations?”

And if that company is dependent on another for supplies, [Blair Feltmate of the Intact Center on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo] suggests asking, “How vulnerable is your operation to just-in-time delivery? Do you have a backup plan?” He adds a company must be wary of any asset it has that could be susceptible to climate risk, which could, in turn, affect returns.”

[8] For example: Edward Lawler, Corporate Stewardship, Forbes, September 22, 2015; Insight Report, The Global Risks Report 2017 (12^th ed), World Economic Forum, January 2017. For example, see: Jennifer Epstein and Justin Sink, What’s Next: Who Gets Hit When U.S. Resumes Iran Sanctions, Bloomberg, May 8, 2018 (“…companies must wind down holdings of … likely to scuttle billions of dollars of deals … all the uncertainty will have a potentially devastating chilling effect on business …”); David Meyer, These 6 Companies Have a Lot to Fear from Trump’s Iran Sanctions, Fortune, May 9, 2018; Brigham McCown, What Companies Need to Know About Trump’s Iran Decision, Forbes, May 8, 2018:

“President Donald Trump announced today his intention to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly referred to as the “Iran Deal” or the “Iran Nuclear Deal”, thus reversing an agreement made by the Obama Administration. …

The President’s decision will have significant implications on businesses. Reimposition of sanctions will automatically “snap back” thereby essentially giving businesses 90 or 180 days to unwind business relationships in the country, depending upon their exact categories. As the JCPOA was initially constructed, negotiators were concerned the UN Security Council would never agree to reimpose sanctions which is why the language was constructed in such a way that makes reimposition of sanctions automatic. The Security Council would have to affirmatively vote not to continue lifting the sanctions. It is not clear however what would occur if another country were to walk away from the deal because negotiators always assumed Iran would be the only one to breach the agreement.

One thing is for certain however, and that is that the U.S. will, absent a new agreement, reinstitute sanctions which gives the administration significant leverage. Reimposition of sanctions prohibits any U.S. company from doing business with Iran. More importantly, these sanctions cut off access to U.S. markets for third parties that do business with Iran. Those who attempt to do so absent a waiver could not only face severe Treasury fines, but their assets in the U.S. may be frozen or seized. Some analysts predict this decision will result in short term increases in global crude oil prices, others feel the decision will not significantly impact oil markets as the threat of U.S. withdrawal from JCPOA was already built into the price.

It is also worth noting the impacts of President Trump’s decision are not completely limited to U.S. companies. As alluded to above, these sanctions can potentially ban any company from conducting business in the U.S. or using the U.S. banking system if they or their European bank of choice conducts business with Iran.

According to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), these “secondary sanctions” would apply to other countries, including U.S. allies. It may very well be that secondary sanctions will severely punish any company that decides to continue doing business with Iran. Under this scenario, any company could lose the ability to do business in the U.S., essentially cutting off U.S. markets to foreign companies.”

[9] G-Zero, NPR.org, January 7, 2011. Also see, Top Risks for 2011: G-Zero tops the list, Eurasia Group.net, January 4, 2011:

“1 – The G-Zero: We are entering the era of G-Zero, a world order in which no country or bloc of countries has the political and economic leverage to drive an international agenda. The US lacks the resources to continue as primary provider of public goods, and rising powers are too preoccupied with problems at home to welcome the burdens that come with international leadership. As a result, economic efficiency will be reduced and serious conflicts will arise.”

[10] See, Eric Sigurdson, Global Populism: Corporate Strategy, Engagement & Leadership in 2017 – ‘the year of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, January 18, 2017.

[11] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018. For example see: Danielle Paquette, Bernie Sanders has a new plan to raise wages: Save the unions, Washington Post, May 9, 2018; Mike Elk, Bernie Sanders introduces Senate bill protecting employees fired for union organizing: the Workplace Democracy Act; The Guardian, May 9, 2018; Annie Lowry, A Promise So Big, Democrats Aren’t Sure How to Keep It – Progressives are lining up behind a jobs guarantee, but leaving the details for later, The Atlantic, May 11, 2018; Bob Bryan, Bernie Sanders has a new plan to raise wages, and it’s a major signal on where the Democratic Party is headed, Business Insider, May 9, 2018:

“Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced a plan that he says will boost wages by strengthening labor unions. Sanders’ Workplace Democracy Act would make it easier for workers to join unions and strengthen unions’ negotiating power.

The plan is cosponsored by an array of Democratic lawmakers, including possible 2020 presidential hopefuls Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Sanders, an independent and a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, said the plan was designed to help workers in the middle class. Sanders said the reforms would give workers more power and help boost lackluster wage growth in the US.

“Declining unionization has fueled rising inequality,” Sanders said. “Today, corporate profits are at an all-time high, while wages as a percentage of the economy are near an all-time low. The middle class is disappearing, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider.”

[12] Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist, The World In.com, 2016.

[13] David Lipton, Trust and the Future of Multilateralism, IMF Blog: Insights and Analysis on Economic & Finance, May 10, 2018.

[14] Anna Yukhananov (Reuters), Wealth Redistribution Doesn’t Hurt the Economy: IMF Paper, Huffington Post, February 26, 2014;

[15] Joseph Stiglitz, Inequality: Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%, Vanity Fair, May 2011; Anna Yukhananov (Reuters), Wealth Redistribution Doesn’t Hurt the Economy: IMF Paper, Huffington Post, February 26, 2014;

[16] Era Dabla-Norris, Kalpana Kochhar, Frantisek Ricka, Nujin Suphaphiphat, and Evridiki Tsounta, Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective, International Monetary Fund, June 2015; J.D. Ostry,  A. Berg, and C. Tsangarides, Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth (IMF Staff Discussion Note 14/02),  International Monetary Fund, 2014; A. Berg, and J. D. Ostry, Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? ( IMF Staff Discussion Note 11/08), International Monetary Fund, 2011.

[17] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018; Ben Schiller, How Demographics, Automation and Inequality will shape the next decade: A new report says that by 2030, 25% of jobs will be automated – and without government intervention, income inequality will get even worse, Fast Company, February 21, 2018.

[18] Joe Kaeser, Technology, Society, and the Digital Transformation, LinkedIn, April 26, 2018.

[19] Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018. Also see, 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[20] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[21] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world):

“An organization’s financial performance appears to be linked to its citizenship record. Watchdog groups have created hundreds of CSR and “best places to work” indexes, including Fortune’s Most Admired Company list, the Dow Jones Social Responsibility Index, and many others. A new meta-study found a direct correlation between CSR index ranking and profitability, and a longitudinal study of purpose-focused companies found that they outperformed their S&P 500 peers by a factor of eight.

The investment community is paying attention. A study of 22,000 investment professionals found that 78 percent have increased their investments in CSR-focused firms. Some investors also evaluate organizations through online rating platforms such as Glassdoor, understanding that employment brand correlates directly with the quality of hiring and retention.”

Schroders’ Global investor study: Global perspectives on sustainable investing, Schroders.com, 2017, pp. 3–7.

[22] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016; Linda Fisher Thornton, Trust: The Force That Drives Results, Leading in Context.com, May 23, 2018.

[23] Adam Winkler, Corporate Political Conscience: why big business is suddenly into liberal politics, The New Republic, April 30, 2018; Laurence Fink (Chairman and CEO, BlackRock), Larry Fink’s Annual Letter to CEOS: A Sense of Purpose, BlackRock.com, January 2018; Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018; Matt Turner, Here is the letter the world’s largest investor, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, just sent to CEOs everywhere, Business Insider, February 2, 2016. – The letter focuses on short-termism both in corporate America and Europe, but also in politics, and asks CEOs to better articulate their plans for the future. Also see, Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016; David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017; Peter Smith, Big investors have gunmakers in their sights: shareholders force Sturm Ruger to monitor and report on violence, Financial Times May 14, 2018.

[24] Nicole Gibillini, ‘A dramatically-changed world’: Charles Bronfman on NAFTA, cannabis, and today’s business climate, BNN Bloomberg, May 14, 2018.

[25] Christine Lagarde, There’s a reason for the lack of trust in government and business: corruption, The Guadian, May 4, 2018. Also see, 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report, Edelman.com.

[26] BBC Global Survey: A World Divided?, Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute (IPSOS.com), April 23, 2018 (global Ipsos MORI study, carried out in 27 countries, for the BBC highlights the extent to which people think their society is divided). Also see, Alexa Larieri, Survey: Majority of People Around the World Feel Divided, U.S. News, April 25, 2018.

[27] Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016; Editorial Board, The Patriotic Response to Populism, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Oscar Williams-Grut, Brexit and Trump are just the start – populism will strike Europe next, Business Insider, November 10, 2016; Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017. [Originally published in The Conversation.com: Andrew Cumbers, New index of economic marginalisation helps explain Trump, Brexit, and alt.right, The Conversation, January 12, 2017]:

“A new mood of intolerance, xenophobia and protectionist economics seems to be in the air.

In a world of zero-hour contracts, Uber, Deliveroo and the gig economy, access to decent work and a sustainable family income remains the main fault line between the winners and losers from globalisation.

Drill into the voter data behind Brexit and Trump and they have much to do with economically marginalised voters in old industrial areas, from South Wales to Nord-Pas-de-Calais, from Tyneside to Ohio and Michigan.

These voters’ economic concerns about industrial closures, immigrants and businesses decamping to low-wage countries seemed ignored by a liberal elite espousing free trade, flexible labour and deregulation. They turned instead to populist “outsiders” with simplistic yet ultimately flawed political and economic narratives.”

[28] Apple CEO: Cooperation to eliminate inequality, deeply encouraged by China’s progress, Medium, March 25, 2018.

[29] Chance Miller, Tim Cook encourages fearlessness, echoes Steve Jobs during Duke commencement, 9to5Mac.com, May 13, 2018; Kif Leswing, Apple CEO Tim Cook tells Duke grads that technology has made this ‘the best time in history to be alive’, Business Insider, May 13, 2018.

[30] The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[31] Note: Statistics show that globalization and trade have created growth, promoted competitiveness and efficiency, cut poverty and global inequality, and narrowed the gap between emerging economies and the rich world. Overall, global prosperity is at its highest point in a decade. But globalization and trade feature prominently in anti-establishment sentiment in Western democracies because the benefits of growth have been unequally experienced. (Evidence compiled by economist Branko Milanovic shows that those people between the 75th and 90th percentiles of the global income distribution have been the non-winners from globalization.7 Meanwhile, the richest have made the biggest gains, especially since the global financial crisis: in the United States, between 2009 and 2012, the incomes of the top 1% grew by more than 31%, compared with less than 0.5% for the remaining 99% of the population. Middle-class income stagnation is particularly affecting youth: recent research shows that 540 million young people across advanced economies face the prospect of growing up to be poorer than their parents).

Alongside globalization, technological change has dramatically affected many people’s sense of economic security. Traditional manufacturing hubs in advanced economies have been hollowed out by a combination of labour-saving technology and outsourcing. Technology has historically been a net creator of jobs, but new jobs do not necessarily materialize quickly or in the same locations as jobs that have been displaced: economist Diane Coyle has argued that one of the drivers of current political disaffection in post-industrial regions is that job losses have eroded whole communities. [The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017]

[32] The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[33] The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[34] Erik Sherman, 7 Billionaires Worried about Income Inequality, Fortune, November 28, 2015.

[35] Darren Walker, What’s next for the Ford Foundation?, Ford Foundation.org, June 11, 2015 (“inequality, in one form or another, is coded into just about every one of our social ills. Research demonstrates that extreme inequality weakens economic growth and undermines the social cohesion of societies”); Michael Posner, Fighting income inequality: the role business can play, Conversation, May 24, 2016.

[36] Robert Reich, How Capitalism is Killing Democracy: Free markets were supposed to lead to free societies. Instead, today’s supercharged global economy is eroding the power of the people in democracies around the globe. Welcome to a world where the bottom line trumps the common good and government takes a back seat to big business, Foreign Policy, October 12, 2009.

[37] For example: Brian Fung and Tony Romm, AT&T CEO: Hiring Cohen as a consultant was a ‘big mistake’, Washington Post, May 11, 2018:

“AT&T’s chief executive said Friday that his company made a “serious misjudgment” to seek advice from President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen and announced that its top lobbying executive in Washington would be leaving the firm.

“Our company has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons these last few days and our reputation has been damaged,” AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson wrote in a companywide internal email. “There is no other way to say it — AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake.”

The email comes at a critical time for AT&T. A judge is deciding whether its controversial $85 billion merger with Time Warner violates antitrust law. Internal AT&T documents obtained by The Washington Post show how AT&T agreed to pay $600,000 to Cohen last year in exchange for guidance on policy matters, including issues it is facing at the Federal Communications Commission and its proposed deal with Time Warner.

Stephenson’s apology was also an extraordinary admission from a company that has long run one of Washington’s largest and most sophisticated lobbying shops and donates millions of dollars each year to hundreds of candidates on both sides of the aisle. Last year, AT&T spent nearly $17 million on federal lobbying, the third-highest among companies. …

I think this is all showing or highlighting some of the public’s worst fears when it comes to how Washington, D.C., works and the numerous gaps in the system, and how elections and even policy are driven by those with deep pockets and those with the biggest bullpen of lobbyists, [Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight] said.”

[38] See for example: Andrew Prokop, 40 charts that explain money in politics, Vox, July 30, 2014; Paul Blumenthal, Return on Lobbying Investment: 22,000%, Sunlight Foundation.com, April 9, 2009, Also see, Ian Traynor, 30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?, The Guardian, May 8, 2014; George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017; James Hohmann, The Daily 202: Mick Mulvaney’s confession highlights the corrosive influence of money in politics, Washington Post, April 25, 2018; David Graham, Mick Mulvaney Says the Quiet Part Out Loud – head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau tells it like it is: if you want access to policymakers, it’s helpful to donate lots of money, The Atlantic, April 25, 2018; Renae Merle, Mulvaney discloses ‘hierarchy’ for meeting lobbyists, saying some would be seen only if they paid, Washington Post, April 25, 2018.

[39] Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018. Also see, Brook Larmer, Busted Leaders, Boosted Economies?, New York Times, May 2, 2018; Eliza Relman, ‘This puts a target on his back’: Ethics experts say the FBI should investigate Trump’s budget director for pay for play, Business Insider, April 25, 2018:

“Ethics experts say Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget director and interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, should be investigated for potentially violating federal bribery laws after he admitted that, as a congressman, he only gave meetings to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

Speaking before 1,300 financial industry executives at the American Bankers Association conference in Washington on Tuesday, Mulvaney encouraged the officials to use their money to influence policymaking. …

Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s top ethics lawyer, told Business Insider that Mulvaney’s admission that he exchanged money for access “puts a target on his back.”

As a congressman, Mulvaney received $63,000 in campaign contributions from payday lenders, and since taking over at the CFPB he has loosened regulations on the payday lending industry, which has been accused of engaging in predatory practices.

Earlier this year, Mulvaney ended the CFPB’s investigation into a South Carolina-based lender, World Acceptance Corporation, that donated $4,500 to Mulvaney’s congressional campaigns, the Times reported.”

[40] For example, see: Tara Francis Chan, A Chinese-Australian billionaire funded UN bribes investigated by the FBI, an Australian politician alleges, Business Insider, May 22, 2018; Kate Ferguson, ‘Some Russians think they own Britain’: Senior Tory MP slams Government for failing to tackle Moscow’s dirty money flowing through London, Daily Mail, May 20, 2018; Editorial, Money and politics: How to end the corruption and conflict of interest, Globe and Mail, editorial, April 8, 2016 (updated March 24, 2017); John Geddes, How scandal has become ingrained in our political way of life: when it comes to corruption, Canadian brace for the worst, MacLean’s, November 28, 2013; Lisa Sammartion, BC Needs a Big Money Corruption Inquiry, Fast: did major donors to BC Liberals reap favours harming the public interest, The Tyee.ca, July 24, 2017; Tim Roemer and Zach Wamp, John McCain’s warning about dark money is real. Stop campaign finance corruption, USA Today, May 8, 2018:

“According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a secretive, corrupting campaign finance system is at the root of political dysfunction dividing Americans across the country — and he says Congress better fix it. He candidly writes in his forthcoming memoir, The Restless Wave, that non-profit social welfare organizations — the 501(c)(4)s that hide their donors and fight to keep them secret — “are often financed by one or two of several billionaires” who yield enormous influence.”

Steve Peoples, Michael Bloomberg, An ‘epidemic of dishonesty’ in Washington is threatening democracy, Business Insider:

“When elected officials speak as though they are above the truth, they will act as though they are above the law,” Bloomberg told Rice graduates. “And when we tolerate dishonesty, we get criminality. Sometimes, it’s in the form of corruption. Sometimes, it’s abuse of power. And sometimes, it’s both.”

[41] Kim Willsher, Nicolas Sarkozy to face trial for corruption and influence peddling: Ex President allegedly tried to bribe judge investigating claims 2007 election campaign was illegally funded, The Guardian, March 29, 2018.

[42] Isabel Kershner, Benjamin Netanyahu Is Questioned in 3^rd Corruption Case in Israel, New York Times, March 2, 2018; Oren Liebermann and James Masters, Israeli police find ‘sufficient evidence’ to indict Benjamin Netanyahu, CNN, February 13, 2018.

[43] Norimitsu Onishi, Jacob Zuma Appears in Court for South Africa Corruption Trial, New York Times, April 6, 2018.

[44] Dom Philips, Brazil’s ex-president Lula sentenced to nearly 10 years in prison for corruption, The Guardian, July 12, 2017; Rafael Romo and Flora Charner, Brazil court upholds Lula da Silva conviction, CNN, January 24, 2018; Whitney Eulich, In Brazil, support for anti-corruption drive – and the president it convicted, Christian Science Monitor, April 10, 2018.

[45] Eun-Young Jeong, South Korea’s Former President Park Geun-Hye Is Jailed for 24 Years: Park was ousted last year following an investigation into a corruption scandal that triggered mass protests, Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2018.

[46] Christine Lagarde, There’s a reason for the lack of trust in government and business: corruption, The Guadian, May 4, 2018. Also see, 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report, Edelman.com.

[47] Quint Forgey, Tillerson warns of ethical crisis among U.S. leaders in speech, Politico, May 16, 2018; Tom McCarthy, Rex Tillerson warns of ‘integrity and ethics crisis’ – but doesn’t name trump: urges graduates to resist ‘leaders [who] seek to conceal the truth, The Guardian, May 16, 2018; Gardiner Harris, In Rebuke to Trump, Tillerson Says Lies are a Threat to Democracy, New York Times, May 16, 2018; Steve Peoples, Michael Bloomberg, An ‘epidemic of dishonesty’ in Washington is threatening democracy, Business Insider.

[48] Oscar Williams-Grut, Brexit and Trump are just the start – populism will strike Europe next, Business Insider, November 10, 2016.

[49] Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States (1933-1945), Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies, April 29, 1938, The American Presidency Project (presidency.ucsb.edu).

[50] The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[51] The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[52] Adam Winkler, Corporate Political Conscience: why big business is suddenly into liberal politics, The New Republic, April 30, 2018; Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018. Also see, Laurence Fink (Chairman and CEO, BlackRock), Larry Fink’s Annual Letter to CEOS: A Sense of Purpose, BlackRock.com, January 2018.

[53] David Moss, Fixing What’s Wrong with U.S. Politics, Harvard Business Review, March 2012.

[54] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[55] Josh Bersin, The Rise of the Social Enterprise: A New Paradigm for Business, LinkedIn, April 3, 2018; Rajendra Sisodia, David Wolfe, and Jagdish Sheth, Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose, Prentice Hall Publishing, 2007.

[56] Rob Peters, Standard of Trust Leadership: A Clear Business Case for Trust (Part 1), Medium.com, February 1, 2016.

[57] Anita Balakrishnan, Apple CEO Tim Cook says he plans to groom as many successors as possible, CNBC.com, October 24, 2017 (“we stay out of politics … we do engage on policy discussion”); Lenny Mendonca, California must lead, not secede, San Francisco Chronicle, December 18, 2016; Matthew Panzarino, Tim Cook explains to Apple employees why he met with President-elect Trump, TechCrunch.com, December 19, 2016; Rachel Premack, The CEO of LinkedIn warned that 20-somethings will face 2 defining issues, and it’s u to them to reverse the tide, Business Insider, May 17, 2018:

“Jeff Weiner, who became CEO of LinkedIn in 2008, also warned graduates from his alma mater about two emerging trends that could have “have serious consequences on society.” The first was socio-economic stratification. The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer. “It’s already hovering at historic highs and threatens to get even worse as new technologies potentially displace millions of people from their jobs,” Weiner said. “When people lose access to economic opportunity, they become disenfranchised and that can have serious consequences on society.”

[58] Mathew Dunckley, Telstra chairman John Mullen rips into critics, Future Fund chairman, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 26, 2016;

[59] Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018.

[60] Matthew Panzarino, Tim Cook explains to Apple employees why he met with President-elect Trump, TechCrunch.com, December 19, 2016; Kif Leswing, Tim Cook finally reveals what he and President Trump talked about behind closed doors last month, Business Insider, May 15, 2018.

[61] Condoleezza Rice and Amy Zegart, Managing 21^st-Century Political Risk, Harvard Business Review, May-June 2018.

[62] Condoleezza Rice and Amy Zegart, Managing 21^st-Century Political Risk, Harvard Business Review, May-June 2018.

[63] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016. Also see, for example: Ian Davis, Business and Society: The biggest contract – building social issues into strategy, big business can recast the debate about its role, The Economist, May 26, 2005.

[64] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016. Also see, for example: Ian Davis, Business and Society: The biggest contract – building social issues into strategy, big business can recast the debate about its role, The Economist, May 26, 2005.

[65] Company stakeholders: A stakeholder is a party that has an interest in a company, and can either affect or be affected by the business. The primary stakeholders in a typical corporation are its investors, employees and customers. However, the modern theory of the idea goes beyond this original notion to include additional stakeholders such as a community, government or trade association. [Investopedia.com and Wikipedia]

Primary Stakeholders – usually internal stakeholders, are those that engage in economic transactions with the business. (For example stockholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees).

Secondary Stakeholders – usually external stakeholders, are those who – although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the business – are affected by or can affect its actions (for example the general public, government, communities, activist groups, business support groups, and the media).

[66] See, Eric Sigurdson, General Counsel, Chief Legal Officers & In-House Counsel: Five New Year’s Resolutions – Leadership, Operations, Metrics, Technology, and External Counsel, Sigurdson Post, December 13, 2016.

[67] See, Eric Sigurdson, Global Populism: Corporate Strategy, Engagement & Leadership in 2017 – ‘the year of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, January 18, 2017.

[68] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016; David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017.

[69] David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017; David R. Beatty, Are You Getting all you can from your Board of Directors, LinkedIn.com, January 17, 2017.

[70] Dylan Schleicher, Excerpts: Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism, 800 CEO Read (inthebooks.800ceoread.com), May 3, 2018.

[71] For example, see: Tony Romm, Craig Timberg, and Michael Birnbaum, Europe, not the U.S., is now the most powerful regulator of Silicon Valley, Washington Post, May 25, 2018.

[72] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018.

[73] For example: Social protection systems: (a) untethering health and income protection from individual employers or jobs (i.e. similar to Canada, Europe), (b) revamping pension models in line with the new realities of work and ageing, (c) implementing policies to increase ‘fexicurity’ (employer given access to flexible labour force while providing individuals with security of safety net and active help in securing employment), (d) implementing alternative models of income distribution (i.e. negative income tax, wage supplements, universal basic income),(e) providing greater support for working into old age. [The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017].

[74] Matthew Stewart, The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy: the class divide is already toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable, The Atlantic, June 2018.

[75] Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Is leadership the key to tackling inequality?, World Economic Forum.org, February 5, 2016; Steven Pressman, Why inequality is the most important economic challenge facing the next president, Conversation, October 16, 2016; The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[76] Liz Kennedy, Campaign Spending Limits Protect our Democracy from Corruption, U.S. News, October 7, 2013 (“Funding for our elections is already dominated by a tiny elite donor class. According to the Sunlight Foundation, 84 percent of the members of Congress elected in 2012 received more money from the 1 percent of the 1 percent than from all of their small donors combined”); Andrew Prokop, 40 charts that explain money in politics, Vox, July 30, 2014; Steve Goodrich, Take Back Control: How big money undermines trust in politics, Transparency International UK, October 2016; Duncan Hames, British politics is in the pocket of big money. And the EU vote was no exception, The Guardian, October 7, 2018; Gareth Hutchens, Labor senator Sam Dastyari claims 10 companies have taken control of Australian politics, Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2016; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016 (“small number of allied plutocrats”); Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016 (“weaponizing of philanthropy”); Adam Lioz, Breaking the Vicious Cycle, Demos, 2015; Adam Lioz and Karen Shanton, The Money Chase: Moving from Big Money Dominance in the 2014 Midterms to a Small Donor Democracy, Demos.org, January 14, 2015; Anu Narayanswamy, Chris Alcantara, and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Meet the wealthy donors pouring millions into the 2018 elections, Washington Post, Updated May 15, 2018.

[77] Note: by potentially exposing Western democracies to ‘political capture’ – public policy implemented to benefit private interests.

[78] Business Leaders for Democracy, IssueOne.org.

[79] Lee Drutman, The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate, Oxford University Press, 2015; Lee Drutman, How Corporations turned into political beasts, Business Insider, April 25, 2015; Lee Drutman, A Better Way to Rein in Lobbying, New York Times, April 24, 2015.

[80] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[81] David Moss, Fixing What’s Wrong with U.S. Politics, Harvard Business Review, March 2012.

[82] See, Eric Sigurdson, Global Populism: Corporate Strategy, Engagement & Leadership in 2017 – ‘the year of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, January 18, 2017.

[83] 5 Studies on the Benefits of the Purpose-Driven Workplace, Ideou.com.

[84] Larry Fink (Chairman and CEO at Blackrock), LinkedIn, January 2018 [www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6359049732697972737].

[85] Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018. Also see, 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[86] Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018. Also see, Laurence Fink (Chairman and CEO, BlackRock), Larry Fink’s Annual Letter to CEOS: A Sense of Purpose, BlackRock.com, January 2018; Richard Feloni and Matt Turner, JPMorgan will invest $1.75 billion into American communities – and the CEO says it’s good for business, Business Insider, February 16, 2018:

“When asked what he thought about BlackRock CEO Larry Fink’s recent, popular letter about the need for companies to benefit society in some way, [JPMorgan CEO] Dimon said he’s always held that view. The way he sees it, creating value in the communities where JPMorgan Chase operates is not only philanthropic, it’s good for business. When these communities have small business owners and employees flourishing, his company also benefits.”

[87] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[88] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[89] Douglas Beal, Robert Eccles, Gerry Hansell, Rich Lesser Shalini Unnikrsihnan, Wendy Woods, David Young, Total Societal Impact: A New Lens for Strategy, The Boston Consulting Group, October 2017. Also see, Dominic Barton, James Manyika, Tim Koller, Robert Palter, Jonathan Godsall, and Josh Zoffer, Where companies with a long-term view outperform their peers, McKinsey Global Institute, February 2017; Dominic Barton, James Manyika, Tim Koller, Robert Palter, Jonathan Godsall, and Josh Zoffer, Measuring the Economic Impact of Short-Termism: Discussion Paper, McKinsey Global Institute, February 2017;  Matt Turner, Here is the letter the world’s largest investor, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, just sent to CEOs everywhere, Business Insider, February 2, 2016; Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Message: Contribute to Society, or Risk Losing our Support, New York Times, January 15, 2018; World Economic Forum in Davos out to heal ‘a fractured world’, Deutsche Welle (DW.com), January 23, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018. Also see, 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[90] Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership: most CEOs and Boards believe their main duty is to maximize shareholder value. It’s not, Harvard Business Review, May-June 2017.

[91] 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[92] Dominic Barton, Capitalism for the Long Term, Harvard Business Review, March 2011.

[93] For example, see: Imagining Canada’s Economy Without Immigration, Conference Board of Canada (conferenceboard.ca), May 15, 2018; Jessica Chin, Study Imagines Canada Without Immigration. It’s Not Pretty – By 2034, immigration will account for 100 per cent of Canada’s population growth, Huffington Post, May 16, 2018;

[94] The Global Risks Report 2017 (12 edition), World Economic Forum, 2017.

[95] David Moss, Fixing What’s Wrong with U.S. Politics, Harvard Business Review, March 2012.

[96] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016.

[97] Per-Ola Karlsson, DeAnne Aguirre, and Kristin Rivera, Are CEOs Less Ethical Than in the Past?, Strategy and Business, May 15, 2017. Also see, Ivy Walker, Ethikos Classic: Following the Boss’s Orders Might Land You in Jail, Compliance and Ethics.org, May 23, 2017 (reprinted from Classic Ethikos, The Journal of Practical Business Ethics, July/August 2016); Michael Hiltzik, At United Airlines and Wells Fargo, toxic corporate culture starts with the CEO, Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2017;  Susan Ochs, The Leadership Blind Spots at Wells Fargo, Harvard Business Review, October 6, 2016 (“The post-scandal scrutiny of Wells Fargo’s culture has so far focused on the high-pressure sales environment that drove employees to create as many as two million fake accounts. Former employees have alleged a “soul-crushing” culture of fear and daily intimidation by managers, where they were pressured to reach extreme sales goals, some by breaking the law.”).

[98] M. Lipton, Some Thoughts for Boards of Directors in 2016, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, December 2015.

[99] M. Lipton, Some Thoughts for Boards of Directors in 2017, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, December 2016.

[100] Dominic Barton, Capital for the Long Term, Harvard Business Review, March 2011. M. Lipton, Some Thoughts for Boards of Directors in 2018, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, November 2017:

“The primacy of shareholder value as the exclusive objective of corporations, as articulated by Milton Friedman and then thoroughly embraced by Wall Street, has come under scrutiny by regulators, academics, politicians and even investors. While the corporate governance initiatives of the past year cannot be categorized as an abandonment of the shareholder primacy agenda, there are signs that academic commentators, legislators and some investors are looking at more nuanced and tempered approaches to creating shareholder value.

In his 2013 book, Firm Commitment: Why the Corporation is Failing Us and How to Restore Trust in It, and a series of brilliant articles and lectures, Colin Mayer of the University of Oxford has convincingly rejected shareholder value primacy and put forth proposals to reconceive the business corporation so that it is committed to all its stakeholders, including the community and the general economy. His new book, Prosperity: Better Business Makes the Greater Good, to be published by Oxford University Press in 2018, continues the theme of his earlier publications and will be required reading.”

[101] Dominic Barton and Mark Wiseman, Focusing Capital on the Long Term, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2014.

[102] Douglas Elmendorf and Nitin Nohria, Restoring Trust in Leadership, Project Syndicate.org, January 29, 2018. [Douglas Elmendorf is Dean and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Nitin Nohria is Dean at Harvard Business School.]

[103] David Wilkinson, The New Leaders Paradigm, Oxford Review, May 17, 2018.

[104] Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017.

[105] Michael Goldfien and Michael Woolslayer, Trump, the Brexit, and the Fraying of the Western Diplomatic Consensus, Huffington Post, June 21, 2017 (updated from June 20, 2016):

“For 70 years, the United States and the United Kingdom have been at the core of the most successful transnational political and ideological bloc since the Roman Empire. Even as Britain’s hard power has waned, London’s role as a liberal force in European politics and a cultural heavyweight has allowed it to be perhaps America’s greatest ally in upholding the current rule- and trade-based international system. That system is fundamentally based on the proposition that international engagement, rather than isolation, is the best path to peace and prosperity. That so many in the United States and the United Kingdom question this proposition, as evidenced by the strong support for Donald Trump and a possible Brexit, is a worrisome sign for the international order indeed.”

[106] Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017;

[107] Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Penguin Group, 2012.

[108] Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Tim Dunlop, Three things must change for a healthier democracy, ABC.net.au, October 17, 2014. Also see, for example: Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016; Daniel Ben-Ami, Book Review: ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, Financial Times, March 11, 2016; Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016; Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016:

“Charles and David Koch, the enormously rich proprietors of an oil company based in Kansas, decided that they would spend huge amounts of money to elect conservatives at all levels of American government. David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, but when the campaign was over, he resolved never to seek public office again. That wouldn’t be necessary, he and his brother concluded; they could invest in the campaigns of others, and essentially buy their way to political power.

Thirty years later, the midterm elections of 2010 ushered in the political system that the Kochs had spent so many years plotting to bring about. After the voting that year, Republicans dominated state legislatures; they controlled a clear majority of the governorships; they had taken one chamber of Congress and were on their way to winning the other. Perhaps most important, a good many of the Republicans who had won these offices were not middle-of-the-road pragmatists. They were antigovernment libertarians of the Kochs’ own political stripe. The brothers had spent or raised hundreds of millions of dollars to create majorities in their image. They had succeeded. And not merely at the polls: They had helped to finance and organize an interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets that far exceeded anything the liberal opposition could put together.

It is this conservative ascendancy that Jane Mayer chronicles in “Dark Money.” The book is written in straightforward and largely unemotional prose, but it reads as if conceived in quiet anger. Mayer believes that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy, using their money not just to compete with their political adversaries, but to drown them out. …

What were all these organizations and donors promoting, other than the election of Republican candidates to office? Free-market orthodoxy, to start with. “Market principles have changed my life,” Charles Koch declared in the 1990s, “and guide everything I do.” That seems as true in 2016 as it was when he said it. Closely related to free-market faith is the hatred of regulation, federal, state or local. “We should not cave in the moment a regulator sets foot on our doorstep,” Charles once wrote. “Do not cooperate voluntarily; instead, resist wherever and to whatever extent you legally can.”

This ideology helps to explain one of the most important Koch crusades of recent years: the fight to prevent action against climate change. The Koch-sponsored advocacy group Americans for Prosperity has been at the forefront of climate-change opposition over the past decade. When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 2011, Americans for Prosperity lobbied lawmakers to support a “no climate tax” pledge, and by the time Congress convened that year, 156 House and Senate members had signed on.”

Tim Roemer and Zach Wamp, John McCain’s warning about dark money is real. Stop campaign finance corruption, USA Today, May 8, 2018:

“According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a secretive, corrupting campaign finance system is at the root of political dysfunction dividing Americans across the country — and he says Congress better fix it. He candidly writes in his forthcoming memoir, The Restless Wave, that non-profit social welfare organizations — the 501(c)(4)s that hide their donors and fight to keep them secret — “are often financed by one or two of several billionaires” who yield enormous influence.”

[109] Matthew Yglesias, American democracy is doomed, Vox, October 8, 2015; David Moss, Fixing What’s Wrong with U.S. Politics, Harvard Business Review, March 2012.

[110] As noted by the New York Times, “if you think globalization, immigration, trade and demographic change have contributed to displacement and political anger, wait until robots take away millions and millions of jobs, including those requiring the use of a well-trained brain” [Anand Giridharadas, When Technology Sets off a Populist Revolt, New York Times, August 29, 2016].  Until recently, technology has been an often overlooked—but significant—factor, and going forward you can expect technology to change the economy even more than globalization [Simon Veazey, The Impact of Technology’s Invisible Hand, Epoch Times, October 28, 2016; Hadi Partovi, A trillion-dollar opportunity for America, LinkedIn, January 9, 2017]. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has noted that globalization and technology has “reinforced the shift away from lower-skilled jobs that require less education, to higher-skilled jobs that require college and advanced degrees,” and that “the jobs that globalization creates” – serving a global economy of billions of people – “are more likely to be filled by those who have secured the advantage of higher education” [Akin Oyedele, Trump could be looking at the job market all wrong, Business Insider, January 8, 2017].

[111] The economic inequality perspective — emphasizes the consequences for electoral behavior arising from profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies. There is overwhelming evidence of powerful trends toward greater income and wealth inequality in the West, based on the rise of the knowledge economy, technological automation, and the collapse of manufacturing industry, global flows of labor, goods, peoples, and capital (especially the inflow of migrants and refugees), the erosion of organized labor, shrinking welfare safety-nets, and neo-liberal austerity policies.  According to this view, rising economic insecurity and social deprivation among the left-behinds has fueled popular resentment of the political classes. This situation is believed to have made the less secure strata of society – low-waged unskilled workers, the long-term unemployed, households dependent on shrinking social benefits, residents of public housing, single-parent families, and poorer white populations living in inner-city areas with concentrations of immigrants– susceptible to the anti-establishment, nativist, and xenophobic scare-mongering exploited of populist movements, parties, and leaders, blaming ‘Them’ for stripping prosperity, job opportunities, and public services from ‘Us’. [Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016]. Also see, Suresh Naidu, Eric Posner, and Glen Weyl, More and more companies have monopoly power over workers’ wages. That’s killing the economy, Vox, April 6, 2018.

[112] Rana Dasgupta, The demise of the nation state, The Guardian, April 5, 2018. Also see, Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 (see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State, etc).

[113] Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 – see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State:

During the 1990s, a new class of globe-trotting economic elites emerged, enriched by the opportunities created by globalizing industrial firms, deregulated financial services, and new technology platforms. This new class is an order of magnitude richer in absolute terms than previous generations of the ultra-wealthy. …

The great fortunes of the late 19th and early 20th century were built on the backs of masses of worker-consumers in primarily inward-looking national contexts. By contrast, today’s plutocrats make their fortunes selling their goods and services globally— in real terms, therefore, their ongoing success is less connected to the fortunes of their fellow national citizens than was that of previous generations. Moreover, the two signature types of massive wealth accumulation in the early 21st century have been software and financial services—both industries that do not rely on masses of laborers, and whose productivity is, therefore, detached from the health of any particular national middle class. The result has been a dramatic rise in inequality within countries, even as wealth inequality transnationally has narrowed. …

The defining feature of plutocratic insurgency is the effort on the part of holders of this ideology to defund or de-provision public goods, in order to defang a state that they see as a threat to their prerogatives. Practically speaking, plutocratic insurgency takes the form of efforts to lower taxes, which necessitates the cutting of spending on public goods; to reduce regulations that restrict corporate action or that protect workers; and to defund or privatize public institutions, such as schools, health care, infrastructure, and social spaces. The political strategy associated with plutocratic insurgency is to use austerity in the face of economic shocks to rewrite social contracts on the basis of a much narrower set of mutual social obligations, with the ultimate effect of decollectivizing social risks. As a palliative for the loss of public goods and state-backed programs to improve public welfare, plutocratic insurgents typically promote the idea of philanthropy—directed toward ends defined not democratically but, naturally, by themselves. …

For plutocratic insurgents, this strategy is dictated at bottom by a raw cost-benefit analysis: the price the social modernist state asks them to pay in taxes and the regulatory burdens it imposes on them outweighs the benefit they believe they personally receive from living in such a state. Plutocratic insurgents believe they can afford (and, therefore, everyone should be required) to buy for themselves the sorts of goods that before required a state to provide. The need for state-provided security is reduced, as they live in gated communities; public transport is unnecessary for those who travel via personal jets and private bus fleets; public education seems an unnecessary expenditure for the class that already sends their children to exclusive (and expensive) schools. While each of these decisions may, at first, be motivated by lifestyle choices or a desire for social differentiation, the result is a progressive moral disinvestment and civic disengagement from the quality of these traditionally public services, especially as the habit of opting out of public services trickles down from the oligarchs to the upper middle classes. Leaving aside the matter of the undemocratic nature of such private services, or the adverse selection problems that arise from partial privatizations, what marks the arrival of plutocratic insurgency is when the rich begin to revolt against paying taxes for public services they never plan to use. The result is a reinforcing cycle, whereby plutocratic insurgents increasingly see no reason to contribute anything to their host societies, and indeed actively make war on the idea that citizenship imbues them with economic or social responsibilities.”

[114] For example, see: Daisuke Wakabayashi and Brian Chen, Apple, Capitalizing on New Tax Law, Plans to Bring Billions in Cash Back to U.S., New York Times, January 17, 2018 (94% of Apple’s total cash of $269 billion held outside of the U.S., its home country); Gabriel Zucman, How Corporations and the Wealthy Avoid Taxes (and How to Stop Them), New York Times, November 10, 2017.

[115] Robert Cribb and Marco Chown Oved, Panama Papers revelations have already delivered results: laying bare the secretive world of offshore finance, reports detailed the secretive flow of billions of dollars in a parallel offshore economy, The Toronto Star, December 11, 2016; FT View, Stranger than paradise: the truth about taxes, Financial Times, November 10, 2017; Juliette Garside, Paradise Papers leak reveals secrets of the world elite’s hidden wealth: files from offshore law firm show financial dealings of the Queen, big multinationals and members of Donald Trump’s cabinet, The Guardian, November 5, 2017.

[116] Rohitesh Dhawan and Sean West, The CEO as Chief Geopolitical Officer, KPMG.com, 2018. Also see, 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined, Global Justice Now, September 12, 2016. Also see, Robin Wigglesworth, Larry Fink identifies China as critical BlackRock priority, Financial Times, April 8, 2018; Nyshka Chandran, Hopes are high for China to announce market access reforms on Tuesday, CNBC, April 9, 2018. Also see for example only, Amazon corporation and its CEO Jeff Bezo: Flora Carr, Amazon Is Now More Valuable Than Microsoft and Only 2 Other Companies Are Worth More, Fortune, February 15, 2018; Kate Vinton, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is the Richest Person in the World, Forbes, October 27, 2017; Chris Isidore, Jeff Bezos is the richest person in history, CNN, January 9, 2018; Ben Schiller, Is Amazon Killing Jobs and Destroying Communities? At what cost does convenience come? A new report says it’s not just jobs, but the rest of the economy as well, Fast Company, December 2, 2016; Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell, Amazon’s Stranglehold: How the Company’s Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, November 2016.

[117] Robert Frank, Richest 1% now owns half the world’s wealth, CNBC, November 14, 2017; Benjamin Kentish, World’s richest 1% of people now own half global wealth, finds study, Independent.co.uk, November 14, 2017; David Meyer, The Richest 1% Now Own More Than 50% of the World’s Wealth, Fortune.com, November 14, 2017.

[118] Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world, Oxfam.org, January 16, 2017; Larry Elliott (economics editor), World’s eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%, The Guardian, January 16, 2017; Reuters, The World’s 8 Richest Men are Now as Wealthy as Half the World’s Population, Fortune.com, January 16, 2017.

[119] Noah Kirsch, The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% of the Country, Study Finds, Forbes, November 9, 2017. Also see: Christopher Ingraham, The richest 1 percent now owns more of the country’s wealth than at any time in the past 50 years, Washington Post, December 6, 2017.

[120] Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 – see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State. Also see, Chrystia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, Penguin Press, 2012.

[121] Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018:

“The United States is not alone in this big-money corruption but perhaps has become its world leader. Democracy around the world is being undermined not by a working-class backlash or resurgent nationalism but by money, a lot of it. With the world’s politics awash in money, several world leaders are currently charged with corruption, most recently France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and South Africa’s Jacob Zuma, with two more recently convicted: Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South Korea’s Park Geun-Hye.”

[122] Simon Lee, Common Good, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Britannica.com). Also see, for example: Professor Michael Sandel, Towards a just society, The Guadian, February 20, 2010.

[123] U.S.: George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017; Jacob Hacker and Nathan Loewentheil, How Big Money Corrupts the Economy, Democracy Journal.org, Winter 2013; Charles Wheelan, It’s Official: In America, Affluence Equals Influence, US News.com, April 22, 2014; Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018; Andrew Prokop, 40 charts that explain money in politics, Vox, July 30, 2014; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Dark Money as a Political Sovereignty Problem, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017; Alex Tausanovitch, NRA, Russia and Trump: How ‘dark money’ is poisoning American democracy, CNBC, February 15, 2018; Matt Kelly, It’s Harder to Pay Off Foreign Governments than the American One: Novartis would think twice before giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Vladimir Putin’s lawyer. But in Washington, the rules are different, BuzzFeed News, May 9, 2018.

UK: George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017; Duncan Hames, British politics is in the pocket of big money. And the EU vote was no exception, The Guardian, October 7, 2016; Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell, The truth about lobbying: 10 ways big business controls government, The Guardian, March 12, 2014; Carole Cadwalladr, ‘Dark money’ is threat to integrity of UK elections, say leading academics, The Guardian, April 1, 2017, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Dark Money as a Political Sovereignty Problem, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017.

Australia: Mike Steketee, Donations and democracy: how money is compromising our political system, ABC News (abc.net.au), July 2, 2015; Gareth Hutchens, Labor senator Sam Dastyari claims 10 companies have taken control of Australian politics, Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2016; Warwick Smith, Political donations corrupt democracy in ways you might not realise, The Guardian, September 11, 2014; Professor Iain McMenamin, No bribes please, we’re corrupt Australians, The Conversation, May 30, 2016.

EU: Ian Traynor, 30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?, The Guardian, May 8, 2014; Money, Politics, Power: Corruptions Risks in Europe, Transparency International (transparency.eu), 2012.

Canada: Nancy Macdonald, Welcome to British Columbia, where you ‘pay to play’, Maclean’s, February 11, 2017; Dan Levin, British Columbia: The ‘Wild West’ of Canadian Political Cash, New York Times, January 13, 2017; Ian Bailey, Donations taint B.C.’s approval of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion: advocacy group, Globe and Mail, January 31, 2017; Anver Emon, Foreign Dark Money Taints Canadian Parliamentary Proceeding, University of Toronto Faculty of Law (law.utoronto.ca), October 23, 2017.

[124] Andrew Prokop, 40 charts that explain money in politics, Vox, July 30, 2014; Paul Blumenthal, Return on Lobbying Investment: 22,000%, Sunlight Foundation.com, April 9, 2009, Also see, Ian Traynor, 30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?, The Guardian, May 8, 2014; George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017; James Hohmann, The Daily 202: Mick Mulvaney’s confession highlights the corrosive influence of money in politics, Washington Post, April 25, 2018; David Graham, Mick Mulvaney Says the Quiet Part Out Loud – head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau tells it like it is: if you want access to policymakers, it’s helpful to donate lots of money, The Atlantic, April 25, 2018; Renae Merle, Mulvaney discloses ‘hierarchy’ for meeting lobbyists, saying some would be seen only if they paid, Washington Post, April 25, 2018.

[125] Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018. Also see, Alexander Burns, Jasmine Lee, and Rachel Shorey, Billionaire vs. Billionaire: A Tug of War Between 2 Rogue Donors, New York Times, April 12, 2018:

“Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which supports stricter campaign-finance regulation, said [billionaire] Mr. Uihlein’s political role showed how big donors had come to overshadow traditional political parties.

“The parties are increasingly irrelevant,” Mr. Rothschild said. “Billionaires can just set up their own organizations and just dominate a political campaign.”

Mr. Uihlein has done that to a great degree in Wisconsin this year, Mr. Rothschild said, by giving $3.5 million to a super PAC supporting Kevin Nicholson, a Republican running for the Senate. Mr. Nicholson faces a contested primary against a fellow Republican who is backed by a different billionaire.

Mr. Rothschild said voters should not mistake the emergence of competing billionaires as a sign that the campaign finance system is basically stable and fair.

“Our democracy is not supposed to be a tug of war between a couple of billionaires on the left and a couple of billionaires on the right,” he said.”

Also see, Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016; Daniel Ben-Ami, Book Review: ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, Financial Times, March 11, 2016; Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016; Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Bruce Livesey, How Canada made the Koch brothers rich, National Observer, May 5, 2015; Gerald Caplan, Harper is Right: Foreign radicals are after the oil sands, Globe and Mail, May 26, 2012; Daniel Tencer, Koch Brothers, Tea Party Billionaires, Donated To Right-Wing Fraser Institute, Reports Show, Huffington Post, April 26, 2012; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016; Elizabeth McSheffrey, Are the billionaire American Koch brothers playing climate politics in Alberta?, National Observer, January 13, 2017.

[126] Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017. Also see, for example: James Bacchus, Might Unmakes Right: The American Assault on the Rule of Law in World Trade, Centre for International Governance Innovation (cigionline.org), May 2018.

[127] Sol Picciotto, Why tax avoidance is illicit, International Centre for Tax and Development (ictd.ac), May 10, 2018; Maya Forstater, Why illicit financial flows and multinational tax avoidance are not the same thing, International Centre for Tax and Development (ictd.ac), May 10, 2018.

[128] Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018; Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016. Alana Semuels, How to Stop Short-Term Thinking at America’s Companies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016. For discussion of short and long term strategy, and discussion re purpose of organization and duty to stakeholders (shareholders and public/society), also see: American Prosperity Project (an initiative spearheaded by the Aspen Institute – aspeninstitute.org – to encourage companies and the nation to engage in more long-term thinking):

“The American Prosperity Project is a nonpartisan framework for long-term investment to support our families and communities and reinvigorate the economy to create jobs and prosperity. There is no viable model under which either business or government can or should shoulder the responsibility for long-term investment alone; both are required.

The time is right for a national conversation about long-term investment in infrastructure, basic science, education and training for workers who feel the brunt of globalization and technology. We need to focus on the critical levers for economic growth along with sources of revenue to help pay for it, as well as ways to overcome the short-term thinking currently baked into government policy and business protocols.

The ideas offered here have been developed under the auspices of the Aspen Institute in consultation with a non-partisan working group of experts in public policy formation, tax and regulation, business, and corporate law and governance. …”

[129] Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Misconduct and the Normalization of Deviance: the importance of leadership, integrity and corporate culture (in the age of deception, cheating, and corruption), Sigurdson Post, March 31, 2018; Eric Sigurdson, Corporate and Government Scandals: A Crisis in Trust – integrity and leadership in the age of disruption, upheaval and globalization, Sigurdson Post, May 31, 2017. Also see, for example only, recent articles on Facebook: Avi Selk, ‘Maybe someone dies’: Facebook VP justified bullying, terrorism as costs of network’s ‘growth’, Washington Post, March 30, 2018; Alistair Smout and Costas Pitas, Facebook scandal widens to the Brexit leave campaign and targeted Trump voters, Financial Review, March 28, 2018; Alexis Madrigal, What Facebook Did to American Democracy, The Atlantic, October 12, 2017; Siva Vaidhyanathan, Op-ed: Facebook Wins, Democracy Loses, New York Times, September 8, 2017; Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018:

“The United States is not alone in this big-money corruption but perhaps has become its world leader. Democracy around the world is being undermined not by a working-class backlash or resurgent nationalism but by money, a lot of it. With the world’s politics awash in money, several world leaders are currently charged with corruption, most recently France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and South Africa’s Jacob Zuma, with two more recently convicted: Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South Korea’s Park Geun-Hye.”

[130] U.S.: George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017; Jacob Hacker and Nathan Loewentheil, How Big Money Corrupts the Economy, Democracy Journal.org, Winter 2013; Charles Wheelan, It’s Official: In America, Affluence Equals Influence, US News.com, April 22, 2014; Matt Kelly, It’s Harder to Pay Off Foreign Governments than the American One: Novartis would think twice before giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Vladimir Putin’s lawyer. But in Washington, the rules are different, BuzzFeed News, May 9, 2018; Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018:

“The United States is not alone in this big-money corruption but perhaps has become its world leader. Democracy around the world is being undermined not by a working-class backlash or resurgent nationalism but by money, a lot of it. With the world’s politics awash in money, several world leaders are currently charged with corruption … with two more recently convicted.”

Also see, Linette Lopez, All the companies that hired Michael Cohen have an Enron problem, Business Insider, May 11, 2018; Steven Overly and Eli Okun, AT&T, Novartis CEOs apologize for payments to Michael Cohen, Politico, May 11, 2018; Drew FitzGerald, AT&T Executive Who Oversaw Michael Cohen’s Contract Forced Out, Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2018; Cecilia Kang and Kenneth Vogel, AT&T Chief Says It Made a ‘Big Mistake’ Hiring Michael Cohen, New York Times, May 11, 2018; Brian Fung and Tony Romm, AT&T CEO: Hiring Cohen as a consultant was a ‘big mistake’, Washington Post, May 11, 2018:

“AT&T’s chief executive said Friday that his company made a “serious misjudgment” to seek advice from President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen and announced that its top lobbying executive in Washington would be leaving the firm.

“Our company has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons these last few days and our reputation has been damaged,” AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson wrote in a companywide internal email. “There is no other way to say it — AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake.”

The email comes at a critical time for AT&T. A judge is deciding whether its controversial $85 billion merger with Time Warner violates antitrust law. Internal AT&T documents obtained by The Washington Post show how AT&T agreed to pay $600,000 to Cohen last year in exchange for guidance on policy matters, including issues it is facing at the Federal Communications Commission and its proposed deal with Time Warner.

Stephenson’s apology was also an extraordinary admission from a company that has long run one of Washington’s largest and most sophisticated lobbying shops and donates millions of dollars each year to hundreds of candidates on both sides of the aisle. Last year, AT&T spent nearly $17 million on federal lobbying, the third-highest among companies. …

I think this is all showing or highlighting some of the public’s worst fears when it comes to how Washington, D.C., works and the numerous gaps in the system, and how elections and even policy are driven by those with deep pockets and those with the biggest bullpen of lobbyists, [Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight] said.”

UK: George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017; Duncan Hames, British politics is in the pocket of big money. And the EU vote was no exception, The Guardian, October 7, 2016; Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell, The truth about lobbying: 10 ways big business controls government, The Guardian, March 12, 2014;

Australia: Mike Steketee, Donations and democracy: how money is compromising our political system, ABC News (abc.net.au), July 2, 2015; Gareth Hutchens, Labor senator Sam Dastyari claims 10 companies have taken control of Australian politics, Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2016; Warwick Smith, Political donations corrupt democracy in ways you might not realise, The Guardian, September 11, 2014; Professor Iain McMenamin, No bribes please, we’re corrupt Australians, The Conversation, May 30, 2016.

EU: Ian Traynor, 30,000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?, The Guardian, May 8, 2014; Money, Politics, Power: Corruptions Risks in Europe, Transparency International (transparency.eu), 2012.

Canada: Nancy Macdonald, Welcome to British Columbia, where you ‘pay to play’, Maclean’s, February 11, 2017; Dan Levin, British Columbia: The ‘Wild West’ of Canadian Political Cash, New York Times, January 13, 2017;

[131] Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017;  Also see, Annie Lowrey, 2016: A Year Defined by America’s Diverging Economies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016. Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Culture, Leadership and Personal Liability – Ethics and Compliance Programs in the 21^st Century, Sigurdson Post, October 5, 2016.

[132] George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017. Also see, Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface). Also see, for example: Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016; Daniel Ben-Ami, Book Review: ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, Financial Times, March 11, 2016; Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016:

“Charles and David Koch, the enormously rich proprietors of an oil company based in Kansas, decided that they would spend huge amounts of money to elect conservatives at all levels of American government.

Thirty years later, the midterm elections of 2010 ushered in the political system that the Kochs had spent so many years plotting to bring about. … The brothers had spent or raised hundreds of millions of dollars to create majorities in their image. They had succeeded. And not merely at the polls: They had helped to finance and organize an interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets….

It is this conservative ascendancy that Jane Mayer chronicles in “Dark Money.” The book is written in straightforward and largely unemotional prose, but it reads as if conceived in quiet anger. Mayer believes that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy, using their money not just to compete with their political adversaries, but to drown them out.”

[133] Michael Savage (Policy Editor), Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030: world leaders urged to act as anger over inequality reaches a ‘tipping point’, The Guardian, April 7, 2018. Also see, for example only: Stefan Nicola and Arne Delfs, Bezos Faces Berlin Protest on Tax Policy, Worker Treatment, Bloomberg, April 24, 2018; Will Martin, The 1% are getting even richer – and its not going to stop any time soon, Business Insider, April 9, 2018; Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2017: Where we are Ten Years after the Crisis?, Credit Suisse Research Institute, November 2017 (the world’s richest 1% of families and individuals already hold over half of global wealth, and that inequality is still worsening almost a decade after the worst global recession since the 1930s); Martin Parker, Why we should bulldoze the business school, The Guardian, April 27, 2018; Martin Parker, The corporation needs to be cut down to size, The Guardian, April 2, 2012; Nick Hanauer, The Pitchforks Are Coming … For Us Plutocrats, Politico, July-August 2014; Sheena McKenzie and Sarah Tilotta, May Day protestors demand better rights for workers, CNN, May 2, 2018; Hilary Brueck, Far-right protestors and leftists around the world hit the streets for May Day – take a look at the dramatic protests, Business Insider, May 2, 2018.

[134] Martin Parker, Why we should bulldoze the business school, The Guardian, April 27, 2018.

[135] Tim Dunlop, Three things must change for a healthier democracy, ABC.net.au, October 17, 2014.

[136] Matthew Stewart, The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy: the class divide is already toxic, and is fast becoming unbridgeable, The Atlantic, June 2018.

[137] Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 – see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State.

[138] Martin Wolf, A Republican tax plan built for plutocrats, Financial Times, November 21, 2017; John Wasik, How the GOP Tax Plan Scrooges Middle Class, Retired and Poor, Forbes, November 29, 2017; Peter Goodman and Patricia Cohen, It Started as a Tax Cut. Now It Could Change American Life, New York Times, November 29, 2017; Josh Hoxie, Trump’s Tax Cuts Are the Biggest Wealth Grab in Modern History, Fortune, November 3, 2017; Stan Collender, Paul Ryan’s Most Lasting Legacy: Permanent Trillion-Dollar Deficits, Forbes, April 11, 2018; Mark Warner, Congress and the $1 trillion deficit: time to be straight with the American People, CNBC, April 10, 2018; Stephen Gandel, Trump tax cut is the gift that keeps on giving, BNN Bloomberg.ca, May 25, 2018; Dylan Scott, House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill ‘or don’t ever call me again’, Vox, November 7, 2017; Emily Stewart, Citigroup CEO explains why tax cuts outweigh Trump tweets – and Citibank reported a 24 percent profit jump. Here’s how they’re related, Vox, April 14, 2018; Bob Ryan, Top Republican senator says voting for the GOP tax law could be ‘one of the worst votes I’ve made’, Business Insider UK, April 11, 2018 (“This Congress and this administration likely will go down as one of the most fiscally irresponsible administrations and Congresses that we’ve had”); Tom Dickinson, How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich – the inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent, Rolling Stone, November 9, 2011:

“To truly understand the depth of the GOP’s entrenched opposition to Obamacare [healthcare], it’s crucial to understand how the reform is financed: The single largest source of funds comes from increasing Medicare taxes on the wealthy – including new taxes on investment income. According to the Tax Policy Center, Americans who make more than $1 million a year will pay an extra $37,381 in annual taxes under the plan. The top 400 taxpayers [billionaires] would contribute even more: an average of $11 million each. Rarely in American history has a tax so effectively targeted the top one percent.”

[139] Bloomberg, Trump signs executive orders cracking down on federal unions representing about 2.1 million employees, Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2018; Robert Barnes, Supreme Court rules that companies can require workers to accept individual arbitration, Washington Post, May 21, 2018; Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts Barring Class Actions, New York Times, May 21, 2018.

[140] Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 – see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State. Also see, Peter Goodman, Britain’s Big Squeeze: In Britain, Austerity is Changing Everything, New York Times, May 28, 2018; Matthew Snow, Against Charity, Jacobinmag.com, August 25, 2015; Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1972; Peter Singer, The Life You can Save, Random House, 2009; Jacob Silverman, The Billionaire Philanthropist, LongReads.com, March 13, 2018.

[141] See, for example: David Suzuki should not be celebrated in Alberta, says former Dragons’ Den Star: controversy over environmentalist’s honorary degree raises questions over donor-university relationship, CBC.ca, April 26, 2018; Editorial, Globe editorial: Calls to block honorary degree for David Suzuki are misplaced, Globe and Mail, April 25, 2018; David Turpin (President and Vice-chancellor), Why should the university stand up for an unpopular honorary degree?, UAlberta.ca, April 24, 2018 (“Withdrawing David Suzuki’s honorary degree might seem an easy solution to the controversy. So why would the U of A continue to support such an unpopular and untimely decision? We will stand by our decision because our reputation as a university—an institution founded on the principles of freedom of inquiry, academic integrity, and independence—depends on it. Universities must not be afraid of controversy. Instead, we must be its champion. Stifle controversy and you also stifle the pursuit of knowledge, the generation of ideas, and the discovery of new truths. Take uncomfortable ideas, debate, and conflict out of the university and its fundamental role in society disappears”). Also see: David Suzuki: Oiling the machinery of climate change denial and transit opposition, The Georgia Straight, April 7, 2015 (“Brothers Charles and David Koch run Koch Industries …”); Olivia Ward, Billionaire Koch brothers are big oil players in Alberta, The Star, July 6, 2014; Nancy Benac, Koch 101: Those billionaire brothers. How’d they got so rich? What’s their role in politics?, Edmonton Journal, August 25, 2014 (“billionaire brothers who helped create a broad network of non-profit groups that control hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into politics. Through their deep pockets, they are reshaping politics with an uncompromising agenda of reducing regulation”); Martin Parker, Why we should bulldoze the business school, The Guardian, April 27, 2018; Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Bruce Livesey, How Canada made the Koch brothers rich, National Observer, May 5, 2015; Gerald Caplan, Harper is Right: Foreign radicals are after the oil sands, Globe and Mail, May 26, 2012; Daniel Tencer, Koch Brothers, Tea Party Billionaires, Donated To Right-Wing Fraser Institute, Reports Show, Huffington Post, April 26, 2012; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016; Elizabeth McSheffrey, Are the billionaire American Koch brothers playing climate politics in Alberta?, National Observer, January 13, 2017; Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016:

In 1971, corporate lawyer (and future supreme court justice) Lewis Powell wrote a 5,000-word memo that was a blueprint for a broad attack on the liberal establishment. The real enemies, Powell wrote, “were the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences”, and “politicians”. He argued that conservatives should control the political debate at its source ….

The right turned its sights on American campuses. John M Olin founded the Olin Foudation, and spent nearly $200m promoting “free-market ideology and other conservative ideas on the country’s campuses”. It bankrolled a whole new approach to jurisprudence called “law and economics”, Mayer writes, giving $10m to Harvard, $7m to Yale and Chicago, and over $2m to Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown and the University of Virginia.

The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.”

[142] Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016 (“large donations to more than 300 colleges that now have Koch-funded programs, scholarships and academic-funded research”); Benjamin Soskis, Dirty Money: From Rockefeller to Koch: Catholic University’s decision to accept $1 million from the Charles Koch Foundation to support the study of ‘principled entrepreneurship’ is like a modern-day re-enactment of 1905’s ‘tainted money affair’, The Atlantic, March 7, 2014 (“… past allegations that Koch had meddled with academic content and faculty-hiring decisions in a prior donation to another university”); Seth Shulman, University of Kansas Case Exposes Koch Campus Strategy, Huffington Post, September 21, 2015 (updated September 21, 2016) (“People trust scientists because they’re open and transparent. It’s up to scientists and the institutions that employ them to retain — and never lose — that trust, especially as the public and policymakers demand more transparency from them”); Valerie Strauss, Professor: A disturbing story about the influence of the Koch network in higher education, Washington Post, April 22, 2018; Matthew Barakat, Lawsuit seeks details of school’s ties with Koch Foundation, National Post, April 24, 2018; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016.

[143] Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Daniel Tencer, Koch Brothers, Tea Party Billionaires, Donated To Right-Wing Fraser Institute, Reports Show, Huffington Post, April 26, 2012; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016 (“weaponizing of philanthropy”).

[144] See, for example: Robert Meubauer, Gateway to Crisis: Discourse Coalitions, Extractivist Politics, and the Northern Gateway Conflict, Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Doctor of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University (School of Communication, Faculty of Communication, Arts, and Technology), 2017 – “… news media’s agenda-setting power … also … media frames … help audiences interpret a given social issue ‘through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration’ … opinion pieces, news sourcing, and discourse coalitions …” (page 265 and 268, see Chapter 8 page 264 – 308); Jim Naureckas, The Surprising Popularity of ‘Far Left’ Policies, Fair.ogr, May 18, 2018 (“One starts to get the suspicion that these candidates are not really ‘far left’ at all, and Jeff Bezos’ Post is just telling you that they are in order to scare you away from voting for them”);  10 grumpy conservative voices Canadians are better off not listening to about climate science, Press Progress, November 21, 2015; Lawrence Martin, A land of bias from sea to shining sea, Globe and Mail, April 29, 2010 (“Tim Powers, the adroit Tory commentator, observed the other day that politics is 90 per cent communications. Control the airwaves. Control your fate.”).

[145] Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Pete Tucker, Did the Kochs Bring Us President Trump?, Huffington Post, December 1, 2016 (updated December 2, 2016); Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016; Daniel Ben-Ami, Book Review: ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, Financial Times, March 11, 2016; Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016. Also see, Dylan Scott, House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill ‘or don’t ever call me again’, Vox, November 7, 2017; Lawrence Lessig, Mick Mulvaney shows why we need to radically change our elections, Washington Post, April 29, 2018. Also see, Amy Melissa McKay, Fundraising for Favors? Linking Lobbyist-Hosted Fundraisers to Legislative Benefits, Political Research Quarterly (journals.sagepub.com), April 24, 2018; Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton University Press, 2014; Jeffrey Sachs, Understanding and Overcoming America’s Plutocracy, Huffington Post, November 6, 2014; Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018; Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016 (“weaponizing of philanthropy”).

[146] Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States (1933-1945), Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies, April 29, 1938, The American Presidency Project (presidency.ucsb.edu). Also see, Felix Salmon, Why the world elite won’t lift a finger to stop Trump, Splinter News.com, December 16, 2016.

[147] Chrystia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, Penguin Press, 2012; Don Pittis, Plutocrats with the crony capitalism are taking over again in the U.S., CBC.ca, February 20, 2017; Nick Hanauer, To My Fellow Plutocrats: You Can Cure Trumpism – pay your workers a decent wage, Politico.com, July 18, 2017.

[148] Felix Salmon, In Europe, misbehaving CEOs pay millions in fines and go to jail, and we need to start doing the same in the US, Business Insider, May 18, 2018; Felix Salman, In Europe, they actually fine and jail misbehaving CEOs. Why can’t we?, Slate, May 11, 2018.  Also see, Eric Sigurdson, Corporate Misconduct and the Normalization of Deviance: leadership, corporate culture, and the pathway to organizational integrity, Sigurdson Post, March 31, 2018; Steve Peoples, Michael Bloomberg, An ‘epidemic of dishonesty’ in Washington is threatening democracy, Business Insider:

“When elected officials speak as though they are above the truth, they will act as though they are above the law,” Bloomberg told Rice graduates. “And when we tolerate dishonesty, we get criminality. Sometimes, it’s in the form of corruption. Sometimes, it’s abuse of power. And sometimes, it’s both.”

[149] This has now been demonstrated rigorously by many researchers, most notably Princeton Professor Martin Gilens – see, Jeffrey Sachs, Understanding and Overcoming America’s Plutocracy, Huffington Post, November 6, 2014; Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton University Press, 2014.

[150] Jeffrey Sachs, Understanding and Overcoming America’s Plutocracy, Huffington Post, November 6, 2014; Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton University Press, 2014; Ian Bailey, Donations taint B.C.’s approval of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion: advocacy group, Globe and Mail, January 31, 2017; Nancy Macdonald, Welcome to British Columbia, where you ‘pay to play’, Maclean’s, February 11, 2017; Maxwell Cameron, How Big Money Undermined B.C.’s Climate Leadership – and its Democracy, Huffington Post, September 21, 2017; Amy Melissa McKay, Fundraising for Favors? Linking Lobbyist-Hosted Fundraisers to Legislative Benefits, Political Research Quarterly (journals.sagepub.com), April 24, 2018. Also see, Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Lawrence Lessig, Mick Mulvaney shows why we need to radically change our elections, Washington Post, April 29, 2018.

[151] Jeffrey Sachs, Understanding and Overcoming America’s Plutocracy, Huffington Post, November 6, 2014.

[152] Celestine Bohlen, American Democracy is Drowning in Money, New York Times, September 20, 2017.

[153] Dylan Scott, House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill ‘or don’t ever call me again’, Vox, November 7, 2017. Also see, David Graham, Mick Mulvaney Says the Quiet Part Out Loud – head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau tells it like it is: if you want access to policymakers, it’s helpful to donate lots of money, The Atlantic, April 25, 2018; James Hohmann, The Daily 202: Mick Mulvaney’s confession highlights the corrosive influence of money in politics, Washington Post, April 25, 2018.

[154] Ian Bremmer, A world in turmoil: What we must do to survive the coming political crisis, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018.

[155] Kemal Derviş and Laurence Chandy, Are technology and globalization destined to drive up inequality? Understanding inequality and what drives it, Brookings.edu, October 5, 2016.

[156] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017; Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist, The World In.com, 2016; Jim Norman, Americans’ Confidence in Institutions Stays Low, Gallup.com, June 13, 2016; Clare Malone, Americans Don’t Trust Their Institutions Anymore, FiveThirtyEight, November 16, 2016; Jake Johnson, As Millions of Workers Face Pension Cuts Thanks to Wall Street Greed, Executive Benefits Remain Lavish, Common Dreams.org, April 29, 2016; Matt Taibbi, Looting the Pension Funds, Rolling Stone, September 26, 2013; M.B., Busted Trust: Faith in world leaders, Economist, January 23, 2012; James Crisp, Juncker admits Europeans have lost faith in the EU, EurActiv.com, April 19, 2016; Nathaniel Persily and Jon Cohen, Americans are losing faith in democracy – and in each other, Washington Post, October 14, 2016.

[157] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.  Also see: Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016:

“The backlash against globalization is real and mounting in advanced economies. But it can be managed through policies that ensure that the benefits of globalization continue, that mitigates collateral damage to those who lose out and that makes losers more likely to eventually join the ranks of the winners.”

[158] Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017;  Also see, Annie Lowrey, 2016: A Year Defined by America’s Diverging Economies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[159] Nick Pearce, The political forecast for 2017? Economic precarity and social division – strap yourself in; the UK post-Brexit will be a bleaker, more fragile place, Wired.co.uk, January 7, 2017.

[160] Stephen Fussell, How Business Leaders Can Best Respond to the Rise of Populism: populism reflects worry about the economy and sagging faith in political institutions – insightful business leaders will respond by offering stability and purpose, Entrepreneur, September 19, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017. Also see, Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016; Anand Giridharadas, When Technology Sets off a Populist Revolt, New York Times, August 29, 2016;  ‘The risk is very high, and we need to pay very close attention to what’s happening in Europe’, Business Insider, December 30, 2016; Peter Murphy, Populism Rising, Quadrant, May 25, 2016. For example, also see: overviews of the literature in Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Rightwing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994; Piero Ignazi, Extreme right parties in Western Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Herbert Kitschelt with Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1995; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral, Eds., Right-Wing Populism in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013; Carlos de la Torre, Ed., The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives, Lexington, KT: University of Kentucky Press, 2015; Matt Golder, ‘Far Right Parties in Europe’, Annual Review of Political Science 19:477-97, 2016; Thomas Piketty, Capital, Cambridge, MA: Bellnap Press, 2014; Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006; Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997; Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Classic works on the rise of populism, The Economist, December 3, 2016. Also see: – Pankaj Mishra, Welcome to the age of anger, The Guardian, December 8, 2016; Donna Twombly, Letter to the Editor: Those left behind by economy turn to populism, Portland Press Herald, November 20, 2016; Donna Twombly, Opinion: Want to understand Trump’s populist uprising? Just look at the rural Maine left behind, Bangor Daily News, November 16, 2016.

[161] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016. For example, also see: overviews of the literature in Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Rightwing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994; Piero Ignazi, Extreme right parties in Western Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Herbert Kitschelt with Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1995; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral, Eds., Right-Wing Populism in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013; Carlos de la Torre, Ed., The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives, Lexington, KT: University of Kentucky Press, 2015; Matt Golder, ‘Far Right Parties in Europe’, Annual Review of Political Science 19:477-97, 2016; Thomas Piketty, Capital, Cambridge, MA: Bellnap Press, 2014; Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006; Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997; Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Classic works on the rise of populism, The Economist, December 3, 2016. Also see: Peter Murphy, Populism Rising, Quadrant, May 25, 2016:

“Populism’s electoral success is a function of voter anxiety. It appeals to stressed, dissatisfied and angry voters who have lost confidence in the political system. These alienated voters reach the conclusion that no conventional party or candidate is responsive to their problems. So they turn elsewhere.”

[162] The economic inequality perspective — emphasizes the consequences for electoral behavior arising from profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies. There is overwhelming evidence of powerful trends toward greater income and wealth inequality in the West, based on the rise of the knowledge economy, technological automation, and the collapse of manufacturing industry, global flows of labor, goods, peoples, and capital (especially the inflow of migrants and refugees), the erosion of organized labor, shrinking welfare safety-nets, and neo-liberal austerity policies.  According to this view, rising economic insecurity and social deprivation among the left-behinds has fueled popular resentment of the political classes. This situation is believed to have made the less secure strata of society – low-waged unskilled workers, the long-term unemployed, households dependent on shrinking social benefits, residents of public housing, single-parent families, and poorer white populations living in inner-city areas with concentrations of immigrants– susceptible to the anti-establishment, nativist, and xenophobic scare-mongering exploited of populist movements, parties, and leaders, blaming ‘Them’ for stripping prosperity, job opportunities, and public services from ‘Us’: Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[163] The cultural backlash perspective — suggests that the surge in votes for populist parties can be explained not as a purely economic phenomenon but in large part as a reaction against progressive cultural change. This argument builds on the ‘silent revolution’ theory of value change, which holds that the unprecedentedly high levels of existential security experienced by the people of developed Western societies during the postwar decades brought an intergenerational shift toward post-materialist values, such as cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, generating rising support for left-libertarian parties such as the Greens and other progressive movements advocating environmental protection, human rights, and gender equality.  A large body of empirical evidence documents these developments, which first became evident in affluent societies during the early-1970s, when the postwar generation first surfaced into political relevance, bringing an era of student protest.  This cultural shift has sometimes been depicted as an inexorable cultural escalator moving post-industrial societies steadily in a more progressive direction, as opportunities for college education have expanded to more and more sectors of the population and as younger cohorts have gradually replaced their parents and grandparents in the population. But it has been clear from the start that reactions to these developments triggered a counterrevolutionary retro backlash, especially among the older generation, white men, and less educated sectors, who sense decline and actively reject the rising tide of progressive values, resent the displacement of familiar traditional norms, and provide a pool of supporters potentially vulnerable to populist appeals.  Sectors once culturally predominant in Western Europe may react angrily to the erosion of their privileges and status: Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016. Also see, Diana C. Mutz, Status Threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote, PNAS.org, March 26, 2018; Daniel Cox, Rachel Lienesch, and Robert Jones, Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump, PRRI.org, May 9, 2017; Niraj Chokshi, Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds, New York Times, April 24, 2018; Michael Gerson, How do we tame Trumpism’s virulent nostalgia for an old status quo?, Washington Post, April 26, 2018; Nancy LeTourneau, Trump’s Tribalism and the Durability of His Support Among Nostalgia Voters, Washington Monthly, March 28, 2018.

[164] Diana C. Mutz, Status Threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote, PNAS.org, March 26, 2018; Daniel Cox, Rachel Lienesch, and Robert Jones, Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump, PRRI.org, May 9, 2017; Nancy LeTourneau, Trump’s Tribalism and the Durability of His Support Among Nostalgia Voters, Washington Monthly, March 28, 2018; Niraj Chokshi, Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds, New York Times, April 24, 2018; Olga Khazan, People Voted for Trump Because they were Anxious, Not Poor, The Atlantic, April 23, 2018.

[165] Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface).

[166] Peter Goodman, Britain’s Big Squeeze: In Britain, Austerity is Changing Everything, New York Times, May 28, 2018.

[167] Situation Room, Interview with Senator Bernie Sanders, Real Clear Politics.com, May 16, 2012. Also see, Also see, Jon Schwarz, ‘Yes, We’re Corrupt’: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics, The Intercept, July 30, 2015.

[168] Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes, and Janell Fetterolf, Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy: 1. Many unhappy with current political system, Pew Research Center (Pew Global.org), October 16, 2017.

[169] Editorial Board, Macron, at the Barricades, Warns of Rising Nationalism in Europe, New York Times, April 18, 2018. Also see, Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018; Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com.

[170] Political Polarization, Pew Research Center, pewresearch.org; Nate Cohn, Polarization is Dividing American Society, Not Just Politics, New York Times, June 12, 2014; Niraj Chokshi, U.S. Partisanship Is Highest in Decades, Pew Study Finds, New York Times, June 23, 2016; James Campbell, The source of America’s political polarization? It’s us, Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2016; Christopher McConnell, Yotam Margalit, Neil Malhotra, and Matthew Levendusky, Research: Political Polarization Is Changing How Americans Work and Shop, Harvard Business Review, May 19, 2017.

[171] Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes, and Janell Fetterolf, Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy: 1. Many unhappy with current political system, Pew Research Center (Pew Global.org), October 16, 2017.

[172] Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes, and Janell Fetterolf, Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy: 1. Many unhappy with current political system, Pew Research Center (Pew Global.org), October 16, 2017.

[173] Democracy continues its disturbing retreat, The Economist, January 31, 2018; The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index – 167 countries scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on 60 indicators, infographics.economist.com/2018/DemocracyIndex/; Nicole Karus, New report classifies US as a ‘flawed democracy’, Salon, January 31, 2018; Alexandra Ma, These are the best democracies in the world – and the US barely makes the list, Business Insider, January 31, 2018; Niall McCarthy, The Best and Worst Countries for Democracy, Forbes, February 1, 2018; Lianna Brinded, The US is not one of the only 19 ‘fully democratic’ countries in the world, Quartz (qz.com), January 30, 2018; Rebecca Joseph, Canada is a ‘full’ democracy, U.S. is not: report, Global News.ca, January 31, 2018. Also see, Sarah Leamon, The G-Zero World is Here, Huffington Post, February 7, 2017. Note:

The Economist Intelligence Unit – the research and analysis division of the Economist magazine and world leader in global business intelligence – ranks the state of democracy of countries around the world based on five categories: civil liberties, political participation, political culture (i.e. support their government), the overall functioning of government, and electoral process and pluralism. Depending on their score, they may be classified as a ‘full democracy’ (10 – 8), a ‘flawed democracy’ (7.9 – 6), a ‘hybrid/mixed regime’ (5.9 – 4), or an ‘authoritarian regime’ (3.9 – 0).

[174] Pablo Gorondi, Populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban Wins Third Consecutive Term in Hungary, Time, April 9, 2018; Neil Buckley and Andrew Byrne, The rise and rise of Viktor Orban – the man who has turned Hungary into a semi-authoritarian regime was once a democratic activist. What happened?, Financial Times, January 25, 2018:

“[Hungary’s prime minister Viktor] Orban’s journey from young champion of democracy to creator of what he has called an “illiberal democracy”* is one of the most remarkable recent transformations in European politics. It is a story, too, of how the historic transition to democracy in the continent’s east — which had seemed irreversible a decade ago after 10 former communist countries had joined the EU — is starting to unravel, posing a threat to the EU’s values, perhaps even its future. …

Orban is cited as an inspiration, too, by some associates of Donald Trump — the Hungarian premier was the only EU leader to root openly for Trump’s victory. …

Orban’s cultivation of links with “illiberal” regimes such as China and Russia, which he praises as models, poses another challenge. “Because of how the EU works, even if Hungary is a small member state, Russia and China have a prospect of almost having a seat at the decision-making table in Brussels,” says Timothy Garton Ash [professor of European studies at Oxford University]. If anything, Orban’s clashes with the EU also seem to strengthen his domestic support.”

Tony Barber, UK courts Hungary’s ‘illiberal democracy’ – Britain is having to button its lip on Budapest’s domestic political conditions, Financial Times, March 8, 2018:

“Ministers in Theresa May’s government are criss-crossing Europe with the aim of developing close post-Brexit relationships with individual countries. No nation is too small and no government is too unconventional to escape London’s embrace. Take Hungary. Prime minister Viktor Orban is under fire from some western European countries, and from Brussels, for undermining the rule of law and extending economic favours to oligarchs and cronies. Mr Orban is a champion of what he calls “illiberal democracy”.

*An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, or hybrid regime, is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties.”

[175] Lianna Brinded, The US is not one of the only 19 ‘fully democratic’ countries in the world, Quartz (qz.com), January 30, 2018. Also see, Democracy continues its disturbing retreat, The Economist, January 31, 2018; The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index – 167 countries scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on 60 indicators, infographics.economist.com/2018/DemocracyIndex/.

[176] Plutocracy: A form of society defined as being ruled or controlled by a function of wealth or higher income. Government by the wealthy. A country or society governed by the wealthy. As opposed to, Oligarchy: A form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. A small group of people having control of a country. A country governed by an oligarchy. A government by oligarchy.

[177] John Cassidy, Is America an Oligarchy? New Yorker, April 18, 2014; Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 12, No. 3, September 2014; Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton University Press, 2014; Zachary Davies Boren, Major Study Finds the US is an Oligarchy, Business Insider, April 16, 2014; Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy, BBC.com, April 17, 2014; Tom McKay, Princeton Study Discovers What Our Politicians Really Think About US – And It’s Shocking, Mic.com, May 9, 2015; Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Critics argued with our analysis of U.S. political inequality. Here are 5 ways they’re wrong, Washington Post, May 23, 2016; Professor Robert Finbow (Dalhousie University), Rethinking State Theories for the ‘Deconsolidation of Democracy’: The Rise of Pluralist Plutocracies?, Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, June 1, 2017. Also see, for example: Corruption is Legal in America, Represent.Us (http://Represent.Us/TheProblem); How to Fix America’s Corrupt Political System, Represent.US (https://represent.us/TheSolution).

[178] Duncan Ivison (Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Sydney), Learning to be Human: Universities in a world of rising inequality and technological change, OECD-forum.org, May 3, 2018.

[179] Dambisa Moyo, Why the survival of democracy depends on a strong middle-class, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018 (Canada).

[180] What’s Gone Wrong With Democracy, The Economist, March 1, 2014.

[181] Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018.

[182] What is populism?, The Economist, December 19, 2016:

“Populists may be militarists, pacifists, admirers of Che Guevara or of Ayn Rand; they may be tree-hugging pipeline opponents or drill-baby-drill climate-change deniers. What makes them all “populists”, and does the word actually mean anything? …

As Benjamin Moffitt explains in his book “The Global Rise of Populism”, a conference at the London School of Economics in 1967 agreed that the term, while useful, was too mushy to be tied down to a single description. Some scholars linked it to frustration over declines in status or welfare, some to nationalist nostalgia. Others saw it as more of a political strategy in which a charismatic leader appeals to the masses while sweeping aside institutions (though not all populist movements have such a leader). Despite its fuzziness, the term’s use has grown.

In 2004 Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, offered a definition that has become increasingly influential. In his view populism is a “thin ideology”, one that merely sets up a framework: that of a pure people versus a corrupt elite. (He contrasts it with pluralism, which accepts the legitimacy of many different groups.) This thin ideology can be attached to all sorts of “thick” ideologies with more moving parts, such as socialism, nationalism, anti-imperialism or racism, in order to explain the world and justify specific agendas. …

But other scholars feel that the thin-ideology definition fails to capture some dimensions. Jan-Werner Müller, a political scientist at Princeton University, thinks populists are defined by their claim that they alone represent the people, and that all others are illegitimate. And there are important distinctions within the category, such as that between inclusive and exclusive varieties. Exclusive populism focuses on shutting out stigmatised groups (refugees, Roma), and is more common in Europe. Inclusive populism demands that politics be opened up to stigmatised groups (the poor, minorities), and is more common in Latin America. Mr. Mudde argues that while most writers deplore populism, its upside lies in forcing elites to discuss issues they prefer to ignore. But populism’s belief that the people are always right is bad news for two elements of liberal democracy: the rights of minorities and the rule of law.”

[183] Editorial Board, Macron, at the Barricades, Warns of Rising Nationalism in Europe, New York Times, April 18, 2018; Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018; Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com, April 17, 2018; Pablo Gorondi, Populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban Wins Third Consecutive Term in Hungary, Time, April 9, 2018; Neil Buckley and Andrew Byrne, The rise and rise of Viktor Orban – the man who has turned Hungary into a semi-authoritarian regime was once a democratic activist. What happened?, Financial Times, January 25, 2018; Eric Reguly, Analysts fear economic repercussions as Italy’s anti-establishment parties agree to form government, Globe and Mail, May 14, 2018; Lauren Said-Moorhouse, Hilary Clarke, and Euan McKirdy, Italy’s voters choose populists, deliver stinging rebuke to Europe, CNN, March 5, 2018; Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Italy’s voters ditch the centre and ride a populist wave, The Guardian, March 5, 2018; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016; Hendrik Brakel, Oscar Williams-Grut, Brexit and Trump are just the start – populism will strike Europe next, Business Insider, November 10, 2016; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017; Elaine Ganley, Marine Le Pen’s new, less racist, vision for France has her ahead in the polls: Le Pen sees ‘grand return’ of nationalism and a new France, Toronto Star, January 12, 2017; 5 Minutes for Business: Rise of the Trumps – Why Populism is all the Rage, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Burnaby Board of Trade, February 9, 2016; Barclays: ‘Markets may have taken the wrong lessons from Donald Trump and Brexit’, Business Insider, January 13, 2017:

“Fringe parties gaining ground pose a risk by hobbling the ability of governments to work effectively in countries that typically have coalition governments, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This “impairs the ability of the European Council to respond decisively to EU political crises as it did in 2011-12” and could further undermine confidence in the 27-nation bloc. …

Advances for populist parties also pose a risk due to their ability to influence the debate on either the left or right. UKIP is a prime example and Barclays bank says that the party “arguably caused Brexit as the UK’s Conservative Party was forced to hold a referendum on EU membership due to the indirect electoral threat from UKIP.”

Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018:

“[E]lections throughout 2017 and into 2018 ushered right-wing populist parties into parliaments in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Austria. The surge of right-wing populism is most notable in Poland and Hungary, two countries at the forefront of Europe’s illiberal challenge. Turkey, a NATO member and EU accession state (albeit an unlikely one) has slid into near-authoritarianism under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.”

[184] Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016. Also see, for example: Cas Muddle, The Trump phenomenon and the European populist radical right, Washington Post, August 26, 2015; Paul Krugman, Populism, Real and Phony, New York Times, December 23, 2016:

“Authoritarians with an animus against ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. They control governments in Hungary and Poland, and will soon take power in America. And they’re organizing across borders: Austria’s Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis, has signed an agreement with Russia’s ruling party — and met with Donald Trump’s choice for national security adviser.”

[185] Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018. Also see, Editorial Board, Macron, at the Barricades, Warns of Rising Nationalism in Europe, New York Times, April 18, 2018; Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com.

[186] Ian Bremmer, A world in turmoil: What we must do to survive the coming political crisis, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018.

[187] A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016.

[188] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016; Victor Li, The top legal stories of 2016: Do you have others?, ABA Journal, December 23, 2016:

The Brexit vote: “The United Kingdom’s complicated history with the European Union took an unpredictable turn in June. UK voters narrowly approved a referendum to leave the EU, ending over 40 years of membership in the multinational union (the UK joined the EU’s predecessor entity, the European Economic Community, in 1973).

The vote exposed deep divisions between the UK constituent countries. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain while England (with the glaring exception of London) and Wales voted to leave. Scotland governmental officials have begun the process for preparing for a second referendum for independence from the UK so that it may remain in the EU. As for Northern Ireland, the Brexit raised fears that the near 20-year cease-fire that came about after the 1997 Good Friday Accords could be in jeopardy.

The vote also brought an end to the premiership of [Prime Minister] David Cameron, who had favored remaining in the EU. His successor, Theresa May, has promised to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which allows members to withdraw. But the British High Court of Justice ruled in December that Parliament must first vote to invoke it”.

[189] A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016. Also see, Eric Reguly, Analysts fear economic repercussions as Italy’s anti-establishment parties agree to form government, Globe and Mail, May 14, 2018.

[190] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016. Also see, Paul Krugman, Populism, Real and Phony, New York Times, December 23, 2016; Jennifer Rudin, Will Trump drop populism like a bad habit?, Washington Post, December 27, 2016; Wes Yin, Trump’s ‘populist’ economic proposals come with massive catches. Here’s what to watch for, Vox, November 18, 2016:

“This election year, appealing to populism, while stoking xenophobia and bigotry, proved an effective campaign strategy for Trump. Fanning these flames has already led to numerous racist and anti-Semitic hate crimes — including vandalism, verbal, and physical assault.

So a final thing to watch out for is how Trump responds to ongoing economic discontent. If Trump’s economic policies fail ordinary Americans, either because his populist initiatives are stymied by Republican budget hawks or because his overall agenda is regressive, he may double down on exploiting the fears and anxieties of his supporters.

Far beyond economics, this strategy places social cohesion, public safety, and civil liberties at risk.”

[191] Alex Boutilier, Canada ‘not immune’ to populism and polarization, Stephen Harper says: ordinary people are not doing well enough, Toronto Star, May 14, 2018.

[192] For example, see: Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018:

“Why do the wealthy hire the likes of Pruitt [U.S. Politician, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] to do their bidding? The main reason is that only individuals lacking a moral compass will carry out the whims and anti-social policies of the plutocrats [billionaires] who seek to manipulate the political and regulatory systems to their will. Suppose you had to tell mega-lies every day, such as that global warming is untrue and that air pollution is not dangerous to public health. Anyone of talent or honesty would recoil from the job. … Money can’t turn back the tides, but it can cause adults who know better to deny them.”

[193] Precarity is an outcome of economic policy: Brhmie Balaram, Insecurity in modern work: policy overlooks the ‘chronically precarious’ workers, London School of Economics (blogs.lse.ac.uk), March 1, 2018; Michael Nau and Matthew Soener, Income precarity and the financial crisis, Socio-Economic Review, June 21, 2017 (United States); Nick Pearce, The political forecast for 2017? Economic precarity and social division – strap yourself in; the UK post-Brexit will be a bleaker, more fragile place, Wired.co.uk, January 7, 2017 (UK); Francis Fong, We don’t know the extent of precarious work, Policy Options.irpp.org, January 25, 2018 (Canada); Ubiye Shin (translated and introduced by Sachie Mizohata), Inequality and Precarity in Japan: The Sorry Achievements of Abenomics, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 16, Issue 6, March 15, 2018 (Japan); More than half of Ontario’s postsecondary jobs show signs of precarity: precarious work is a serious and growing problem at Ontario’s colleges and universities, PressProgress.ca, February 12, 2018; Jim Edwards, UK ‘underemployment’ is worse now than during the financial crisis of 2008, Business Insider, April 24, 2018; Jim Edwards, New stats show underemployment in the UK is being replaced by chronic ‘underemployment’, Business Insider, September 19, 2017; Jackson Stiles, Australian underemployment is the highest in modern times, New Daily, June 15, 2017; Nick Purdon and Leonardo Palleja, The millennial side hustle, not stable job, is the new reality for university grads, CBC.ca, March 23, 2017; Canadian Press, Bill Morneau, Finance Minister, Says Canadians Should Get Used to Short-Term Employment, Huffington Post, October 23, 2016.

[194] A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[195] Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017.

[196] Nicole Karlis, New report classifies US as a ‘flawed democracy’: partisanship and Trump were to blame for the US’s dismal ranking in the Economist’s annual Democracy Index report, Salon, January 31, 2018.

[197] Dr. Madeleine Albright, Op-ed: Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late – Dictators around the world have used President Trump’s own words to justify their repressive actions, New York Times, April 6, 2018; Michael Gordon, The UK’s Sovereignty Situation: Brexit, Bewilderment and Beyond …, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 3, 2016; Cheating may have swayed Brexit poll – Christopher Wylie, BBC.com, March 28, 2018; Thomas Colson, The Scottish government believes the Cambridge Analytica scandal could trigger a second Brexit referendum, Business Insider, March 29, 2018; Alan Dawson, Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie supports a second Brexit referendum – here’s why, Business Insider, April 8, 2018; Fred Hiatt (Editorial Page Editor), McMaster warned against officials who ‘glamorize and apologize’ for dictators. Hmm, Washington Post, April 8, 2018.

[198] Michael Gordon, The UK’s Sovereignty Situation: Brexit, Bewilderment and Beyond …, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 3, 2016.

[199] Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com; Rebecca Perring, ‘This is European Civil War!’ France’s Macron savages EU states for ‘national selfishness, Express.co.uk, April 17, 2018.

[200] Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018.

[201] Michael Goldfien and Michael Woolslayer, Trump, the Brexit, and the Fraying of the Western Diplomatic Consensus, Huffington Post. Also see, Michael Gerson, How do we tame Trumpism’s virulent nostalgia for an old status quo?, Washington Post, April 26, 2018; Nancy LeTourneau, Trump’s Tribalism and the Durability of His Support Among Nostalgia Voters, Washington Monthly, March 28, 2018.

[202] David Lipton, Trust and the Future of Multilateralism, IMF Blog: Insights and Analysis on Economic & Finance, May 10, 2018.

[203] Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018.

[204] David Livingston, Macron takes on climate change mantle in address to Congress, Axios, April 26, 2018; Marisa Schultz, ‘Make our planet great again’: Macron appeals to Trump on Paris Accord, New York Post, April 25, 2018; Eoghan Macguire, Paris Agreement two years on: Who is taking the lead on climate change?, CNN, December 19, 2017; Lisa Friedman, As U.S. Sheds Role as Climate Change Leader, Who Will Fill the Void?, New York Times, November 12, 2017; Jonathan Watts, World leaders react after Trump rejects Paris climate deal, The Guardian, June 2, 2017. Also see: Charles Kaiser, Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution, The Guardian, January 17, 2016; Elizabeth McSheffrey, Are the billionaire American Koch brothers playing climate politics in Alberta?, National Observer, January 13, 2017; Daniel Ben-Ami, Book Review: ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, Financial Times, March 11, 2016; Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016:

“Charles and David Koch, the enormously rich proprietors of an oil company based in Kansas, decided that they would spend huge amounts of money to elect conservatives at all levels of American government. …

Thirty years later, the midterm elections of 2010 ushered in the political system that the Kochs had spent so many years plotting to bring about. After the voting that year, Republicans dominated state legislatures; they controlled a clear majority of the governorships; they had taken one chamber of Congress and were on their way to winning the other. Perhaps most important, a good many of the Republicans who had won these offices were not middle-of-the-road pragmatists. They were antigovernment libertarians of the Kochs’ own political stripe. The brothers had spent or raised hundreds of millions of dollars to create majorities in their image. They had succeeded. And not merely at the polls: They had helped to finance and organize an interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets that far exceeded anything the liberal opposition could put together.

It is this conservative ascendancy that Jane Mayer chronicles in “Dark Money.” The book is written in straightforward and largely unemotional prose, but it reads as if conceived in quiet anger. Mayer believes that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy, using their money not just to compete with their political adversaries, but to drown them out. …

What were all these organizations and donors promoting, other than the election of Republican candidates to office? Free-market orthodoxy, to start with. … Closely related to free-market faith is the hatred of regulation, federal, state or local. …

This ideology helps to explain one of the most important Koch crusades of recent years: the fight to prevent action against climate change. The Koch-sponsored advocacy group Americans for Prosperity has been at the forefront of climate-change opposition over the past decade. When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 2011, Americans for Prosperity lobbied lawmakers to support a “no climate tax” pledge, and by the time Congress convened that year, 156 House and Senate members had signed on.

As ferocious as they have been in defense of free-market ideas, the Koch brothers are also acting out of tangible self-interest, Mayer argues. The Kochs made their money in the carbon business; they have diversified far beyond it over the years, but a stiff tax on carbon could have a significant impact on their bottom line. Mayer reports that an E.P.A. database identified Koch Industries in 2012 as the single biggest producer of toxic waste in the United States. The company has been in and out of federal court over the years as defendants in cases alleging careless and sometimes lethal flouting of clean-air and clean-water requirements. Several have paid tens of millions in fines to settle these cases.”

[205] For example: Lena Sun, Bill Gates calls on U.S. to lead fight against a pandemic that could kill 33 million, Washington Post, April 27, 2018; Kevin Loria, Bill Gates thinks a coming disease could kill 30 million people within 6 months – and says we should prepare for it as we do for war, Business Insider, April 27, 2018; Helen Branswell, With cash and a call for new ideas, Bill Gates tries to boost the campaign for a universal flu vaccine, Stat, April 27, 2018.

[206] Gideon Rachman, Migration will drive western politics for decades to come, Financial Times, May 7, 2018.

[207] Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Penguin Group, 2012.

[208] Yelena Niazyan, Every Nation for Itself, World Policy, June 11, 2012.

[209] Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017; Fareed Zakaria, Trump’s radical departure from postwar foreign policy, Washington Post, June 1, 2017:

“[I]n 1945, the world did change. In the wake of two of the deadliest wars in human history, with tens of millions killed and much of Europe and Asia physically devastated, the United States tried to build a new international system. It created institutions, rules and norms that would encourage countries to solve their differences peaceably — through negotiations rather than war. It forged a system in which trade and commerce would expand the world economy so that a rising tide could lift all boats. It set up mechanisms to manage global problems that no one country could solve. And it emphasized basic human rights so that there were stronger moral and legal prohibitions against dehumanizing policies such as those that led to the Holocaust.

It didn’t work perfectly. … But … did, in fact, become an amazing zone of peace and economic, political and military cooperation. Certainly there was competition among nations, but it was managed peacefully and always with the aim of greater growth, more freedom and improved human rights.

The “West” that emerged is, in historical terms, a miracle. Europe, which had torn itself apart for hundreds of years because of the “elemental nature” of international competition, was now competing only to create better jobs and more growth, not to annex countries and subjugate populations. …

At the heart of the system was the United States, which had tried to create such an enterprise after World War I but failed. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, learning from those mistakes, advanced a new set of ideas as World War II was drawing to a close. This time, it worked.

Since then, every president of either party has recognized that the United States has created something unique that is a break from centuries of “elemental” international conflict. …”.

[210] G-Zero, NPR.org, January 7, 2011; Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Penguin Group, 2012; Vito Racanelli, Davos: Who or What is “G-Zero”?, Barron’s, January 26, 2011. Also see, Top Risks for 2011: G-Zero tops the list, Eurasia Group.net, January 4, 2011.

[211] G-Zero, NPR.org, January 7, 2011; Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Penguin Group, 2012; Vito Racanelli, Davos: Who or What is “G-Zero”?, Barron’s, January 26, 2011. Also see, Top Risks for 2011: G-Zero tops the list, Eurasia Group.net, January 4, 2011; Alexandre Kateb, Looking Beyond a G-Zero World, Huffington Post, 2013.

[212] Leader: No one wants to take charge in the ‘G-Zero’ world, New Statesman.com, June 13, 2013.

[213] Pierre Vimont, The European Project in Crisis: Myths and Realities, Carnigie Europe.eu, November 17, 2017; Patrick Le Gales and Desmond King (editors), Reconfiguring European States in Crisis, Oxford University Press, April 2017; Daniel Gros, Europe’s Return to Crisis?, Project Syndicate, October 11, 2017; Jakub Grygiel, The Return of Europe’s Nation-States, Foreign Affairs.com, September-October 2016; Editorial Board, Macron, at the Barricades, Warns of Rising Nationalism in Europe, New York Times, April 18, 2018; Michael Birnbaum, Italy’s political crisis is a gut punch to Europe, Washington Post, May 30, 2018. Also see, Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018; Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com; Pablo Gorondi, Populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban Wins Third Consecutive Term in Hungary, Time, April 9, 2018; Neil Buckley and Andrew Byrne, The rise and rise of Viktor Orban – the man who has turned Hungary into a semi-authoritarian regime was once a democratic activist. What happened?, Financial Times, January 25, 2018; Eric Reguly, Analysts fear economic repercussions as Italy’s anti-establishment parties agree to form government, Globe and Mail, May 14, 2018; James Newell, Italy’s political crisis is a moment of reckoning for European liberal democracy, Business Insider, May 30, 2018.

[214] The Economist, Cause for concern? The top 10 risks to the global economy, A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018; Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017.

[215] David Frum, Trump’s Reckoning Arrives: The president’s unpredictability once worked to his advantage – but now, it is producing a mounting list of foreign-policy failures, The Atlantic, May 24, 2018.

[216] Ian Bremmer,The Era of American Global Leadership is Over. Here’s What Comes Next, Time, December 21, 2016. Also see, for example: James Bacchus, Might Unmakes Right: The American Assault on the Rule of Law in World Trade, Centre for International Governance Innovation (cigionline.org), May 2018.

[217] Oliver Milman, David Smith, and Damian Carrington, Donald Trump confirms US will quit Paris climate agreement: world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter will remove itself from global treaty as Trump claims accord ‘will harm’ American jobs, The Guardian, June 1, 2017; Jonathan Watts, World leaders react after Trump rejects Paris climate deal, The Guardian, June 2, 2017; Robinson Meyer, Syria is Joining the Paris Agreement. Now What? – the United States is officially the only country to reject the climate accord, The Atlantic, November 8, 2017.

[218] Edward Luce, Donald Trump goes for global regime change: move over Iran deal may be remembered as the day the US abandoned its belief in allies, Financial Times, May 8, 2018; Kevin Liptak and Nicole Gaouette, Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal, isolating him further from the world, CNN, May 8, 2018; Emile Simpson, The Predictable Disaster of Trump’s Lonely Iran Strategy: the United States is breaching the nuclear deal, alienating all its friends, and paving the way to another Middle Eastern war, Foreign Policy, May 8, 2018; Tom O’Connor, Did Trump Break the Law? U.S. Leaves Iran Deal, Violates World Order and Risks War, Experts Say, Newsweek, May 9, 2018.

[219] James Bacchus, Might Unmakes Right: The American Assault on the Rule of Law in World Trade, Centre for International Governance Innovation (cigionline.org), May 2018.

[220] Ian Bremmer, 5 Signs We’re in a ‘G-Zero Era’ With No World Leadership, Time, June 16, 2017:

“In Asia, the decision to withdraw from the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal handed China its biggest victory over the U.S. to date. With the U.S. in the fold, TPP would govern 40% of the world’s GDP and 1/3 of all global trade, giving the U.S. much greater influence in the writing of rules of the road for all these countries and more deeply integrating the U.S. into their political and economic lives. It would also greatly reinforce U.S. presence and relevance in East and Southeast Asia.

Now China’s President Xi Jinping promises to take up the torch for “free trade” dropped by the U.S. with the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). RCEP would cover an impressive 46 percent of the global population and 24 percent of global GDP, but its trade integration will be much shallower than with TPP. But it’s the symbolism that matters most—East and Southeast Asian countries have always known that China would remain after the U.S. receded, but they’re startled by the speed at which the U.S. approach to the region has changed. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from TPP leaves doubts about the future balance of power in Asia, and at a particularly fraught time.”

[221] Jack Ewing and Ana Swanson, U.S. Allies Brace for Trade War as Tariff Negotiations Stall, New York Times, April 29, 2018; Ian Bremmer, 5 Signs We’re in a ‘G-Zero Era’ With No World Leadership, Time, June 16, 2017; Caroline Gray, Is the Global Economy Rebalancing? Assessing shifts in the giant current account surpluses of Germany, China and Japan, Focus Economics, May 9, 2017; Hans vod der Burchard, Brussels mulls offer of trade deal to Trump, if he drops tariff threat, Politico, April 13, 2018; Pascal Lamy, Former WTO chief: How this trade war ends, Washington Post April 10, 2018; Alex Capri, Trump’s ‘Trade War’ Irony: America Loses By Not Rejoining the TPP, Forbes, April 15, 2018; Julia Horowitz and Patrick Gillespie, Germany and other allies are really, really angry about Trump’s tariffs, CNN, March 2, 2018; Kevin Liptak and Jeremy Diamond, US allies are upset. The top economist quit. Trump doesn’t care, CNN, March 9, 2018; Rick Noack, How Trump risked a trade war with China and alienated U.S. allies in less than 30 days, Washington Post, April 6, 2018; Bob Bryan, Trump’s trade fight is getting blasted by some of the most powerful economic groups in the world, Business Insider, April 22, 2018. Also see, Ian Bremmer, A world in turmoil: What we must do to survive the coming political crisis, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018:

“As governments try to “safeguard” the lives and livelihoods of citizens – and to protect themselves against public anger when their safeguards don’t work – we can expect both old and new forms of economic protectionism. Here, Mr. Trump has led the way with the announcement of steep new tariffs on China. They’re more bark than bite at this point. That said, Beijing has already begun to bark back.”

[222] Ian Bremmer, A leaderless world is here to stay, The Straits Times, June 7, 2017; Ian Bremmer, 5 Signs We’re in a ‘G-Zero Era’ With No World Leadership, Time, June 16, 2017; Pablo Gorondi, Populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban Wins Third Consecutive Term in Hungary, Time, April 9, 2018; Eric Reguly, Analysts fear economic repercussions as Italy’s anti-establishment parties agree to form government, Globe and Mail, May 14, 2018; James Newell, Italy’s political crisis is a moment of reckoning for European liberal democracy, Business Insider, May 30, 2018; Neil Buckley and Andrew Byrne, The rise and rise of Viktor Orban – the man who has turned Hungary into a semi-authoritarian regime was once a democratic activist. What happened?, Financial Times, January 25, 2018:

“[Hungary’s prime minister Viktor] Orban’s cultivation of links with “illiberal” regimes such as China and Russia, which he praises as models, poses another challenge. “Because of how the EU works, even if Hungary is a small member state, Russia and China have a prospect of almost having a seat at the decision-making table in Brussels,” says Timothy Garton Ash [professor of European studies at Oxford University].”

[223] Rick Noack, Everything we know so far about Russian election meddling in Europe, Washington Post, January 10, 2018; Caroline Baylon, Is the Brexit Vote Legitimate if Russia Influenced the Outcome?, Newsweek, December 12, 2016; Carole Cadwalladr, The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked, The Guardian, Mary 7, 2017; Kate Ferguson, ‘Some Russians think they own Britain’: Senior Tory MP slams Government for failing to tackle Moscow’s dirty money flowing through London, Daily Mail, May 20, 2018; Jamil Anderlini and Jamie Smyth, West grows wary of China’s influence game, Financial Times, December 19, 2017; Tara Francis Chan, A secret government report uncovered China’s attempts to influence all levels of politics in Australia, Business Insider, May 29, 2018; Chris Uhlmann, Top-secret report uncovers high-level Chinese interference in Australian politics, 9News.com.au, May 28, 2018; Tara Francis Chan, A Chinese-Australian billionaire funded UN bribes investigated by the FBI, an Australian politician alleges, Business Insider, May 22, 2018; Licia Corbella, New Report alleges outside influence in Canada’s 2015 federal election, Calgary Herald, May 23, 2017; Alistair Smout and Costas Pitas, Facebook scandal widens to the Brexit leave campaign and targeted Trump voters, Financial Review, March 28, 2018; Alexis Madrigal, What Facebook Did to American Democracy, The Atlantic, October 12, 2017; Jonathan Masters, Russia, Trump, and the 2016 U.S. Election, Council on Foreign Affairs.org, February 26, 2018; Jon Swaine and Marc Bennetts, Meuller charges 13 Russians with interfering in US elections to help Trump, The Guardian, February 17, 2018; Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, Inside a 3-Year Russian Campaign to Influence U.S. Voters, New York Times, February 16, 2018; Ian Talley, Trump Administration Sanctions Russia for Interference in U.S. Elections, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018; Mike Blanchfield, NATO researcher warns of Russian interference in 2019 Canadian election, CBC, February 27, 2018; Kathleen Harris, Elections Canada prepares to fight fake news, foreign influence in 2019 vote, March 20, 2018.

[224] Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018.

[225] For example, only: Alexandre Kateb, Looking Beyond a G-Zero World, Huffington Post, 2013; Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 – see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State; George Monbiot, How Corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic, The Guardian, February 2, 2017:

“This is part of what Brexit was about: European laws protecting the public interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom. Taking back control from Europe means closer integration with the US. The transatlantic special relationship is a special relationship between political and corporate power. …

In April 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent the US Congress the following warning: ‘The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself’.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States (1933-1945), Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies, April 29, 1938, The American Presidency Project (presidency.ucsb.edu):

“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

[226] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017; Ian Bremmer, A leaderless world is here to stay, The Straits Times, June 7, 2017.

[227] Ian Bremmer,The Era of American Global Leadership is Over. Here’s What Comes Next, Time, December 21, 2016; Paul Adams, Is Trump abandoning US global leadership?, BBC.com, June 1, 2017; David Frum, The Death Knell for America’s Global Leadership, The Atlantic, May 31, 2017; Kai Ryssdal and Sean McHenry, ‘America first’ trade policies don’t play so well in Europe, Market Place.org, May 31, 2017; Nikolas Gvosdev, The Implications of ‘The World is Not a Global Community’, Ethics & International Affairs.org, May 31, 2017; Joshua Geltzer and Jon Finer, Trump’s message to the world: Do it yourself, CNN, June 10, 2017; Charles Kenny, Trump’s Flawed Global Vision: the idea that American can be great only by making others worse off is the thuggishness of the schoolyard bully, US News.com, June 5, 2017; Philip Rotner, America Over All: Trump’s Dangerous Way of Dealing With the World – Trump’s approach runs counter to everything we know about creating a more peaceful and prosperous world, Huffington Post, June 6, 2017; Thomas Ricks, Watching McMaster: The first rule of Realism is you don’t talk about Realism – careful readers of Thucydides know that the glorification of brute force makes more enemies than friends, Foreign Policy, June 5, 2017; Editorial Board, America in Retreat, New York Times, June 3, 2017; Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017.

[228] Paul Mason, We need a new defence strategy – Donald Trump has hung Europe out to dry, May 29, 2017; Michael Birnbaum and Rick Noack, Following Trump’s trip, Merkel says Europe can’t rely on ‘others’. She means the U.S., Washington Post, May 28, 2017; Samuel Osborne, Angela Merkel says Germany can no longer rely on Donald Trump’s America: ‘We Europeans must take our destiny into our own hands’, Independent, May 28, 2017; Laura King, Trump returns to an increasingly troubled White House and criticism from allies, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2017; Rachael Revesz, Donald Trump acted like ‘a drunk tourist’ on Europe trip that led Angela Merkel to proclaim end of US alliance, Independent, May 29, 2017; James Masters, Trump’s actions have ‘weakened’ the West, German foreign minister says, CNN, May 29, 2017; David Frum, Trump’s Trip Was a Catastrophe for U.S. – Europe Relations, The Atlantic, May 28, 2017; Hans-Jurgen Jakobs, Merkel’s Trust in US Crumbles, Hadelsblatt Global, May 29, 2017; Roger Cohen, Trump to Iran: America’s Word is Worthless, New York Times, May 8, 2018; Tom O’Connor, Did Trump Break the Law? U.S. Leaves Iran Deal, Violates World Order and Risks War, Experts Say, Newsweek, May 9, 2018 (“showed the international community that the U.S. may be an unreliable partner” … “going to anger a lot of countries … in international law, it is a custom that you keep your word. This is a violation of the international norm”.); Arne Delfs and Gregory Viscusi, Merkel Says Europe Can’t Count on U.S. Military Umbrella Anymore, BNN Bloomberg, May 10, 2018; Ben Doherty, John McCain urges allies to stand by US during ‘troubled times’, The Guardian, May 30, 2017; Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, The US is on its way to becoming a ‘failed state’ – but there’s hope, Business Insider, April 11, 2018:

“Punitive trade tactics against NATO allies. A looming trade war against China. Military threats against Mexico. War bluster on Twitter.

It all adds up to a United States that is no longer viewed as a reliable partner around the world, either in security, trade, or much of anything.

“We are increasingly becoming a failed state because we cannot manage the economy to keep Americans safe and we cannot manage conflict among us,” Susan Aaronson, a professor of international relations at George Washington University, tells Business Insider. “That is deeply worrisome.”

[229] Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017.

[230] Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017.

[231] Ian Bremmer is an American political scientist specializing in U.S. foreign policy, states in transition, and global political risk. He is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, a political risk research and consulting firm. He is foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at Time, and a Global Research Professor at New York University. Ian has published nine books including the national bestsellers “Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World”, “The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?”, and “Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World.”

[232] Ian Bremmer,The Era of American Global Leadership is Over. Here’s What Comes Next, Time, December 21, 2016. Also see, Doherty, John McCain urges allies to stand by US during ‘troubled times’, The Guardian, May 30, 2017.

[233] The Economist, Cause for concern? The top 10 risks to the global economy, A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018. Also see, Dr. Christian Downie, Strategies for Middle Powers, Australian Institute of International Affairs (internationalaffairs.org), June 9, 2017; Making Liberal Internationalism Great Again: What Role for Middle Powers in the New World Order?, Centre for International Policy Studies, May 29, 2018; Eduard Jordaan, The emerging middle power concept: Time to say goodbye?, South African Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 24, Issue 3, 2017; Wendy Dobson, The Middle Power and the Middle Kingdom: Securing Canada’s Place in the new China-U.S. Economic World Order, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Vol. 6, Issue 3, April 2014.

[234] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017. Also see, Edward Luce, Donald Trump goes for global regime change: move over Iran deal may be remembered as the day the US abandoned its belief in allies, Financial Times, May 8, 2018; Kevin Liptak and Nicole Gaouette, Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal, isolating him further from the world, CNN, May 8, 2018; Emile Simpson, The Predictable Disaster of Trump’s Lonely Iran Strategy: the United States is breaching the nuclear deal, alienating all its friends, and paving the way to another Middle Eastern war, Foreign Policy, May 8, 2018.

[235] For example, see: Steven Erlanger, Europe, Again Humiliated by Trump, Struggles to Defend its Interests, New York Times, May 9, 2018; Emile Simpson, The Predictable Disaster of Trump’s Lonely Iran Strategy: the United States is breaching the nuclear deal, alienating all its friends, and paving the way to another Middle Eastern war, Foreign Policy, May 8, 2018 (“There will be serious resentment in Europe to what will be perceived as an overbearing United States dictating foreign policy to its allies. …  Ultimately, the word of the United States either means something or it does not. In 2003, the last time the United States failed to provide evidence for the intelligence it claimed to have and ignored its allies’ concerns over the legality of its actions, the result was a catastrophe.“); Kevin Liptak and Nicole Gaouette, Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal, isolating him further from the world, CNN, May 8, 2018 (“It also further isolates Trump on the global stage, where he has angered even the staunchest US allies …”); Rob Price, The UK, Germany, and France will continue to uphold the Iran deal even though the US is pulling out, Business Insider, May 9, 2018; David Herszenhorn, Europe punches back after Trump’s Iran decision: Trump’s move to reimpose sanctions angers Europe and spooks companies, Politico, May 9, 2018; Arne Delfs and Gregory Viscusi, Merkel Says Europe Can’t Count on U.S. Military Umbrella Anymore, BNN Bloomberg, May 10, 2018; John Haltiwanger, The Trump administration is pushing the US further away from Europe and key allies in its response to the Gaza crisis, Business Insider, May 15, 2018; James Traub, RIP the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, 1945-2018, Foreign Policy, May 11, 2018; Roger Cohen, Trump to Iran: America’s Word is Worthless, New York Times, May 8, 2018; Editorial Board, America’s troubling foreign policy: Trump’s deal or no deal – Trump decision to pull out of Iran nuclear deal is the latest instance of his unilateralism, disdain for experts or evidence, and indifference to the interests of allies, the credibility of America’s word, Toronto Star, May 9, 2018; Edward Luce, Donald Trump goes for global regime change: move over Iran deal may be remembered as the day the US abandoned its belief in allies, Financial Times, May 8, 2018:

“Remember the Eighth of May. History may recall it as the day the United States abandoned its belief in allies. Donald Trump’s exit from the Iran agreement puts Washington — rather than Tehran — in violation of an international deal. ‘’’

Mr Trump has landed Europe with a dilemma it did its best to avoid. He is giving America’s leading NATO allies a choice between upholding a deal they brokered — and that Iran has honoured — or signing up to an “America first” war party over which they have no influence. The first will trigger US sanctions on European banks and energy companies that continue to do business with Iran. The second would mean forfeiting their best judgment and risking a Middle Eastern conflict that would hurt Europe far more than America.”

Also see: Doug Sanders, Canadians are seeing the whole world through an anti-American lens, Globe and Mail, April 14, 2018; Leonid Bershidsky, Why Germans Are Getting Fed Up with America: it’s getting harder for Angela Merkel and the German elite to hold back growing anti-Americanism, Bloomberg, May 14, 2018.

[236] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017; Fareed Zakaria, Trump’s radical departure from postwar foreign policy, Washington Post, June 1, 2017.

[237] David Lipton, Trust and the Future of Multilateralism, IMF Blog: Insights and Analysis on Economic & Finance, May 10, 2018.

[238] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017.

[239] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017.

[240] Fareed Zakaria, Trump’s radical departure from postwar foreign policy, Washington Post, June 1, 2017.

[241] G-Zero, NPR.org, January 7, 2011; Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Penguin Group, 2012; Vito Racanelli, Davos: Who or What is “G-Zero”?, Barron’s, January 26, 2011; Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017. Also see, Top Risks for 2011: G-Zero tops the list, Eurasia Group.net, January 4, 2011.

[242] Klaus Schwab, World leaders reckon with a global rebalancing: interdependence is seen as a weakness and nationalism is rekindled, Financial Times, January 12, 2017.

[243] Dr. Madeleine Albright, Op-ed: Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late – Dictators around the world have used President Trump’s own words to justify their repressive actions, New York Times, April 6, 2018.

[244] Rana Dasgupta, The demise of the nation state, The Guardian, April 5, 2018.

[245] For example, see: Tony Romm, Craig Timberg, and Michael Birnbaum, Europe, not the U.S., is now the most powerful regulator of Silicon Valley, Washington Post, May 25, 2018.  Also see, for example: Jennifer Rankin, Facebook, Google and Amazon could pay ‘fair’ tax under EU plans: tech firms would pay wherever they have digital presence, regardless of staff, The Guardian, March 21, 2018; Martin Greive, Ruth Berschens, and Jan Hildebrand, Trump set to tussle over EU digital tax plan, Hadelsblatt.com, April 16, 2018; Francesco Gurascio, EU ready to move alone on digital tax if no global deal, Reuters.com, September 20, 2017.

[246] Rana Dasgupta, The demise of the nation state, The Guardian, April 5, 2018.

[247] David Lipton, Trust and the Future of Multilateralism, IMF Blog: Insights and Analysis on Economic & Finance, May 10, 2018.

[248] Michael Gordon, The UK’s Sovereignty Situation: Brexit, Bewilderment and Beyond …, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 3, 2016.

[249] H.R. McMaster and Gary D. Cohn, Op-ed: America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone: we are asking a lot of our allies and partners. But in return the U.S. will once again be a true friend, Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2017.

[250] Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, Penguin Random House, 2011; Rule of Law and Lawyer Independence, Law Society of British Columbia (lawsociety.bc.ca); Richard Gordon, Brexit, Presidential executive orders and the Rule of Law: A discussion on the limits of executive power, Rule of Law Lecture Series 2017, Law Society of Upper Canada, May 31, 2017:

“The closest anyone has got to the nirvana of precise definition is the late Lord Bingham in his excellent work The Rule of Law. In this magisterial survey, he came up with a number of ‘rules’ as to the content of the rule of law. They included: (i) the requirement that the law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable; (ii) legal liability and rights ought not to be governed by discretion but, rather, by application of the law; (iii) law should be applied equally to all, save where objective differences justify differentiation; (iv) the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights; (v) legal disputes must be capable of being resolved without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay; (vi) powers must be exercised reasonably, in good faith and within the limits of the power; (vii) adjudicative procedures provided by the State should be fair; finally (viii) the State must comply with its obligations under international law.”

[251] Rule of Law and Lawyer Independence, Law Society of British Columbia (lawsociety.bc.ca).

[252] Rule of Law and Lawyer Independence, Law Society of British Columbia (lawsociety.bc.ca).

[253] The Editorial Board, The President is Not Above the Law, New York Times, April 15, 2018; Richard Gordon, Brexit, Presidential executive orders and the Rule of Law: A discussion on the limits of executive power, Rule of Law Lecture Series 2017, Law Society of Upper Canada, May 31, 2017; Rule of Law and Lawyer Independence, Law Society of British Columbia (lawsociety.bc.ca).

[254] Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, Penguin Random House, 2011.

[255] Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, Penguin Random House, 2011.

[256] For example, see: Lisa Kelly and Lisa Kerr, Yes, law schools must be political, Globe and Mail, March 17, 2018.

[257] Jeffrey Sachs, Understanding and Overcoming America’s Plutocracy, Forbes, November 6, 2014.

[258] Sean Illing, 20 of America’s top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They’re scared, Vox, October 13, 2017;

[259] Out With the Old: New Books on Collusion, Civil War, Doomsday, and Other Happy Tidings, by FP Staff, December 29, 2017 — Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, Penguin Random House (reviewed by Dan De Luce); Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?, New York Times, January 27, 2018.

[260] Editorial Board, Judges Shouldn’t Be Partisan Punching Bags, New York Times, April 8, 2018; Kristine Phillips, All the times Trump personally attacked judges – and why his tirades are worse than wrong, Washington Post, April 27, 2017; Seung Min Kim, Trump is transforming the judiciary, but he has yet to take aim at the court that annoys him the most, Washington Post, May 6, 2018; Carl Meyer, McLachlin urges public to ‘stand up’ to political interference in the courts, National Observer, December 15, 2017:

“At her final press conference as chief justice on Dec. 15 in Ottawa, she discussed what she felt were the most important safeguards in Canada against a growing global trend of political interference in judicial systems.

Champions of independent judiciaries, for example, have criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s attacks on judges and U.S. law enforcement, and his pardon of a sheriff convicted of disregarding a court order. They have voiced concern over Turkey’s dismissal of thousands of judges following an attempted coup, and new laws in Poland and Romania they say boost political control over the legal system.

“We have deep respect for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms among the people of Canada, and we have a public that values an independent judiciary, which is the best defence,” said McLachlin.

“If people stand up and say, ‘We can’t attack our judiciary, we want an independent judiciary,’ that is — in a democracy such as ours — the best way to preserve the rule of law and judicial independence.”

Also see, Lina Khan, Thrown Out of Court: how corporations became people you can’t sue, Washington Monthly, June-August 2014; Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice: Beware the Fine Print, The New York Times, Oct. 31, 2015; Jessica Siver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’: Beware the Fine Print, The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2015; Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits, New York Times, October 24, 2017; Donna Borak and Ted Barrett, Senate kills rule that made it easier to sue banks, CNN, October 25, 2017; Rahul Manchanda, Op-ed: Deep State Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Subvert the American People’s Right to Sue, Modern Diplomacy.eu, December 6, 2017.

[261] Lina Khan, Thrown Out of Court: how corporations became people you can’t sue, Washington Monthly, June-August 2014; Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice: Beware the Fine Print, The New York Times, Oct. 31, 2015; Jessica Siver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, In Arbitration, a ‘Privatization of the Justice System’: Beware the Fine Print, The New York Times, Nov. 1, 2015; Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits, New York Times, October 24, 2017; Donna Borak and Ted Barrett, Senate kills rule that made it easier to sue banks, CNN, October 25, 2017; Rahul Manchanda, Op-ed: Deep State Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Subvert the American People’s Right to Sue, Modern Diplomacy.eu, December 6, 2017; Robert Barnes, Supreme Court rules that companies can require workers to accept individual arbitration, Washington Post, May 21, 2018; Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts Barring Class Actions, New York Times, May 21, 2018.

[262] Maegan Vazquez, Trump slams DOJ and FBI in weekend tweetstorm, CNN, December 4, 2017.

[263] John Wasik, How the GOP Tax Plan Scrooges Middle Class, Retired and Poor, Forbes, November 29, 2017; Peter Goodman and Patricia Cohen, It Started as a Tax Cut. Now It Could Change American Life, New York Times, November 29, 2017; Josh Hoxie, Trump’s Tax Cuts Are the Biggest Wealth Grab in Modern History, Fortune, November 3, 2017; Martin Wolf, A Republican tax plan built for plutocrats, Financial Times, November 21, 2017; Stan Collender, Paul Ryan’s Most Lasting Legacy: Permanent Trillion-Dollar Deficits, Forbes, April 11, 2018; Mark Warner, Congress and the $1 trillion deficit: time to be straight with the American People, CNBC, April 10, 2018; Tom Dickinson, How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich – the inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent, Rolling Stone, November 9, 2011; Dylan Scott, House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill ‘or don’t ever call me again’, Vox, November 7, 2017.

[264] Bob Bryan, The ‘Team Trump takeover’ of government regulation is now complete, Business Insider, November 16, 2017; Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport, Scott Pruitt, Trump’s E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators, New York Times, January 14, 2017; Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton, Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A., New York Times, December 7, 2016; Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Pruitt sums up America’s big challenge, CNN, April 10, 2018; Richard Bowen, How to Take Apart the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Linkedin.com, April 19, 2018; Charlie May, Mick Mulvaney’s destroying the CFPB – and that’s just what Trump wants – what Mick Mulvaney is doing to the agency he’s supposed to take care of is what’s going on throughout Washington, Salon, February 17, 2018.

[265] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, Penguin Random House, January 2018; Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?, New York Times, January 27, 2018. Also see, John Shattuck, Op-ed: Hijacking liberal democracy, Boston Globe, August 25, 2017; John Shattuck, The Hijacking of Democracy: Learning How to Resist, Humanity in Action.org, June 2017 (In June 2017, John Shattuck, Humanity in Action Board member, gave the following speech at the Eighth Annual Humanity in Action International Conference in Berlin, Germany. John Shattuck is a former assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, and Professor of Practice in Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Tufts University, specializing in transatlantic relations and US foreign policy, and Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Carr Center for Human Rights Policy); Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018.

[266] 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report, Edelman.com.

[267] Torrey Taussig and Bruce Jones, Democracy in the new geopolitics, Brookings.edu, March 22, 2018.

[268] Editorial, Globe editorial: Democracy’s immutable need for a free press, Globe and Mail, May 2, 2018.

[269] William J. Barber II, America’s Moral Malady, The Atlantic, March 30, 2018.

[270] Jeffrey Sachs, Understanding and Overcoming America’s Plutocracy, Forbes, November 6, 2014.

[271] Jeffrey Sachs, The U.S. Plutocracy’s War on Sustainable Development, Project Syndicate, November 2, 2017; Jeffrey Sachs, America’s Broken Democracy, Project Syndicate, May 31, 2017. Also see, Kevin Loria and Dana Varinsky, The world faces a future of floods, famine, and extreme heat – here’s what it’ll take to bounce back, Business Insider, April 12, 2018; Ian Bailey, Donations taint B.C.’s approval of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion: advocacy group, Globe and Mail, January 31, 2017; Maxwell Cameron, How Big Money Undermined B.C.’s Climate Leadership – and its Democracy, Huffington Post, September 21, 2017.

[272] Michael Bradley, Career politicians and the slippery ideological slope, ABC.net.au, March 31, 2016.

[273] Alex Shashkevich, Empathy, respect for one another critical to ease political polarization, Stanford sociologist says, Stanford.edu, January 20, 2017:

“We believe a technique called moral reframing can help. We’ve conducted a number of studies showing that if you want to move conservatives on liberal issues like same-sex marriage and national health insurance, it helps to tie those arguments to conservative values like patriotism and moral purity. Likewise, if you want to move liberals on conservative issues like military spending, you’ll be more persuasive if you find a way to tie those policies to liberal moral values like equality and fairness.”

Also see, Conor Friedersdorf, Working Toward the Same Ends for Different Reasons: A better understanding of moral reasoning could help Americans cooperate on improving the country even amid deep disagreements, The Atlantic, June 27, 2017.

[274] Will Hutton, We now live in a society so cynical that cheating has become the norm, The Guardian, September 27, 2009.

[275] Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016; Peter Wehner, One Way Not to Be Like Trump, New York Times, December 17, 2016.

[276] David Brooks, What Moderation Means, New York Times, October 26, 2012; Eric Montpetit, In Defense of Pluralism: Policy Disagreements and its Media Coverage, Cambridge University Press, 2016.

[277] Michael Gerson, Op-ed: American politics are radicalizing. The damage will last generations, Washington Post, April 9, 2018; Charles Sykes, How the Right Lost Its Mind, St. Martin’s Press, October 2017. Also see, Peter Wehner, One Way Not to Be Like Trump, New York Times, December 17, 2016.

[278] David Moss, Fixing What’s Wrong with U.S. Politics, Harvard Business Review, March 2012.

[279] Aurelian Craiutu, Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.

[280] David Brooks, Op-ed: What Moderates Believe, New York Times, August 22, 2017.

[281] Peter Wehner, One Way Not to Be Like Trump, New York Times, December 17, 2016. Also see, Quint Forgey, Tillerson warns of ethical crisis among U.S. leaders in speech, Politico, May 16, 2018; Tom McCarthy, Rex Tillerson warns of ‘integrity and ethics crisis’ – but doesn’t name trump: urges graduates to resist ‘leaders [who] seek to conceal the truth, The Guardian, May 16, 2018; Gardiner Harris, In Rebuke to Trump, Tillerson Says Lies are a Threat to Democracy, New York Times, May 16, 2018; Steve Peoples, Michael Bloomberg, An ‘epidemic of dishonesty’ in Washington is threatening democracy, Business Insider.

[282] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, Penguin Random House, January 2018; Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?, New York Times, January 27, 2018. Also see, James Traub, Democracy Is Dying by Natural Causes, Foreign Policy, March 1, 2018. But see, Paul Rosenberg, Norms are eroding: But what ‘norms’ should progressives actually support? – Here’s what the authors of “How Democracies Die” get right – and wrong – about the importance of democratic ‘norms’, Salon, February 4, 2018.

[283] Eric Sigurdson, Civility, the Rule of Law, and Lawyers: the ‘glue’ that binds society against social crisis – is incivility the ‘ugly new normal’ in government, politics, Sigurdson Post, November 25, 2016; Domenico Montanaro, John McCain Makes An Appeal For Civility and Humility, NPR.org, May 1, 2018.

[284] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?, New York Times, January 27, 2018.

[285] Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?, New York Times, January 27, 2018.

[286] See, Eric Sigurdson, Civility, the Rule of Law, and Lawyers: the ‘glue’ that binds society against social crisis – is incivility the ‘ugly new normal’ in government, politics, Sigurdson Post, November 25, 2016.

[287] R. Wayne Thorpe (Chair, Section of Dispute Resolution), Report to the House of Delegates: Resolution 108, American Bar Association, August 2011; Judge Paul L. Friedman, Fostering Civility, American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law, March 13, 1998; Josephine Stone, Civility and Professionalism – standards of courtesy, Article from the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (NSW), Austlii.edu.au, 2007.

[288] Cynthia M. Allen, Politicians today are so mean – because they are just like us, Star-Telegram, May 12, 2016.

[289] See generally: Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2001); Michael Woolcock & Deepa Narayan, Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy, 15 World Bank Research Obs. 225 (2000); Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Italy (1993); Brian O’Donnell, Civil Society: The Underpinning of American Democracy (1999); Susan Rose-Ackerman, Corruption: Greed, Culture and the State, 120 Yale L. J. Online 125 (2009); Larry J. Diamond, Three Paradoxes of Democracy, 1 J. DEM. 3 (1990); R. Wayne Thorpe (Chair, Section of Dispute Resolution), Report to the House of Delegates: Resolution 108, American Bar Association, August 2011. [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/civility.authcheckdam.pdf]

[290] Rebecca S. Chopp, The social value of civil discourse, Colgate.edu, September 2015; Andrea Leskes, A Plea for Civil Discourse: Needed, the Academy’s Leadership, Association of American Colleges & Universities, Fall 2013; Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956); R. Wayne Thorpe (Chair, Section of Dispute Resolution), Report to the House of Delegates: Resolution 108, American Bar Association, August 2011. [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/civility.authcheckdam.pdf]

[291] Tom McCarthy, Rex Tillerson warns of ‘integrity and ethics crisis’ – but doesn’t name trump: urges graduates to resist ‘leaders [who] seek to conceal the truth, The Guardian, May 16, 2018.

[292] Conor Friedersdorf, Working Toward the Same Ends for Different Reasons: A better understanding of moral reasoning could help Americans cooperate on improving the country even amid deep disagreements, The Atlantic, June 27, 2017.

[293] 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, Edelman.com.

[294] For example see, 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, Edelman.com; Helen Sullivan, What can governments and leaders do when trust evaporates?, The Conversation, February 9, 2015.

[295] James Campbell, The source of America’s political polarization? It’s us, Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2016.

[296] Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States (1933-1945), Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies, April 29, 1938, The American Presidency Project (presidency.ucsb.edu).

[297] Editorial, Globe editorial: Democracy’s immutable need for a free press, Globe and Mail, May 2, 2018.

[298] See, for example, Terry Newell, Grant Reeher, and Peter Ronayne (editors), The Trusted Leader: Building the Relationships that Make Government Work (2^nd ed.),  CQ Press, 2012 – the audience is primarily the federal career civil servant, though the arguments and insights apply equally to state/provincial, national and international levels; Helen Sullivan, What can governments and leaders do when trust evaporates?, The Conversation, February 9, 2015; David Horsager, The Trust Edge: How Top Leaders Gain Faster Results, Deeper Relationships, and a Stronger Bottom Line, Simon & Schuster, 2012; Building a Trust-based Relationship, British Columbia (www2.gov.bc, ca), Canada; Tom Fox, What makes good government leaders, Washington Post, March 27, 2015.

[299] Douglas Elmendorf and Nitin Nohria, Restoring Trust in Leadership, Project Syndicate.org, January 29, 2018 (Douglas Elmendorf is Dean and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Nitin Nohria is Dean at Harvard Business School). Also see, Peter Moizer, Corporate social responsibility is an essential part of today’s MBA, Financial Times, February 6, 2018:

“Businesses are aware that what they do has an impact on society and the environment. This change has been reflected in the way that corporate social responsibility and ethics are taught in UK business schools, particularly on MBA programmes. While MBA students expect to learn about finance, operations, marketing and strategy, an insight into to the latest CSR thinking and ethics is also expected. …

After recognising that graduates needed a more thorough understanding of CSR, Leeds University Business School has refined its approach to teaching the subject. And it is one of a number of business schools — including Warwick, Cass and EDHEC — which signed up to the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Management Education. These principles encourage practical action to incorporate business ethics, environmental and sustainable development issues within curricular and student engagement activities. …

Business schools have a role to play in helping companies meet the challenges of social responsibility and ethics.”

[300] Terry Newell, Grant Reeher, and Peter Ronayne (editors), The Trusted Leader: Building the Relationships that Make Government Work (2^nd ed.), CQ Press, 2012. Also see, for example: Helen Sullivan, What can governments and leaders do when trust evaporates?, The Conversation, February 9, 2015; Margie Warrell, How To Build High-Trust Relationships, Forbes, August 31, 2015; David Horsager, You Can’t Be a Great Leader Without Trust – Here’s How You Build It, Forbes, October 24, 2012. Also see, Stephen Walt, American Can’t Be Trusted Anymore: It’s hard to be powerful when nobody believes a word you say, Foreign Policy, April 10, 2018; Editorial, A President’s Credibility: Trump’s falsehoods are eroding public trust, at home and abroad, Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2017; Susan Page, Donald Trump has biggest credibility gap of any president since Nixon, USA Today, May 15, 2017; Mark Landler, Trump’s Falsehoods Make Foreign Leaders Ask: Can we Trust Him?, New York Times, January 31, 2017.

[301] Eric Sigurdson, Global Populism: Corporate Strategy, Engagement & Leadership in 2017 – ‘the year of living dangerously’, Sigurdson Post, January 18, 2017; Eric Sigurdson, Lawyers and Leadership: effective and ethical judgement and decision-making required to address societal and professional challenges, Sigurdson Post, September 5, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[302] Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Qualities: from Wells Fargo to Donald Trump – character, integrity, and ethics are necessities, not luxuries, Sigurdson Post, October 17, 2016.

[303] Dr. Steven Mintz, Can Politicians be Principled Leaders? Reflections on the Republican Debates, Ethics Sage.com, September 22, 2015; Principled Leadership and Effective Governance, Democracy Fund.org, Manuel London, Principled Leadership and Business Diplomacy: Values-Based Strategies (chapter 3: Politics and Diplomacy), Quorum Books, 1999.

[304] John F. Kennedy Quotations, JFK Library.org (Speech at Loyola College Alumni Banquet, Baltimore, Maryland, 18 February, 1958).

[305] Paul Krugman, A Country is Not a Company, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1996 Issue.

[306] Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Qualities: from Wells Fargo to Donald Trump – character, integrity, and ethics are necessities, not luxuries, Sigurdson Post, October 17, 2016. Derek Feeley, Health Care Leaders: Heroism Is Out, Humility Is In, IHI.org, March 29, 2018.

[307] Eric Sigurdson, Leadership Qualities: from Wells Fargo to Donald Trump – character, integrity, and ethics are necessities, not luxuries, Sigurdson Post, October 17, 2016.

[308] Douglas Elmendorf and Nitin Nohria, Restoring Trust in Leadership, Project Syndicate, January 29, 2018.

[309] Douglas Elmendorf and Nitin Nohria, Restoring Trust in Leadership, Project Syndicate, January 29, 2018. Also see, Dambisa Moyo, Why the survival of democracy depends on a strong middle-class, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018:

“[A] 2015 Pew survey concluded that only 19 per cent of Americans trust their federal government to do what is right “just about always” (3 per cent) or “most of the time” (16 per cent). Throughout the 1960s, this level of trust was more than 60 per cent.”

[310] For example: Don Murray, France’s Macron fights his Trump-like approval rating by joining the fray: French president wants to reform his country, but first he needs to earn the people’s trust, CBC, April 21, 2018.

[311] The term G-Zero world refers to an emerging vacuum of power in international politics created by a decline of Western influence and the domestic focus of the governments of developing states. It aims to explain a world in which there is no single country or group of countries that has to ability and will, economically and politically, to drive a truly global agenda. – see, Ian Bremmer, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Penguin Group, 2012; Vito Racanelli, Davos: Who or What is “G-Zero”?, Barron’s, January 26, 2011.

[312] The ratio of general government debt to gross domestic product for member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) now exceeds 100 percent – Diana Farrell and Andrew Goodman, Government by Design: Four Principles for a better public sector, McKinsey.com, December 2013.

[313] 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, Edelman.com.

[314] Diana Farrell and Andrew Goodman, Government by Design: Four Principles for a better public sector, McKinsey.com, December 2013.

[315] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017.

[316] Sam Ellis, China’s trillion-dollar plan to dominate global trade: It’s about more than just economics, Vox, April 6, 2018; Michael Goldfien and Michael Woolslayer, Trump, the Brexit, and the Fraying of the Western Diplomatic Consensus, Huffington Post; Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic (editors), Beyond Convergence: World Without Order, Center for Complex Operations at National Defense University, 2016 (see, Chapter 2, Nils Gilman, The Twin Insurgencies: Plutocrats and Criminals Challenge the Westphalian State, etc). Also see, for example, Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, The US is on its way to becoming a ‘failed state’ – but there’s hope, Business Insider, April 11, 2018; Shane Croucher, Putin, Who Invaded Ukraine and Sent Troops to Syria, Complains the World is ‘Becoming More Chaotic’, Newsweek, April 12, 2018; Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Leaked document shows Russia has been using gas to politically bully Eastern Europe for years – episode risks mushrooming into a major EU scandal, Financial Post, April 13, 2018; Sarah Leamon, The G-Zero World is here, Huffington Post, February 7, 2017 (“According to The Economist Intelligence Unit, America, the often self-proclaimed greatest democracy on Earth, is no longer a ‘full democracy’.”).

[317] Sarah Green, Welcome to the G-Zero World – an interview with Ian Bremmer (author of Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World), Harvard Business Review, May 2012.

[318] Corey Cooper and Will Moreland, The Long Game on Saving the International Order, Huffington Post, Jauary 4, 2018.

[319] Ian Bremmer, A leaderless world is here to stay, The Straits Times, June 7, 2017.

[320] Sarah Green, Welcome to the G-Zero World – an interview with Ian Bremmer (author of Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World), Harvard Business Review, May 2012.

[321] Corey Cooper and Will Moreland, The Long Game on Saving the International Order, Huffington Post, January 4, 2018.

[322] Mike Blanchfield, Japanese envoy says signing of new TPP sends message to China on trade rules, Financial Post, March 6, 2018; Wendy Wu and Keegan Elmer, China wary after Trump’s U-turn could see US rejoining TPP, South China Morning Post, April 14, 2018.

[323] Dr. Andrew Lilico, In the Trump era, the plan for a Canadian – UK – Australia – New Zealand trade alliance is quickly catching on, Financial Post, February 13, 2017;

[324] Brian Stansall, Brexit has thrust Commonwealth summit out of the shadows and into the spotlight, Globe and Mail, April 17, 2018.

[325] Guy Cote, CETA agreement with European Union: Canadian Ambassador, Peteris Ustubs, LinkedIn, May 15, 2018; Dr. Liam Fox, Ratifying CETA is a clear signal of the UK’s commitment to free trade, LinkedIn, May 22, 2018.

[326] April Fong, NAFTA nations should focus on how to be ‘international powerhouse’: Blackrock’s Fink, BNN Bloomberg, May 9, 2018.

[327] North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): Fast Facts, Government of Canada (international.gc.ca).

[328] Bob Ryan, Top Republican senator: Trump wants to jump back in the massive trade deal he once called ‘a rape of our country’, Business Insider, April 12, 2018 (“The best thing the United States can do to push back against Chinese cheating now is to lead the other eleven Pacific nations that believe in free trade and the rule of law …. It is good news that today the president directed Larry Kudlow and Ambassador Lighthizer to negotiate US entry into TPP”); Wendy Wu and Keegan Elmer, China wary after Trump’s U-turn could see US rejoining TPP, South China Morning Post, April 14, 2018 (“The TPP is a geopolitical instrument for America’s Asia-Pacific rebalancing, which is not good for China”); Tom Mitchell, China caught off guard by unpredictable Trump, Financial Times, April 15, 2018; Jethro Mullen, The US may have missed its chance to rejoin the TPP, CNN, April 13, 2018.

[329] Robin Harding, Japan’s TPP negotiator welcomes UK membership of trading bloc, Financial Times, February 20 2018.

[330] Cary Huang, It’s a Matter of Time before Trump and China Embrace the TPP, This Week in Asia, February 4, 2018:

“The trade deal aims to deepen economic ties between member countries, slashing tariffs and fostering trade. The pact, had it included the US, would have had a collective population of 800 million, almost double that of the EU’s single market and would have represented about 40 per cent of global output and 40 per cent of world trade.”

[331] Tim McDonald, Asia-Pacific trade deal signed by 11 nations, BBC.com, March 8, 2018.

[332] Javier Solana, View: Could Merkel’s Germany fill the global leadership void?, EuroNews.com, September 23, 2017.

[333] Angela Charlton and Sylvie Corbet, Why Fench globalist Emmanuel Macron has befriended nationalist Donald Trump, National Post, April 22, 2018 (“His aims may sound like French hubris or wishful thinking, but they are consistent with the “France is back” global strategy Macron has set for his tenure” … he wants to fortify his image as the face of today’s Europe and the No. 1 defender of a liberal world order, as well as prove that France is essential to solving world problems”); Josh Lowe, Who is More Powerful? France can take leadership role as America retreats, say organizers of new forum, Newsweek, August 2, 2017; Daniella Diaz, France’s Macron takes aim at Trump agenda in pointed speech to Congress, CNN, April 26, 2018; Macron attacks nationalism in speech to US congress, BBC.com, April 25, 2018.

[334] Ian Bremmer, A world in turmoil: What we must do to survive the coming political crisis, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018. Also see,

[335] World Economic Forum in Davos out to heal ‘a fractured world’, Deutsche Welle (DW.com), January 23, 2018:

“The topic of this year’s World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos is “Creating a shared future in a fractured world.” The motto is in direct contrast to US President Donald Trump’s “America first” policy which also involves large-scale protectionism and isolationist security policies.

“There is today a real danger of a collapse of our global systems,” said WEF founder Klaus Schwab. “But change is not just happening — it’s in our hands to improve the state of the world and that is what the World Economic Forum stands for.”

[336] Valerie Keller, Healing a fractured world by changing the rules of the game, LinkedIn, January 24, 2018.

[337] 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, Global Annual Study, Edelman.com.

[338] Klaus Schwab, World leaders reckon with a global rebalancing: interdependence is seen as a weakness and nationalism is rekindled, Financial Times, January 12, 2017.

[339] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018; Ben Schiller, How Demographics, Automation and Inequality will shape the next decade: A new report says that by 2030, 25% of jobs will be automated – and without government intervention, income inequality will get even worse, Fast Company, February 21, 2018:

“Income inequality has increased rapidly in the last few decades, as the gains from globalization, technology, and political changes have flowed largely to top earners. At the same time, wages among earners in the lower and lower-middle of the income scale have stagnated.

And here’s the scary thing: These trends are likely to speed up in the next 10 years, according to consulting firm Bain & Company. By 2030, automation will eliminate up to 25% of all jobs in the U.S., hitting those at the bottom hardest. It forecasts that the benefits of automation will go mostly to the top 20% of earners as well as to investors funding artificially intelligent equipment.”

[340] Kemal Derviş and Laurence Chandy, Are technology and globalization destined to drive up inequality? Understanding inequality and what drives it, Brookings.edu, October 5, 2016.

[341] Claire Cain Miller, The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It’s Automation, New York Times, December 21, 2016; Steve Lohr, Robots Will Take Jobs, but Not as Fast as Some Fear, New Report Says, New York Times, January 12, 2017; Executive Office of the President, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy, White House Report (Pres. Obama), December 20, 2016 [Staff from the Council of Economic Advisers, the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy contributed to this post]; Claire Cain Miller, A Darker Them in Obama’s Farewell: Automation Can Divide Us, New York Times, January 12, 2017:

“Education is the main solution the White House advocated. …

The White House proposed enrolling more 4-year-olds in preschool and making two years of community college free for students, as well as teaching more skills like computer science and critical thinking. For people who have already lost their jobs, it suggested expanding apprenticeships and retraining programs, on which the country spends half what it did 30 years ago.

Displaced workers also need extra government assistance, the report concluded. It suggested ideas like additional unemployment benefits for people who are in retraining programs or live in states hardest hit by job loss. It also suggested wage insurance for people who lose their jobs and have to take a new one that pays less. Someone who made $18.50 an hour working in manufacturing, for example, would take an $8 pay cut if he became a home health aide, one of the jobs that is growing most quickly.

President Obama, in his speech Tuesday, named some other policy ideas for dealing with the problem: stronger unions, an updated social safety net and a tax overhaul so that the people benefiting most from technology share some of their earnings.

The Trump administration probably won’t agree with many of those solutions. But the economic consequences of automation will be one of the biggest problems it faces.”

[342] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018; Ben Schiller, How Demographics, Automation and Inequality will shape the next decade: A new report says that by 2030, 25% of jobs will be automated – and without government intervention, income inequality will get even worse, Fast Company, February 21, 2018.

[343] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018.

[344] Karen Harris, Austin Kimson, and Andrew Schwedel, Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality, Bain Report (bain.com), February 7, 2018.

[345] Luke Kingma, Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation?, Futurism.com; Vincent Gasparro, Why the left and right should embrace a universal basic income, Globe and Mail, March 15, 2018; Noah Smith, A Basic Income for Everyone? It’s Not a Crazy Idea, Bloomberg, January 23, 2018; Chelsea Gohd, Experts Say Universal Basic Income Could Reach the Mainstream in 2018: the debate is getting serious, Science Alert.com, January 20, 2018; Richard Feloni, The entrepreneur who says there’s a ‘war on normal people’ is running for president on a platform of giving nearly every American $1000 each month, Business Insider, April 7, 2018; Annie Nova, More Americans now support a universal basic income, CNBC.com, February 26, 2018:

“Proposals for universal basic income programs vary, but the most common one is a system in which the federal government sends out regular checks to everyone, regardless of their earnings or employment.

Pilots of such programs are underway in Finland and Canada. In rural Kenya, a basic income is managed by nonprofit GiveDirectly. India — with a population of more than 1.3 billion residents — is considering establishing a universal basic income”.

[346] Kemal Derviş and Laurence Chandy, Are technology and globalization destined to drive up inequality? Understanding inequality and what drives it, Brookings.edu, October 5, 2016.

[347] Ian Bremmer, A world in turmoil: What we must do to survive the coming political crisis, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018.

[348] Aleksandra Sagen, Loblaw shareholders reject proposal to study feasibility of paying a living wage, Globe and Mail, May 3, 2018.

[349] Dambisa Moyo, Why the survival of democracy depends on a strong middle-class, Globe and Mail, April 20, 2018.

[350] Precarity is an outcome of economic policy: Brhmie Balaram, Insecurity in modern work: policy overlooks the ‘chronically precarious’ workers, London School of Ecomonics (blogs.lse.ac.uk), March 1, 2018; Michael Nau and Matthew Soener, Income precarity and the financial crisis, Socio-Economic Review, June 21, 2017 (United States); Nick Pearce, The political forecast for 2017? Economic precarity and social division – strap yourself in; the UK post-Brexit will be a bleaker, more fragile place, Wired.co.uk, January 7, 2017 (UK); Francis Fong, We don’t know the extent of precarious work, Policy Options.irpp.org, January 25, 2018 (Canada); Ubiye Shin (translated and introduced by Sachie Mizohata), Inequality and Precarity in Japan: The Sorry Achievements of Abenomics, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 16, Issue 6, March 15, 2018 (Japan); More than half of Ontario’s postsecondary jobs show signs of precarity: precarious work is a serious and growing problem at Ontario’s colleges and universities, PressProgress.ca, February 12, 2018; Jim Edwards, UK ‘underemployment’ is worse now than during the financial crisis of 2008, Business Insider, April 24, 2018; Jim Edwards, New stats show underemployment in the UK is being replaced by chronic ‘underemployment’, Business Insider, September 19, 2017; Jackson Stiles, Australian underemployment is the highest in modern times, New Daily, June 15, 2017; Nick Purdon and Leonardo Palleja, The millennial side hustle, not stable job, is the new reality for university grads, CBC.ca, March 23, 2017; Canadian Press, Bill Morneau, Finance Minister, Says Canadians Should Get Used to Short-Term Employment, Huffington Post, October 23, 2016.

[351] Kemal Derviş and Laurence Chandy, Are technology and globalization destined to drive up inequality? Understanding inequality and what drives it, Brookings.edu, October 5, 2016; Peter Goodman, Davos Elite Fret About Inequality Over vintage wines and canapes, New York Times, January 18, 2017: “… the way we have managed globalization has contributed significantly to inequality. … changes in globalization [that] would address inequality … would include items that involve … more progressive taxation, increased bargaining rights for labor unions, and greater protections for labor in general.”

[352] Maya Oppenheim, Bill Gates says he and other rich people should pay ‘significantly higher taxes, Independent.co.uk, February 19, 2018; Carol Goar, Jack up tax rate for privileged elite, Toronto Star, January 11, 2015; Emmie Martin, Bill Gates has paid over $10 billion in taxes – here’s why he says he should pay more, CNBC.com, February 21, 2018. But see, Jonathan O’Connell, As Amazon pursues a second headquarters, it battles hometown Seattle over tax to stem homelessness, Washington Post, May 10, 2018; Jacob Silverman, The Billionaire Philanthropist, LongReads.com, March 13, 2018:

“Advancing Amazon’s interests has meant, since day one, having a skeptical attitude toward taxation. Simply put, the company has a long history of tax evasion; … Jeff Bezos has shown little interest in putting his billions toward the common good. (If he had, perhaps paying taxes would have been a good starting point.) He has repeatedly expressed an intention to help save the world but claims, with a tech mogul’s typical messianism, that he will do it through building great companies.”

[353] Peter Goodman, Davos Elite Fret About Inequality Over vintage wines and canapes, New York Times, January 18, 2017.

[354] Nick Hanauer, To My Fellow Plutocrats: You Can Cure Trumpism – pay your workers a decent wage, Politico.com, July 18, 2017. Also see, William Lazonick, Profits Without Prosperity, Harvard Business Review, September 2014; Hedrick Smith, Think corporate tax cuts will mean more jobs? Here’s how you’re being conned, Sacramento Bee, September 20, 2017; Nick Hanauer, Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy: profits once flowed to higher wages or increased investment. Now, they enrich a small number of shareholders, The Atlantic, February 8, 2015; Too much of a good thing: profits are too high. America needs a dose of competition, The Economist, March 26, 2016; Leo Gerard, Our Plutocracy Problem: when the 1% and politicians join forces, democracy loses, In These Times.com, March 25, 2014.

[355] Danielle Paquette, Bernie Sanders has a new plan to raise wages: Save the unions, Washington Post, May 9, 2018; Mike Elk, Bernie Sanders introduces Senate bill protecting employees fired for union organizing: the Workplace Democracy Act; The Guardian, May 9, 2018; Bob Bryan, Bernie Sanders has a new plan to raise wages, and it’s a major signal on where the Democratic Party is headed, Business Insider, May 9, 2018:

“Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced a plan that he says will boost wages by strengthening labor unions. Sanders’ Workplace Democracy Act would make it easier for workers to join unions and strengthen unions’ negotiating power.

The plan is cosponsored by an array of Democratic lawmakers, including possible 2020 presidential hopefuls Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Sanders, an independent and a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, said the plan was designed to help workers in the middle class. Sanders said the reforms would give workers more power and help boost lackluster wage growth in the US.

“Declining unionization has fueled rising inequality,” Sanders said. “Today, corporate profits are at an all-time high, while wages as a percentage of the economy are near an all-time low. The middle class is disappearing, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider.”

[356] Paul Krugman, Apple and the Fruits of Tax Cuts, New York Times, May 3, 2018:

“Republican candidates have pretty much stopped talking about their party’s only major legislative achievement under Donald Trump, the 2017 tax cut. Ads touting the tax law have largely vanished from the airwaves. … Public perceptions about who benefits from the tax cut, and who doesn’t, are accurate, a point Apple just nicely demonstrated with its announcement of a huge stock buyback. … this week it announced that it’s buying back $100 billion of its own stock, which is good for stockholders but does nothing for workers. Lots of other companies are doing the same thing. …

The bottom line — which will remain true no matter how much the Kochs spend trying to convince you otherwise — is that what looks like a big giveaway to wealthy investors is, in fact, a big giveaway to wealthy investors.”

[357] Maya Oppenheim, Bill Gates says he and other rich people should pay ‘significantly higher taxes, Independent.co.uk, February 19, 2018; Carol Goar, Jack up tax rate for privileged elite, Toronto Star, January 11, 2015; Emmie Martin, Bill Gates has paid over $10 billion in taxes – here’s why he says he should pay more, CNBC.com, February 21, 2018. But see, Jonathan O’Connell, As Amazon pursues a second headquarters, it battles hometown Seattle over tax to stem homelessness, Washington Post, May 10, 2018; Jacob Silverman, The Billionaire Philanthropist, LongReads.com, March 13, 2018.

[358] Shona Ghosh, Peeing in trash cans, constant surveillance, and asthma attacks on the job: Amazon workers tell us their warehouse horror stories, Business Insider, May 3, 2018.

[359] Rebecca Perring, ‘This is European Civil War!’ France’s Macron savages EU states for ‘national selfishness’, Express.co.uk, April 17, 2018.

[360] Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017. Also see, Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018; Editorial Board, Macron, at the Barricades, Warns of Rising Nationalism in Europe, New York Times, April 18, 2018; Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com.

[361] Vincent Gasparro, Why the left and right should embrace a universal basic income, Globe and Mail, March 15, 2018.

[362] Ariana Berengaut and Edward Fishman, Why Americans Should Fight Donald Trump’s Isolationism, Time, June 15, 2017. Also see, Editorial Board, Leaders worldwide are falling for a ‘deadly illusion’, Washington Post, April 18, 2018; Editorial Board, Macron, at the Barricades, Warns of Rising Nationalism in Europe, New York Times, April 18, 2018; Adam Fleming, France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism, BBC.com.

[363] Diana Farrell and Andrew Goodman, Government by Design: Four Principles for a better public sector, McKinsey.com, December 2013.

[364] Richard Haass, America and the Great Abdication, The Atlantic, December 28, 2017.

[365] Steve Goodrich, What often feels disruptive brings a new normal, Nextgov.com, April 4, 2018.

[366] What’s Gone Wrong With Democracy, The Economist, March 1, 2014; Christine Comaford, Why Smart People Make Stupid Decisions, Forbes, March 11, 2017.

[367] Steve Goodrich, What often feels disruptive brings a new normal, Nextgov.com, April 4, 2018.

[368] Josh Wingrove and Stephanie Flanders, Trudeau plays longer game against ‘ruthless’ U.S. quest for success on bottom line, Financial Post and BNN Bloomberg, May 30, 2018.

[369] Kemal Derviş and Laurence Chandy, Are technology and globalization destined to drive up inequality? Understanding inequality and what drives it, Brookings.edu, October 5, 2016.

[370] Lena Sun, Bill Gates calls on U.S. to lead fight against a pandemic that could kill 33 million, Washington Post, April 27, 2018; Kevin Loria, Bill Gates thinks a coming disease could kill 30 million people within 6 months – and says we should prepare for it as we do for war, Business Insider, April 27, 2018; Helen Branswell, With cash and a call for new ideas, Bill Gates tries to boost the campaign for a universal flu vaccine, Stat, April 27, 2018.

[371] Diana Farrell and Andrew Goodman, Government by Design: Four Principles for a better public sector, McKinsey.com, December 2013.

[372] Steve Goodrich, What often feels disruptive brings a new normal, Nextgov.com, April 4, 2018.

[373] Precarity is an outcome of economic policy: Brhmie Balaram, Insecurity in modern work: policy overlooks the ‘chronically precarious’ workers, London School of Ecomonics (blogs.lse.ac.uk), March 1, 2018; Michael Nau and Matthew Soener, Income precarity and the financial crisis, Socio-Economic Review, June 21, 2017 (United States); Nick Pearce, The political forecast for 2017? Economic precarity and social division – strap yourself in; the UK post-Brexit will be a bleaker, more fragile place, Wired.co.uk, January 7, 2017 (UK); Francis Fong, We don’t know the extent of precarious work, Policy Options.irpp.org, January 25, 2018 (Canada); Ubiye Shin (translated and introduced by Sachie Mizohata), Inequality and Precarity in Japan: The Sorry Achievements of Abenomics, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 16, Issue 6, March 15, 2018 (Japan); More than half of Ontario’s postsecondary jobs show signs of precarity: precarious work is a serious and growing problem at Ontario’s colleges and universities, PressProgress.ca, February 12, 2018; Jim Edwards, UK ‘underemployment’ is worse now than during the financial crisis of 2008, Business Insider, April 24, 2018; Jim Edwards, New stats show underemployment in the UK is being replaced by chronic ‘underemployment’, Business Insider, September 19, 2017; Jackson Stiles, Australian underemployment is the highest in modern times, New Daily, June 15, 2017; Nick Purdon and Leonardo Palleja, The millennial side hustle, not stable job, is the new reality for university grads, CBC.ca, March 23, 2017; Canadian Press, Bill Morneau, Finance Minister, Says Canadians Should Get Used to Short-Term Employment, Huffington Post, October 23, 2016.

[374] Sarah Franklin, How to successfully close the skills gap, Globe and Mail, January 10, 2017; Jennifer Rubin, Trump’s populism won’t fix our real economic problems, Washington Post, December 19, 2016; Niall McCarthy, The Countries Where Jobs Remain Unfilled The Longest, Forbes, January 11, 2017; Hadi Partovi, A trillion-dollar opportunity for America, LinkedIn, January 9, 2017.

[375] Akin Oyedele, Trump could be looking at the job market all wrong, Business Insider, January 8, 2017.

[376] Diana Farrell and Andrew Goodman, Government by Design: Four Principles for a better public sector, McKinsey.com, December 2013. Also see, for example only, Executive Office of the President, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy, White House Report (Pres. Obama), December 20, 2016 [Staff from the Council of Economic Advisers, the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy contributed to this post]; Claire Cain Miller, A Darker Them in Obama’s Farewell: Automation Can Divide Us, New York Times, January 12, 2017:

“Education is the main solution the White House advocated. …

The White House proposed enrolling more 4-year-olds in preschool and making two years of community college free for students, as well as teaching more skills like computer science and critical thinking. For people who have already lost their jobs, it suggested expanding apprenticeships and retraining programs, on which the country spends half what it did 30 years ago.

Displaced workers also need extra government assistance, the report concluded. It suggested ideas like additional unemployment benefits for people who are in retraining programs or live in states hardest hit by job loss. It also suggested wage insurance for people who lose their jobs and have to take a new one that pays less. Someone who made $18.50 an hour working in manufacturing, for example, would take an $8 pay cut if he became a home health aide, one of the jobs that is growing most quickly.

President Obama, in his speech Tuesday, named some other policy ideas for dealing with the problem: stronger unions, an updated social safety net and a tax overhaul so that the people benefiting most from technology share some of their earnings.

The Trump administration probably won’t agree with many of those solutions. But the economic consequences of automation will be one of the biggest problems it faces.”

[377] Jennifer Rubin, Trump’s populism won’t fix our real economic problems, Washington Post, December 19, 2016.

[378] Niall McCarthy, The Countries Where Jobs Remain Unfilled The Longest, Forbes, January 11, 2017; Hadi Partovi, A trillion-dollar opportunity for America, LinkedIn, January 9, 2017; Scott Scanlon, 4 Reasons Why Companies Aren’t Bridging the Talent Gap, Hunt Scanlon.com, October 31, 2016; Scott A. Scanlon, Job Forecast is Best in a Decade: key challenge will be bridging talent gaps by offering better wages and upskilling workers, Hunt Scanlon.com, January 11, 2017.

[379] Hadi Partovi, A trillion-dollar opportunity for America, LinkedIn, January 9, 2017:

“This decade computing occupations have become the single largest sector of new wages in the U.S.  This isn’t just about future jobs. It’s about more than 500,000 currently open jobs. These are among the best-paying jobs in the country. And these job openings are growing almost twice as fast as all the other jobs in the country. Even before automation changes the picture, computing jobs already outpace manufacturing jobs. …

This is a trillion-dollar opportunity: The opportunity is larger than the 500,000 open jobs in computing. Each time you fill a high-paying computing job, you create 5 more local jobs in the neighborhood. When you factor in the growth in computing jobs, you have an opportunity to add over a trillion dollars to the economy over the next decade. ..

With 500,000 open jobs across the country, what’s the problem? The problem is in education. Not enough students learn the skills to fill these jobs.

The solution lies in education and re-training: Every school should offer computer science. The Trump 100-day plan already recognizes this by calling for expanding career and technical education. Here are three specific things the Trump administration can do to make the 100-day goal concrete:

 1) Provide federal funding for K-12 schools to teach computer science. Every school should teach computer science. President Obama suggested that this is a $4B problem. As a nonprofit that has been addressing this problem at a national scale for years, we disagree. A simple analysis shows the true cost is closer to $400M, as a one-time expense that could be spread over 4 years.

 2) Provide incentives to universities to prepare graduates for our workforce needs. As tuition and student debt skyrocket, consider rewarding colleges that adapt their curriculum and teaching capacity to fit today’s workplace needs. A computer science degree, even from a lesser college, is worth much more than any other college degree. [4] Students with these degrees will repay their tuition loans faster, and rarely default. Consider slashing their interest rates.

3) Expand re-training programs for adults. Create programs to retrain adults in computing skills to put the underemployed back to work.  Technology boot-camps for adults are already the fastest-growing sector of private education, and they’re needed in more regions, urban and rural.

… Despite the divisions in America, we can find common ground on issues like this, that everybody agrees on. The American Dream is broken. This popular, trillion-dollar opportunity is one of the best ways to fix it.”

[380] Rana Dasgupta, The demise of the nation state, The Guardian, April 5, 2018. Also see, Stefan Nicola and Arne Delfs, Bezos Faces Berlin Protest on Tax Policy, Worker Treatment, Bloomberg, April 24, 2018; Ed Carson, EU to Propose ‘Digitial Tax’ on Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Investor’s Business Daily, March 17, 2018; Jennifer Rankin, Facebook, Google and Amazon could pay ‘fair’ tax under EU plans: tech firms would pay wherever they have digital presence, regardless of staff, The Guardian, March 21, 2018; Martin Greive, Ruth Berschens, and Jan Hildebrand, Trump set to tussle over EU digital tax plan, Hadelsblatt.com, April 16, 2018; Francesco Gurascio, EU ready to move alone on digital tax if no global deal, Reuters.com, September 20, 2017:

The European Commission said the EU should proceed with an overhaul of taxes on digital firms even if the rest of the rich world did not follow suit, a draft report said.

The document is part of an EU push to tap more revenues from online multinationals such as Amazon and Facebook, who are accused of paying too little tax in Europe by routing most of their profits to low-rate countries such as Ireland or Luxembourg.

The draft report, to be adopted on Thursday, said that on average brick-and-mortar multinationals pay in taxes in the EU more than twice what their digital competitors do. Traditional large firms face a median 23.2 percent tax rate, while digital giants do not pay more than 10.1 percent – and when they sell directly to customers, rather than to firms, their effective rate goes down to 8.9 percent, data cited by the Commission showed.

An earlier report by a European lawmaker said EU states may have lost in tax revenues up to 5.4 billion euros ($6.5 billion) just from Facebook and Google, now part of Alphabet, between 2013 and 2015.

“A level playing field is a pre-condition for all businesses to be able to innovate, develop and grow,” the Commission said, adding that fairer taxation of the digital economy was urgently needed. Partly because of the uneven taxation, revenues in the EU retail sector grew on average by only 1 percent a year between 2008 and 2016, while in the same period revenues of the top-five online retailers, such as Amazon, grew on average by 32 percent per year, the Commission’s report says.”

[381] Dessislava Dimitrova and Vanessa Candieas, Healthcare costs impoverish millions. 4 ways to end injustice, WEForum.org, April 5, 2018; Tanya Abraham, One in three Brits say the Suffragettes’ campaign makes them especially proud to be British, YouGov.co.uk, February 6, 2018; Universal health care, worldwide, is within reach: the case for it is a powerful one – including in poor countries, The Economist, April 26, 2018:

“Universal basic health care is sensible in the way that, say, universal basic education is sensible—because it yields benefits to society as well as to individuals. In some quarters the very idea leads to a dangerous elevation of the blood pressure, because it suggests paternalism, coercion or worse. There is no hiding that public health-insurance schemes require the rich to subsidise the poor, the young to subsidise the old and the healthy to underwrite the sick. And universal schemes must have a way of forcing people to pay, through taxes, say, or by mandating that they buy insurance.

But there is a principled, liberal case for universal health care. Good health is something everyone can reasonably be assumed to want in order to realise their full individual potential. Universal care is a way of providing it that is pro-growth. The costs of inaccessible, expensive and abject treatment are enormous. The sick struggle to get an education or to be productive at work. …According to several studies, confidence about health makes people more likely to set up their own businesses.

Universal basic health care is also affordable.”

[382] Brendan Shaw, Universal health coverage needs a new political campaign, shawview.com, April 7, 2018.

[383] Canadian Press, Poll: Canadians are most proud of universal medicare, CTVnews.ca, November 25, 2012; Jim Watson, Canadians differ from Trump on view of public health care, poll shows, Globe and Mail, November 14, 2016, updated April 8, 2017; Executive Summary, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally, Commonwealth Fund.org, 2014; US Health System Ranks Last Among Eleven Countries on Measures of Access, Equity, Quality, Efficiency, and Healthy Lives, Commonwealth Fund.org, June 16, 2014. Note: Canadians chose Tommy Douglas, known as the father of medicare, as the Greatest Canadian of all time – Tommy Douglas “The Greatest Canadian” gets stamped, Canada Post.ca, June 29, 2012; Jim Coyle, Canada 150: Saskatchewan’s glory, from sodbusters to Scheer, Toronto Star, June 3, 2017; Rebecca Joseph, Top 10 most influential Canadians, Global News, June 14, 2017.

[384] Victoria Graham, ‘Big Isn’t Bad’, Justice Dept. Antitrust Chief Says, Bloomberg Law, April 13, 2018; Alexei Alexis, Big Tech on Notice as Trump Antitrust Picks Arrive at FTC, Bloomberg, May 4, 2018. Also see, Moderator Christine Lagarde, Digitalization and the New Gilded Age, International Monetary Fund Spring Meetings 2018 (imf.org), April 18, 2018 (panel: Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, IBM’s Bridget van Kralingen, Author Alex Ross, Stanford Professor Richard White); Michael Birnbaum, Europe’s antitrust cop, Margrethe Vestager, has Facebook and Google in her crosshairs, Washington Post, May 12, 2018; Jon Talton, Big Tech needs to face a Theodore Roosevelt style trust busting, Seattle Times, March 18, 2018:

“Big Tech’s greatest sins are locking in a winner-take-all economy, decimating the middle class and exercising monopoly-like powers that cause the free market to fail. Competition is stymied. Power is in the hands of too few.”

[385] Lina M. Khan, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, The Yale Law Journal, Volume 126 (pg. 710), 2017; Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell, Amazon’s Stranglehold: How the Company’s Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, November 2016; Ben Schiller, Is Amazon Killing Jobs and Destroying Communities? At what cost does convenience come? A new report says it’s not just jobs, but the rest of the economy as well, Fast Company, December 2, 2016; Daniel DeMay, Amazon criticized for vast online reach amid record sales, San Francisco Chronicle, November 30, 2016. In addition see, Matt Stoller, How to Educate yourself on Monopoly Power, Medium, August 30, 2017; Bryan Menegus, A Worrying Number of Amazon’s Warehouse Workers Are Reportedly Living Off Food Stamps, Gizmodo, April 19, 2018; Shannon Liao, Amazon warehouse workers skip bathroom breaks to keep their jobs, says report – in the UK, an undercover reporter and a labor survey exposed harrowing work conditions, The Verge, April 16, 2018; Shona Ghosh, Peeing in trash cans, constant surveillance, and asthma attacks on the job: Amazon workers tell us their warehouse horror stories, Business Insider, May 3, 2018.

[386] Rohitesh Dhawan and Sean West, The CEO as Chief Geopolitical Officer, KPMG.com, 2018. Also see, 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined, Global Justice Now, September 12, 2016. Also see, Robin Wigglesworth, Larry Fink identifies China as critical BlackRock priority, Financial Times, April 8, 2018. Also see for example only, Amazon corporation and its CEO Jeff Bezo: Flora Carr, Amazon Is Now More Valuable Than Microsoft and Only 2 Other Companies Are Worth More, Fortune, February 15, 2018; Kate Vinton, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is the Richest Person in the World, Forbes, October 27, 2017; Chris Isidore, Jeff Bezos is the richest person in history, CNN, January 9, 2018.

[387] Lina M. Khan, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, The Yale Law Journal, Volume 126 (pg. 710), 2017. Also see, Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell, Amazon’s Stranglehold: How the Company’s Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, November 2016; Matt Stoller, How to Educate yourself on Monopoly Power, Medium, August 30, 2017.

[388] Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell, Amazon’s Stranglehold: How the Company’s Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, November 2016.

[389] Diana Farrell and Andrew Goodman, Government by Design: Four Principles for a better public sector, McKinsey.com, December 2013.

[390] Andrew Prokop, 40 charts that explain money in politics, Vox, July 30, 2014; Lawrence Lessig, Campaign Finance and the Nihilist Politics of Resignation, April 10, 2014.

[391] Liz Kennedy, Campaign Spending Limits Protect our Democracy from Corruption, U.S. News, October 7, 2013 (“Funding for our elections is already dominated by a tiny elite donor class. According to the Sunlight Foundation, 84 percent of the members of Congress elected in 2012 received more money from the 1 percent of the 1 percent than from all of their small donors combined”); Andrew Prokop, 40 charts that explain money in politics, Vox, July 30, 2014; Nicholas Confessore, Sarah Cohen, and Karen Yourish, Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving, New York Times, August 1, 2015; Steve Goodrich, Take Back Control: How big money undermines trust in politics, Transparency International UK, October 2016; Duncan Hames, British politics is in the pocket of big money. And the EU vote was no exception, The Guardian, October 7, 2018; Gareth Hutchens, Labor senator Sam Dastyari claims 10 companies have taken control of Australian politics, Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2016; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface); Alan Ehrenhalt, ‘Dark Money’, by Jane Mayer, New York Times, January 19, 2016 (“small number of allied plutocrats”); Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada, James Lorimer & Company Publishers, 2014; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016 (“weaponizing of philanthropy”); Adam Lioz, Breaking the Vicious Cycle, Demos, 2015; Adam Lioz and Karen Shanton, The Money Chase: Moving from Big Money Dominance in the 2014 Midterms to a Small Donor Democracy, Demos.org, January 14, 2015; Anu Narayanswamy, Chris Alcantara, and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Meet the wealthy donors pouring millions into the 2018 elections, Washington Post, Updated May 15, 2018.

[392] Duncan Hames, British politics is in the pocket of big money. And the EU vote was no exception, The Guardian, October 7, 2018; Jacob Rowbottom, The U.S. and Britain see corruption very differently. Here’s why, The Washington Post, May 4, 2016; Ben Jacobs and David Smith, ‘Politics are corrupt’: fears about money and its influence on elections loom large, The Guardian, July 8, 2016; Editorial, Money and politics: How to end the corruption and conflict of interest, Globe and Mail, editorial, April 8, 2016 (updated March 24, 2017); Damien Cave, Are Australia’s Politics Too Easy to Corrupt?, New York Times, June 7, 2017; Cataline Perdomo and Catalina Uribe Burcher, The Global State of Democracy 2017: Exploring Democracy’s Resilience (Chapter 5: Money, influence, corruption and capture: can democracy be protected), International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), 2017.

[393] Adam Gartrell, Now everyone admits it: political donations buy access and influence, Sydney Morning Herald, January 20, 2018; Iain McMenamin, No bribes please, we’re corrupt Australians, The Conversation, May 30, 2016.

[394] ICYMI: Sen. Cruz: It’s Time to Break the Washington Cartel – delivers speech exposing big government, bug business cronyism, U.S. Senator for Texas Ted Cruz (cruz.senate.gov), June 24, 2015. Also see, Jon Schwarz, ‘Yes, We’re Corrupt’: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics, The Intercept, July 30, 2015.

[395] Al Gore, The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, Random House Publishing Group, 2013. Also see, Jon Schwarz, ‘Yes, We’re Corrupt’: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics, The Intercept, July 30, 2015.

[396] Lawrence Lessig, Mick Mulvaney shows why we need to radically change our elections, Washington Post, April 29, 2018. Also see, Amy Melissa McKay, Fundraising for Favors? Linking Lobbyist-Hosted Fundraisers to Legislative Benefits, Political Research Quarterly (journals.sagepub.com), April 24, 2018; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, First Anchor Books Edition, 2016, 2017 (preface).

[397] Rohitesh Dhawan and Sean West, The CEO as Chief Geopolitical Officer, KPMG.com, 2018. Also see, 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined, Global Justice Now, September 12, 2016. Also see, for example, see: Tim Roemer and Zach Wamp, John McCain’s warning about dark money is real. Stop campaign finance corruption, USA Today, May 8, 2018:

“According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a secretive, corrupting campaign finance system is at the root of political dysfunction dividing Americans across the country — and he says Congress better fix it. He candidly writes in his forthcoming memoir, The Restless Wave, that non-profit social welfare organizations — the 501(c)(4)s that hide their donors and fight to keep them secret — “are often financed by one or two of several billionaires” who yield enormous influence.”

[398] Editorial, Money and politics: How to end the corruption and conflict of interest, Globe and Mail, editorial, April 8, 2016 (updated March 24, 2017); David Callahan and J. Mijin Cha, Stacked Deck: How the dominance of politics by the affluent and business undermines economic mobility in America, Demos.org, 2013. Also see, Tom Blackwell, Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford says he would end subsidies to parties, calls it political welfare, National Post, April 19, 2018.

[399] Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Don’t let big and dark money ‘drown out the truth and drown out your voice’, Washington Post, April 3, 2018 (citing United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer). Also see, Dahlia Lithwick, Justice Roberts Hearts Billionaires: The chief either doesn’t believe, or doesn’t care, that money corrupts politics, Slate, April 2, 2014.

[400] Editorial, Money and politics: How to end the corruption and conflict of interest, Globe and Mail, editorial, April 8, 2016 (updated March 24, 2017). Also see, Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein, How to Sweep Dark Money Out of Politics: Undoing Citizens United, the DIY guide, Mother Jones, July-August 2012; Russell Berman, How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?, The Atlantic, March 16, 2016; Stephen Spaulding, Solutions to the Influence of Big Money in Politics, Huffington Post, January 15, 2016.

[401] See for example: Domenico Montanaro, John McCain Makes An Appeal For Civility and Humility, NPR.org, May 1, 2018; Daphne Bramham, Lessons for Canada from how the Koch brothers hijacked democracy, Vancouver Sun, September 25, 2016 (“weaponizing of philanthropy”); Tim Roemer and Zach Wamp, John McCain’s warning about dark money is real. Stop campaign finance corruption, USA Today, May 8, 2018:

“According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a secretive, corrupting campaign finance system is at the root of political dysfunction dividing Americans across the country — and he says Congress better fix it. He candidly writes in his forthcoming memoir, The Restless Wave, that non-profit social welfare organizations — the 501(c)(4)s that hide their donors and fight to keep them secret — “are often financed by one or two of several billionaires” who yield enormous influence.”

[402] Mark Shields, Part-Time Legislators and Full-Time Fund-Raisers, Washington Post, May 1, 1987. Also see, Jon Schwarz, ‘Yes, We’re Corrupt’: A List of Politicians Admitting That Money Controls Politics, The Intercept, July 30, 2015.

[403] Russell Berman, How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?, The Atlantic, March 16, 2016.  Also see: Paul Waldman, How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries, The American Prospect, April 4, 2014; Marian Sawer, Australia trails way behind other nations in regulating political donations, The Conversation, June 1, 2016; Katharine Murphy, Australia’s political donations system is a joke – it’s time parties put people before tribe, The Guardian, June 9, 2017; Alexandra Beech and Stephanie Anderson, Political Donations: Parliamentary committee recommends banning foreign contributions, ABC.net.au, March 9, 2017; Germany’s campaign financing not transparent enough, report finds, DW.com, February 23, 2018; Samuel Jones and Sam Van Der Staak, How to fix UK political party finance, Open Democracy.net, June 25, 2015; Stefan Passantino and Orestis Omran, Campaign finance in the US and the UK: a comparative assessment, Lexology.com, August 4, 2015; Nick Thompson, International campaign finance: How do countries compare?, CNN, March 5, 2012; Evan Annett and Tu Thanh Ha, Political donations in Canada: A guide to the ‘wild west’ vs. the rest, Globe and Mail, November 12, 2017.

[404] Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein, How to Sweep Dark Money Out of Politics: Undoing Citizens United, the DIY guide, Mother Jones, July-August 2012.

[405] Alexander Burns, Jasmine Lee, and Rachel Shorey, Billionaire vs. Billionaire: A Tug of War Between 2 Rogue Donors, New York Times, April 12, 2018.

[406] William J. Barber II, America’s Moral Malady, The Atlantic, March 30, 2018. Also see, Mark Rank, Poverty in America is Mainstream, New York Times, November 2, 2013; Associated Press, Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income, CBS News, December 15, 2011; Annalisa Merelli, The US has a lot of money, but it does not look like a developed country, Quartz, March 10, 2017; Neal Gabler, The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans: Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency, The Atlantic, May 2016.

[407] Russell Berman, How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?, The Atlantic, March 16, 2016.

[408] Russell Berman, How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?, The Atlantic, March 16, 2016.

[409] How to reform political finance across Canada democratically, Democracy Watch.ca, April 14, 2016; Dirk Meissner, BC’s political ban on corporate, union donations includes per-vote subsidy, CTV news, September 18, 2017; Ian Bailey, BC subsidy program is ‘appropriate’ method for transition to new fundraising plan: Horgan, Globe and Mail, September 19, 2017; Althia Raj, Trudeau Government in No Hurry to Reinstate Per-Vote Subsidy, Huffington Post, May 17, 2016; Tom Blackwell, Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford says he would end subsidies to parties, calls it political welfare, National Post, April 19, 2018:

“The [Ontario] province’s financing rules are designed to keep well-funded interests from buying influence … The subsidies are the most democratic part of Ontario’s system, allocating funding based on the parties’ ballot-box backing.”

[410] Evan Annett and Tu Thanh Ha, Political donations in Canada: A guide to the ‘wild west’ vs. the rest, Globe and Mail, November 12, 2017; Tom Blackwell, Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford says he would end subsidies to parties, calls it political welfare, National Post, April 19, 2018; Dirk Meissner, BC’s political ban on corporate, union donations includes per-vote subsidy, CTV news, September 18, 2017.

[411] Yvette Brend, Gold Standard for political donations worldwide? Quebec, not BC – fallout continues from New York Times article labelling BC the ‘wild west’ of political finance, CBC.ca, January 22, 2017.

[412] Aaron Wherry, Could the Liberals’ election law reform throw a leash on the ‘permanent campaign’?: you can’t have an egalitarian model unless you restrict pre-writ speech’, says law prof, CBC, May 5, 2018. Also see, John Ivison, Liberals end era of SuperPacs in federal elections, but leave door half-open to foreign funding, National Post, May 1, 2018; Aaron Wherry, Trudeau government proposes major changes to elections law, CBC, April 30, 2018.

[413] John Ivison, Liberals end era of SuperPacs in federal elections, but leave door half-open to foreign funding, National Post, May 1, 2018:

“The good news is that the Liberal government appears to have taken action in the Elections Modernization Act, introduced late Monday, to end the era of the SuperPACs in Canada before it has begun in earnest.

The new bill states clearly that third parties shall not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the new maximum spending amounts in any manner, including splitting themselves into two or more third parties, or by acting in collusion with another third party so that their combined partisan expenses exceed the maximum amount.”

[414] Canadian Press, Union-backed group fights Ontario rules limiting spending on election advertising, CBC, January 23, 2018.

[415] Nikhil Goyal, Plutocracy is the Problem: It is up the American People to insist that corporations are not people, money is not speech, and elections are not for sale, The Nation, September 26, 2013.

[416] Richard Hasen, The Numbers Don’t Lie: If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to Super PACS, just follow the money, Slate, March 9, 2012; Nell Minow, Which Companies Keep Political Contributions Secret?, Huffington Post, October 17, 2016; Anthony Corrado, The Promise of Campaign Reform Has Largely Been Broken, New York Times, June 13, 2012.

[417] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, January 21, 2010 (United States Supreme Court) – 5-4 decision. Also see, for example: Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein, How to Sweep Dark Money Out of Politics: Undoing Citizens United, the DIY guide, Mother Jones, July-August 2012; Russell Berman, How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?, The Atlantic, March 16, 2016.

[418] Russell Berman, How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?, The Atlantic, March 16, 2016.

[419] Katharine Murphy, Australia’s political donations system is a joke – it’s time parties put people before tribe, The Guardian, June 9, 2017.

[420] Eric Sigurdson, Overcoming the Forces of ‘Short-termism’ – corporate governance, principled leadership, and long-term sustainable value creation, Sigurdson Post, February 19, 2018. Also see, 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends – The rise of the social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018; 2018 Human Capital Trends – Courage required: Apply here to build the Canadian social enterprise, Deloitte.com, 2018. (note: report draws on a survey of more than 11,000 HR and business leaders around the world).

[421] Nicholas Bloom, Corporations in the Age of Inequality, Harvard Business Review, March 2017.

[422] Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist, The World In.com, 2016.

[423] Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales, Companies Should Maximize Shareholder Welfare, Not Market Value, Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting (scholar.harvard.edu), July 2017; Jacqui Frank, Kara Chin, Sara Silverstein, A Nobel Prize-winning economist explains what Miltion Friedman got wrong, Business Insider, May 7, 2018.

[424] Roland Benabou and Jean Tirole, Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility, Economica, Vol. 77, No. 305, January 2010:

“Why do citizens and corporations empower themselves and substitute for elected government? A first and clearly relevant motivation is that government may itself fail. Government failures have multiple origins:

• Capture by lobbies and other interest groups. Governments under influence may fail to correct externalities as Pigovian principles would recommend, or bend to wealthy constituents’ opposition to redistributive policies.
• Territoriality of jurisdiction. For instance, one cannot rule against child labour in a distant, sovereign country, and an outright import ban may be infeasible due to international trade agreements or other policy constraints. Consumer boycotts and investor activism then become the outlet through which citizens can express their opposition to these practices.
• A combination of inefficiency, high transaction costs, poor information and high delivery costs. The state thus has a comparative disadvantage in policing minor nuisances such as a lack of respect for employees or conspicuous consumption by executives, or in directing resources to very local needs. ‘Appropriate’ behaviours in such contexts are instead enforced through the pressure of social norms and popular demands that firms be socially responsible.

A second important motivation is that economic agents may want to promote values that are not shared by law-makers.”

[425] Dylan Schleicher, Excerpts: Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism, 800 CEO Read (inthebooks.800ceoread.com), May 3, 2018.

[426] Jerry Muller, Capitalism and Inequality: what the Right and Left get wrong, Foreign Affairs, March-April 2013. Also see, Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Growing Inequality Under Global Capitalism, The Wire, May 6, 2017.