In this new report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld examines how over the past two decades, dozens of governments have used regulations, laws, and vilifying narratives to restrict the ability of civil society organizations to act and speak. Now, a similar set of tactics is being rolled out in the United States. What should philanthropists and organizations expect, and what can be done?

From the report:

CLOSING SPACE INTERNATIONALLY

“The absence of civic space was a hallmark of Cold War totalitarianism. There was the individual, and there was the government; any attempt to organize regular people to act or speak publicly in even innocuous ways—such as a birdwatching league, a home church, or a small arts magazine—had to be monitored and approved by the ruling party or crushed.

The blossoming of civil society across the former Soviet Union and many other once-closed societies was among the strongest signals that the 1990s wave of democracy was not only toppling authoritarian regimes but also growing roots. Organizations, interest groups, religious congregations, open media, and the free exchange of ideas helped people find their voices, locate their communities, and push their governments and societies to do things that they cared about.

Then, in the mid-2000s, democracy started to recede globally. And the walls started to close in on civil society.”

Read the full report here>>

Since June 16, 2015, the day that Donald Trump descended an escalator in Trump Tower and announced his run for the presidency, the American body politic has struggled to figure out how to treat him, his rhetoric, and the threat he poses to our system of government. A similar pattern plays out repeatedly: Trump makes a seemingly outlandish promise that upends conventional understandings of politics. Then, those who help Americans make sense of current events — the media, other politicians, pundits, and influencers — dismiss, distort, or deny the very promise Trump has made. And few then know quite what to make of it all or how to respond — a state of confusion that has enabled Trump to shatter democratic norms in previously inconceivable ways.

We now have more than eight years of experience with this phenomenon and a full presidential term as a track record proving that Trump’s pledges should be taken both seriously and literally. He has, for the most part, sought to do the extreme things that were dismissed as mere rhetoric when first promised, from enacting a “Muslim ban” to refusing to accept the results of an election. And yet, here we are again, with Trump making even more extreme promises to “terminate” the Constitution, seek “retribution” against political opponents, and be a “dictator” (just on day one), only to see people unsure what to make of or how to respond to these threats.

This report aims to alter these dynamics by clearly showing how Trump would follow through on his most extreme anti-democratic pledges for a second term and then offering expert recommendations for how to mitigate that danger. 

READ MORE>

Political violence is on the rise in the United States, and as we approach the 2024 election season, there are urgent interventions that can mitigate risks and prevent violence from further increasing. As we saw throughout 2020, elections and the post-election period can be flashpoints with particularly elevated tensions and increased risk of political violence. The violent attack on the US Capitol is forever etched in our minds, and it serves as a constant reminder of where our work begins as we look toward the 2024 elections. The increasing threats can be overwhelming, but with early and sustained investment in key antiviolence work, we can mitigate the risks of further violence over the next year and beyond.

Political violence and democratic backsliding—including declining institutional health and public distrust of institutions—are mutually reinforcing phenomena. The threat of political violence can chill civic engagement and voter participation, particularly among communities targeted by such threats. A heightened risk of political violence also endangers election administrators and election administration. In this guide we aim to present effective strategies and leading organizations involved in preventing and addressing political violence in hopes of increasing donor understanding of these issues and to catalyze action.

Email Carly Straus at carly@thirdplateau.com for access.

The midterm election period proved mercifully free from violence and drama, following months of concern from democracy organizations and even the Department of Homeland Security.

While most experts did not expect Election Day violence (which is rare globally), why did more problems not arise from the army of volunteer poll watchers recruited by Steve Bannon? Why was there not more pre-election intimidation? And why did most election deniers accept their losses peacefully, particularly after an expected red wave failed to materialize?

In other words, how should organizations and philanthropists who have been working to support democracy and deter political violence understand what occurred during the 2022 elections, and what it means for future work supporting democracy and reducing violence?

READ MORE>

As cases of political violence rise in America, PACE reviews five strategies for funders interested in preventing political violence to implement.

READ MORE>

On September 16, 2019, the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance (DCG) program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University convened fifty scholars, practitioners, funders, and elected and government officials to discuss political violence in America in the context of what we know about political violence abroad. Participants were chosen for their capacity to increase understanding of and/or influence the prevention of potential violence. We sought to include a broad range of perspectives on the problem and means of addressing it. Participants were not expected to agree. In fact, some may have seen others in the room as a potential problem. Coming from the field of international conflict, where armed groups previously at war must come together to negotiate peace, the organizers accept that it requires engaging divergent perspectives for a country to make progress on reducing political violence. To solve our problems, we must begin by acknowledging that all of our identities. are complex and that we must work together to achieve durable solutions to preserve our democracy and deliver more equal rights and freedoms.

READ MORE>

Several social trends in the United States suggest an increasing risk for political violence. Little is known about support for and personal willingness to engage in political violence and how those measures vary with lethality of violence, specific circumstances, or specific populations as targets.

In this cross-sectional, nationwide survey, participants were asked various questions which revealed insight into different beliefs about American democracy and society and the use of violence, including political violence, and extrapolations to the US adult population.

Political violence poses a growing threat to democracy, from high-profile events like the January 6 attack on the US Capitol to local threats of violence to election workers and school boards. 

In response to this growing concern, The Joyce Foundation, Trusted Elections Fund, and The Klarman Family Foundation initiated a new public opinion research project at the end of 2021 to better understand public attitudes towards political violence and ways to address it. 

This research project sought to:

• Better understand the public’s view of​ political violence and armed political extremism;

• If and how threats of political violence may impact the public’s likelihood to participate in (or avoid) civic activity;

• Gauge the public’s support for targeted policy reforms; and

• Provide guidance on effective messages and messengers on how to talk about these potential threats in a way that doesn’t scare people from voting or participating in other civic activities. 

READ MORE>

The Repub­lican Party’s trans­form­a­tion under Donald Trump may have seemed sudden, but it was decades in the making. From acclaimed New York Times polit­ical reporter Jeremy Peters, Insur­gency: How Repub­lic­ans Lost Their Party and Got Everything They Ever Wanted, is a compel­ling look at the frac­tur­ing of the GOP and how party lead­ers misun­der­stood their own voters. Peters argues that by abandon­ing long-held pillars like small-govern­ment and fiscal respons­ib­il­ity, the party’s embrace of Trump­ism, along with its imper­vi­ous­ness to moder­at­ing forces, has exten­ded the life of the Amer­ican Far Right well into the next century.

Join us for a live conver­sa­tion between MSNBC polit­ical contrib­utor Yamiche Alcindor and Peters, as they discuss how ideo­logy and aggres­sion came to take hold of the Repub­lican party, and changed the course of Amer­ican polit­ics.

ViEW HERE>

The rise of an “us versus them” mindset and political identity in American sociopolitical life is evident in everything from the rise of highly partisan media to the decline in Americans’ willingness to marry someone from the opposing political party. Even more concerningly, these dynamics are contributing directly to a steep rise in political violence. Polarization has already brought on serious problems—what more lies ahead? Are insights on this critical question available from the experience of other polarized democracies?

READ MORE>

As the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection arrives, voices including academics, retired generals and community leaders are warning of a heightened risk of civil conflict. It’s time for philanthropy to understand political violence as a central trend in American public life, and join the diverse Americans mobilizing to address it.

A reader’s guide to The Atlantic’s coverage of a worsening democratic crisis. READ MORE>

This working paper for philanthropy, written by New America, Over Zero, and Thought Partnerships, briefly summarizes current trends that, in light of global experience, suggest heightened risks of violence. Against this worrisome backdrop, they propose six funding strategies and specific recommendations to integrate violence prevention and mitigation into existing strands of work on polarization, institutions, or justice issues READ MORE>

White supremacist violence is not new, but in recent years, it has become a primary national security threat in the United States. Notions of racial superiority, hostility toward immigrants and minorities, and the myth of an embattled white majority defending its power have increasingly infiltrated mainstream American political and cultural discourse. In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published its annual threat assessment, identifying racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, particularly white supremacist extremists, as “the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.” READ MORE>

Sarah Ruger of Stand Together on why the extremism threatening our democracy’s health calls for a broad-based nonpartisan philanthropic response aimed at slowing the spread of the disease and eventually reversing it, and three places where grant makers can strategically direct their dollars. READ MORE>

A roundup of SSIR articles exploring ways to take on the unprecedented divides in America. READ MORE>

Philip Rojc interviews democracy funders on what funders should have done better in the lead-up to January 6, and what they can do now. READ MORE>

Open letter from 120 philanthropic leaders affirming the principles of a free, fair, and safe election season and asking fellow leaders to do the same. READ MORE>

New America and Over Zero released a report that identifies insights from social science and international peacebuilding to help bolster U.S. resilience to political violence.