Trump’s second term is answering that question with devastating clarity.

Our institutions are not just buildings or agencies. They reflect us – our ideals, our hopes, and even our future. If we allow them to be hollowed, or even destroyed, we will lose our democracy – surrendering our freedom to fascism and authoritarianism. If we fight to rebuild them—anchored in the Common Good—they can live again.

Institutions as the Foundations of Democracy

Institutions are not abstractions. They are the bones of democracy, the connective tissue of our society. They are the safeguards that protect us from tyranny, arbitrariness, and the corruption of unchecked power. They are the guardians of the Common Good.

For decades, Americans assumed that their institutions—though imperfect—were durable. The National Parks belonged to all of us. The Justice Department pursued fairness. The Census counted us equally. Public broadcasting told us the truth. The State Department upheld alliances.  Voters could vote by airmail and use voting machines.

But what happens when a leader decides not to steward institutions, but to hollow them out? What happens when loyalty to a man replaces loyalty to the law, to truth, to history, to the people?

Donald Trump’s presidency has answered this question. His first term weakened the foundations. His second term, which began in 2025, is demolishing the pillars.

This demolition of our Democracy is not accidental. It is the strategy of authoritarianism: dismantle, delegitimize, and dominate.

This is the very definition of misleadership – leadership which destroys the Common Good.

Let us count the ways.

1. National Parks & Public Lands

 Before Trump:
America’s national parks and protected lands were celebrated worldwide—“America’s best idea.” These lands were set aside for the public, conserved for future generations. Presidents of both parties expanded protections, treating nature as a shared inheritance.

First Term:
Trump shrank Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante monuments by millions of acres. He opened sacred lands to mining, oil, and gas drilling. Environmental reviews were bypassed, and the voices of Indigenous communities were silenced.

Second Term:
In 2025, Trump accelerated leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, weakened the Antiquities Act, and gutted rules protecting water and forests. The Department of the Interior became an arm of extraction industries. Public land is no longer held in trust—it is treated as a business asset to be sold off.

The Department of the Interior laid off 1,000 National Park Service employees, a nearly 20% drop in park workforce in some cases.  At Yosemite, cuts in personnel forced rangers into tasks like restroom maintenance and led to a surge in overtime and search-and-rescue missions.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Biodiversity loss, Indigenous dispossession, park visitor dissatisfaction and climate damage. A common inheritance privatized for short-term profit.

2:  Public Broadcasting (PBS/NPR)

Before Trump:
Public broadcasting was one of the most trusted institutions in America. PBS documentaries and NPR journalism connected millions of citizens to fact-based reporting and culture.

First Term:
Trump repeatedly threatened to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). NPR journalists were attacked as “fake news.”

Second Term:
In 2025, the administration slashed CPB’s budget by 30%. Political appointees were installed on oversight boards. NPR affiliates in rural areas lost funding, forcing closures. PBS had to seek corporate sponsors, eroding independence.

Consequences for the Common Good:
A misinformed citizenry. Public broadcasting reduced to private influence. Truth itself put at risk.

3: Voice of America (VOA)

Before Trump:
VOA was a beacon of American credibility worldwide. Its independence made it a trusted source in countries where truth was scarce.

First Term:
Trump installed loyalists in leadership and pressured VOA to promote his narratives. Journalists resigned in protest.

Second Term:
In 2025, VOA became an overt propaganda channel. International credibility collapsed. Journalists were pushed to repeat White House talking points on China, Ukraine, and immigration.

Consequences for the Common Good:
The U.S. lost its moral voice abroad. Authoritarian regimes celebrated. The US has lost a way to counter misinformation or to pursue the truth on the global stage.

4: History of Slavery & American Sins

Before Trump:
Schools were slowly integrating honest accounts of slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism, and Native genocide into curricula. The 1619 Project symbolized this reckoning.

First Term:
Trump launched the “1776 Commission” to promote “patriotic education” and ban “critical race theory.”

Second Term:
By 2025, the Department of Education tied federal funding to state compliance with “pro-American curricula.” History standards were rewritten to minimize slavery, colonization, and racism. Teachers who dissent face dismissal.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Historical amnesia, and institutional erasure of the truth. A nation unable to face its sins cannot heal them.

5: Arts & Culture (NEA, NEH, Smithsonian)

Before Trump:
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) funded community projects across the U.S.—theaters, museums, libraries. Art and culture were treated as public goods.

First Term:
Budgets proposed eliminating both agencies. Funding survived, but barely.

Second Term:
In 2025, funding cuts of 40% forced small arts institutions to close. Federal support for museums dwindled. Art and culture became dependent on wealthy donors, reinforcing inequality.

Consequences for the Common Good:
The arts became privatized luxuries instead of democratic expressions of creativity.

6: Environmental Protections (EPA)

Before Trump:
The EPA regulated air and water quality, enforced emissions standards, and protected human health.

First Term:
Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental rules. The Clean Power Plan was scrapped. Climate science was suppressed.

Second Term:
In 2025, a former coal lobbyist ran the EPA. Emissions regulations collapsed. U.S. climate pledges abandoned. Climate denial returned as official policy.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Increased pollution, rising health risks, and the loss of America’s climate leadership. The loss of biodiversity.

7: Healthcare (ACA/Medicaid)

Before Trump:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded healthcare to over 20 million Americans. Medicaid was strengthened.

First Term:
Trump failed to repeal ACA but weakened it through executive orders and lawsuits.

Second Term:
By 2025, Medicaid eligibility was narrowed. Subsidies shrank. RFK Jr., as Health Secretary, gutted vaccine policy. Millions lost coverage, women’s reproductive care restricted.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Health became a privilege, not a right. The most vulnerable suffer first. Increased mortality rates for infants and women.

8: Immigration 

Before Trump:
Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) protected “Dreamers.” Refugee admissions held steady.

First Term:
Trump imposed the Muslim ban, reduced refugee admissions, and separated families at the border.

Second Term:
In 2025, family separations quietly resumed. Refugee cap dropped near zero. DACA frozen in courts. Deportations surged – some 1.2 million immigrants have been removed from society – leading to a crisis in the labor workforce. The administration doesn’t acknowledge habeas corpus.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Humanitarian crises at the border. America’s moral credibility shattered. Loss of illegals lead to rising prices of food, construction, and infrastructure-related services.

9: Department of Justice / Judiciary

Before Trump:
The DOJ enforced civil rights laws and was seen as largely independent.

First Term:
AG Barr used the DOJ to protect Trump and attack his critics.

Second Term:
In 2025, Harmeet Dhillon gutted the Civil Rights Division. Voting rights cases dropped. DOJ loyalty tests proliferated. Over two-thirds of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division staff are expected to leave their jobs, accepting a resignation offer as the Trump administration moves to drastically reshape the agency.

Consequences for the Common Good:
The law was weaponized for partisan purposes. Equality before the law has eroded.

10: Census & Voting Systems

Before Trump:
The Census was nonpartisan, ensuring fair representation and resources.

First Term:
Trump tried to add a citizenship question, aiming to suppress counts of immigrants.

Second Term:
In 2025, gerrymandering expanded so that black Americans have less representation. Census methodology skewed. Voter ID laws proliferated under DOJ approval.

Consequences for the Common Good:
A distorted democracy. Some voices silenced; others amplified unfairly. The GOP holds on to power at the expense of the people’s wishes.

11: Education 

Before Trump:
Title IX protections ensured equity. Federal support for student loans expanded access.

First Term:
Betsy DeVos dismantled borrower protections and weakened Title IX enforcement.

Second Term:
Trump attacks major universities such as Harvard and Columbia, on accusations of antisemitism and reduces previously granted funding for many student science projects.  In 2025, federal funding tied to “a patriotic curriculum.” Charter schools expanded, public schools underfunded. Trump cancels many foreign students from coming to American universities that accepted them.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Education became a battlefield of ideology, not a ladder of opportunity. America’s educational and scientific future is threatened.

13: State Department / Diplomacy

Before Trump:
The State Department relied on a professional corps. Alliances were stable.

First Term:
Diplomatic corps hollowed, Paris Accord abandoned, NATO weakened.

Second Term:
In 2025, further staff exodus. Partisan loyalists replaced career diplomats. NATO fractured. Trump raises tariffs on its close allies. Allies bypass America.

Consequences for the Common Good:
U.S. global influence diminished. Allies no longer trust America.

14: Consumer Protection (FTC, CFPB)

Before Trump:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) protected consumers from predatory finance and monopolies.

First Term:
CFPB defanged under pro-industry leadership.

Second Term:
In 2025, antitrust actions abandoned. FTC slowed enforcement. Tech and finance corporations operate unchecked. Staff and contractors at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been told they cannot “perform any work tasks.”

Consequences for the Common Good:
Consumers exposed to predatory lending, monopoly abuses, and privacy violations.

15: Social Safety Nets (SNAP, SSI, WIC)

Before Trump:
Social safety nets such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the Wicked 7 Project ( WIC) reduced hunger, supported children, and alleviated poverty.

First Term:
Trump proposed deep cuts to food stamps and SSI, blocked in Congress.

Second Term:
In 2025, work requirements were reinstated. Funding cut. Eligibility narrowed. Millions lose food assistance.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Food insecurity and poverty rise. The poor and vulnerable abandoned.

What Next?

We listed 15 institutional areas that Trump and his MAGA (Make America Great Again) followers devastated.  Sadly, Trump’s actions changed MAGA to MAWA (Make America Weak Again).  Foreign countries are shocked and dismayed by how rapidly America sunk from the world’s Leading Democracy to a collapsing Empire with crumbling power.

Trump talks about acquire Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal.  Trump had the audacity to dictate new tariffs that he would charge not only to his enemies (China 50%), to neutral countries (India 50%, Switzerland 39%) and to his allies (Canada and Mexico 25%).  At the United Nations Security Council in June 2025, the U.S. was effectively the only country opposing an effort to move toward peace—specifically, it vetoed a resolution calling for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza.  

Within America, instead of Trump uniting Americans, he deepens divisions daily. His purpose is to openly vilify and destroy the Democrats and their party and to set himself up as a lifelong dictator. Seriously, does anyone doubt this still?

What will it take to stop this madness and restore Democracy in the USA? Time is running out.

IMAGE credit.

Israel, with US complicity, is committing genocide in Gaza through the mass starvation of the population as well as direct mass murders and the physical destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure. Israel does the dirty work. The US Government funds it and provides diplomatic cover through its UN veto. Palantir, through “Lavendar,” provides the AI for efficient mass murder. Microsoft, through Azure cloud services, and Google and Amazon, through the “Nimbus” initiative, supply core tech infrastructure for the Israeli army.

This marks 21st-century war crimes as an Israel-US public-private partnership. Israel’s mass starvation of the people of Gaza has been confirmed by the United Nations, Amnesty International, The Red Cross, Save the Children, and many others. The Norwegian Refugee Council, along with 100 organizations, has been calling for an end to Israel’s weaponization of food relief. This is the first time that mass starvation has been officially confirmed in the Middle East.

The scale of the starvation is staggering. Israel is systematically depriving food to more than 2 million people. Over half a million Palestinians face catastrophic hunger and at least 132,000 children aged under five are at risk of death from acute malnutrition. The scale of the horror is thoroughly documented by Haaretz in a recent article entitled “Starvation is Everywhere.” Those who are able to somehow access food distribution sites are routinely fired on by the Israeli army.

Israel has crossed the clear line into the darkest crimes—starving civilians to death and shooting them as they line up, emaciated, for food. There is no further line to cross, nor time to lose.

As a former US ambassador to Israel has recently explained, the intention to starve the population has been present from the start. Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu recently declared, “there is no nation that feeds its enemies.” Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently stated, “whoever doesn’t evacuate, don’t let them. No water, no electricity; they can die of hunger or surrender. This is what we want.”

Yet despite these glaring declarations of genocide, US representatives at the UN repeatedly deny the facts and cover for Israel’s war crimes. The US alone vetoed Palestine’s admission to the UN in 2024. The US now denies visas to Palestinian leaders to come to the UN in September, yet another violation of international law.

The US has used its power and especially its veto in the UN Security Council to abet Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians and to block even the most basic humanitarian responses. The world is aghast but seems paralyzed before the Israel-US murder machine. Yet the world can act, even in the face of US intransigence. The US will stand naked and alone in its criminal complicity with Israel.

Let’s be clear. The overwhelming voice of humanity is on the side of the people of Palestine. Last December, 172 countries, with more than 90 percent of the world population, voted to support Palestine’s right to self-determination. Israel and the US were essentially isolated in their opposition. Similar overwhelming majorities are repeatedly expressed on behalf of Palestine and against the actions of Israel.

Israel’s thuggish government now counts solely on US support, but even that may not be there for long. Despite Trump’s intransigence and US government attempts to stifle pro-Palestinian voices, 58% of Americanswant the UN to recognize the State of Palestine, compared to only 33% who do not. Moreover, 60% of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Here are practical steps that the world can take.

First, Türkiye has set the correct course by ending all economic, trade, shipping, and air links with Israel. Israel is currently a rogue state, and Türkiye is right to treat it as such until Israeli-created mass starvation ends, and a State of Palestine is admitted to the UN as the 194th member, with the borders of June 4, 1967. Other states should immediately follow Türkiye’s lead.

Second, all UN member states that have not yet done so should recognize the State of Palestine. So far, 147 countries recognize Palestine. Dozens more should do so at the UN Summit on Palestine on September 22, even over the vociferous objections of the United States government.

Third, the Arab signatories to the Abraham Accords, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the UAE, should suspend their diplomatic relations with Israel until the Gaza siege ends and the State of Palestine is admitted to the UN.

Fourth, the UN General Assembly, by a vote of two-thirds present and voting, should suspend Israel from the UN General Assembly until it lifts its murderous siege on Gaza, based on the precedent of suspending South Africa during its Apartheid regime. The US has no veto in the UN General Assembly.

Fifth, UN member states should stop the export of all technology services that support the war, until the siege of Gaza ends and Palestine’s membership in the UN is adopted by the UN Security Council. Consumer companies such as Amazon and Microsoft that persist in aiding the Israel Defence Forces in the context of a genocide should face the wrath of consumers worldwide.

Sixth, the UN General Assembly should dispatch a UN Protection Force to Gaza and the West Bank. Typically, it would be the UN Security Council that mandates a protection force, but in this case, the US will block the Security Council with its veto. There is another way.

Under the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism, when the Security Council is deadlocked, the authority to act passes to the General Assembly. After a Security Council session and the almost inevitable US veto, the issue would be brought before the UNGA in a resumed 10th emergency special session on the Israel-Palestine conflict. There, the General Assembly can, by a two-thirds majority not subject to US veto, authorize a protection force in response to an urgent request from the State of Palestine. There is a precedent: in 1956, the General Assembly authorized the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) to enter Egypt and protect it from the ongoing invasion by Israel, France, and the United Kingdom.

At the invitation of Palestine, the protection force would enter Gaza to secure emergency humanitarian aid for the starving population. If Israel were to attack the UN protection force, the force would be authorized to defend itself and the Gazans. Whether Israel and the US would dare to fight a UNGA-mandated force protecting the starving Gazans remains to be seen.

Israel has crossed the clear line into the darkest crimes—starving civilians to death and shooting them as they line up, emaciated, for food. There is no further line to cross, nor time to lose. The family of nations is being tested and summoned to action as it has not been in decades.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of “A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism” (2020). Other books include: “Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable” (2017) and “The Age of Sustainable Development,” (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

Sybil Fares is a specialist and advisor in Middle East policy and sustainable development at SDSN.

Licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Original article.

There is a growing incidence of toxic leadership in organisations across the world. This is clear from anecdotal evidence as well as research which suggests that one out of every five leaders is toxic. My own research shows that closer to three out of every ten leaders are toxic.

This cancer of toxicity threatens the well being of both individuals and organisations. It also affects the performance of a society and country. That’s why there is a pressing need for leaders to understand the nature, dynamics and evolution of toxic leadership and organisations.

The word “toxic” comes from the Greek “toxikon” which means “arrow poison”. In a literal sense, the term in its original form thus means to kill (poison) in a targeted way (arrow). Toxic organisations and leaders therefore are those who deliberately destroy the fabric of the institution.

What makes a toxic leader?

Toxic leadership represents the “dark” side of leadership. It affects individuals as well as organisations.

In the case of individuals toxic leadership refers to ongoing, deliberate, intentional actions – the “arrow” – by a leader to undermine the sense of dignity, self-worth and efficacy of an individual – the “poison”. This results in exploitative, destructive, devaluing and demeaning work experiences. These destructive actions may be physical, psychosocial or even spiritual when they diminish a person’s meaning and purpose.

A toxic organisation is one that erodes, disables and destroys the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of the people who work in it in permanent and deliberate ways. In other words, an organisation becomes metaphorically a “poison pill” for employees.

Workplace bullying is similar to toxic leadership, but is just one form of it. Bullying is more centred on individual, one-on-one, physical or emotional abuse by any one individual, including a leader, on another person.

In contrast to toxic leadership, healthy, authentic leadership nurtures and affirms the dignity, worth and efficacy of an individual. It creates enabling, empowering and meaningful work experiences.

And a healthy, authentic organisation is one that nurtures and grows the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of its organisational members.

Can toxic leaders be competent?

Leadership toxicity and incompetence are not directly related. Both competent – getting the desired results – and incompetent leadership can be toxic.

If a narrower definition of competence is used – only focusing on technical and professional competencies – a toxic leader may still be seen as competent because they are “delivering the goods”. This is particularly true if a short term view is taken. But over the longer term their short term success is unsustainable. This is because they are destroying their teams, departments or organisations in the process.

If a comprehensive, long term view is taken toxic leaders are incompetent because they are not competent across all domains of a well-rounded leader. Taking a comprehensive view, leadership qualities include personal attributes, technical and professional competencies, values and attitudes, and conduct.

I believe that toxic leaders, regardless of their level of technical and professional competence, are incompetent. After all, competent leadership is all about getting things done with people.

Typical toxic leaders

Five typical toxic leaders exist:

• The Cold Fish: the ends justifies the means. So any decision and action is justifiable in terms of the results desired.
• The Snake: the world serves me in the endeavour to satisfy my personal needs like greed, status and power.
• Glory Seeker: personal glory and public visibility at any cost, regardless of whether I have made any real and meaningful contribution.
• Puppet Master: absolute, centralised control over everything and anyone, under all circumstances.
• Monarch: ruling the organisation as if it is my kingdom. All of its assets are available for my personal use.

The more prolific these toxic leaders are in an organisation, the more toxic the organisation. The table below profiles these toxic leaders.

Typical toxic organisations

The typical manifestations of a toxic organisation resulting from toxic leadership are:

• Negative emotional moods and mood swings: anger, despair, despondency, frustration, pessimism and aggression.
• Unproductive and meaningless work.
• Destructive and counterproductive conduct.
• Employee physical and emotional disengagement and withdrawal such as absenteeism, lack of contribution, and turnover.
• Unethical, deviant conduct: theft, fraud and sabotage.
• Poor well-being and health.
• Low (team) morale and work satisfaction.
• Organisational dis-identification and low organisational commitment.
• General life dissatisfaction.

But organisations can be toxic in their own right through the organisational culture they have. Organisational culture refers to shared ways of seeing, interpreting and acting upon the world that becomes ingrained in an organisation’s DNA. It’s the glue holding it together and provides an organisation with a way of looking at and relating to the world.

When toxic patterns become ingrained into the DNA of an organisation the following patterns emerge:

• Paranoid: the defensive, afraid, suspicious, trusting no-one or nobody organisation.
• Compulsive: the over-planned and over-programmed organisation.
• Hyperactive: the impulsive, unfocused organisation, acting like an adolescent.
• Deflated: the energyless, depressed and impotent organisation.
• Delusional: the reality estranged, make-believe organisation, living in a world of its own.
• Conscienceless: the unethical, amoral organisation.

There appears to be a growing incidence of the cancer of toxic leadership and organisations. This is in no uncertain terms endangering the well being of organisational members, compromising future sustainable organisational, community and societal performance and success, as well as the very continued existence of them.

This article is based on a longer, more comprehensive academic paper.

Theo Veldsman, Professor and Head, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is your business degenerative? Is it following the well-thumbed playbook of corporate crapitalism?

Here’s an undeniable truth: most businesses are degenerative. They exploit, extract, and destroy – decimating the Common Good. Let’s confront the ugly reality of how most companies operate:

1. You Can’t Kill Your Customer and Call It Value Creation

It’s basic: if your business harms your customers, it’s doomed. Selling junk food, addictive products, or predatory services might work for a while, but it’s a race to the bottom. You can’t build trust—or a future—on exploitation. Long-term value means putting people’s well-being at the core of your business.

2. Business Is Part of Nature, Not Apart from It

A no-brainer. All business depends on the beneficence of Nature, yet most treat Nature like it’s disposable. The truth is, your business can’t thrive if the planet doesn’t. Whether it’s your supply chain, energy consumption, or waste management, ask yourself: are you regenerating or destroying? The future belongs to companies that heal, not harm.

3. Spreadsheets Don’t Lead, People Do

If your CEO runs the business by spreadsheet, you’ve already lost. Decisions made by algorithms and bottom-line thinking strip humanity out of the equation. Customers and employees aren’t data points—they’re people. Businesses that fail to connect on this level will be replaced by, well, algorithms. Real leadership is about purpose, empathy, and vision—not just numbers.

4. Profiting from Suffering Won’t Last

You can only profit from pain for so long. Sweatshops, environmental destruction, wage theft—they all come back to bite. Public outrage and growing awareness will destroy businesses that thrive on suffering. A regenerative business profits by solving problems, not creating them.

5. Hedge Fund Rule Equals Extraction

When hedge funds run the show, businesses stop being businesses. They become extraction machines, sucking out value for short-term profits and leaving employees, communities, and ecosystems in ruin. These companies strip-mine everything they touch. Real businesses build—extractive ones destroy.

6. CEO Pay: How Much Is Too Much?

When it takes over 100 years for your workers to earn what your CEO makes in a year, you have a problem. Inequality within organizations is a ticking time bomb. Pay disparities demoralize workers, erode trust, and fuel resentment. It’s not just about fairness; it’s about survival. Companies that share the wealth will endure. The others? Good riddance.

7. Does Your Business Give Back More Than It Takes?

Communities are the backbone of any business. But how many companies extract from their communities without giving back? If your business takes more than it contributes, it’s not just unsustainable—it’s parasitic. Businesses that reinvest in their communities create loyal customers, happier employees, and long-term resilience.

8. Do Your Employees Fear You?

When employees are afraid to speak up, to organize, or to challenge the status quo, your business is broken. Fear kills creativity, innovation, and loyalty. A thriving business creates a culture of trust, respect, and empowerment. Fear-driven workplaces collapse under their own weight.

9. Do Your Leaders All Think the Same?

When leadership is homogenous, you get groupthink. Homogeneity limits perspective, stifles innovation, and reinforces the status quo. Diversity isn’t just about representation—it’s about better decision-making. If all your leaders vote the same, think the same, and act the same, your business is on autopilot—heading for a crash.

The world doesn’t need more degenerative businesses. It needs regenerative organizations. Regenerative businesses don’t just reduce harm—they create value for people, communities, and the planet. They restore what’s been destroyed. They repair what’s broken. They rethink what’s possible. They regenerate the Common Good.

The path forward is clear. The question is: will your organization make the Big Shift, or will it double down on crapitalism?

Predicting the winner of a U.S. Presidential election is especially hard in this election year. The candidates are running close to 50-50 and voters are highly polarized. The two candidates have extremely different views of what is the Common Good.

So we choose not to make a prediction.

However, we want to vote. If this was an election in Australia, we would have to vote or pay a fee for not voting.  Furthermore, we would have to rank our candidate preferences if there are three or more candidates.

But we are American citizens. Also, we are largely independent voters.  We aren’t one-issue voter although this would make it easy.  For example, what if we cared only about abortion and voted for the candidate who favors abortion rights for women. We really want to consider all the policy differences between the two candidates.  

How can we do that?

Let’s imagine the economic, social and political outcomes that are likely to follow from each candidate being elected.

Our best step is to list the outcomes that we expect to follow with each candidate if elected. We stand ready to revise our views.  In fact, we invite you, the reader, to look at the two lists.  Feel free to add missing outcomes.

You can send your revised list to us >>  info (at) fixcapitalism dot com >>

Here are our initial lists:

What will happen if Trump wins the 2024 Presidency?

1. Economic chaos as higher prices result from Trump’s rising tariffs and irrational trade policies
2. Cutbacks and/or elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and the possible repeal of Obamacare
3. Social chaos with increased violence towards minorities, workers, and union organizers
4. Political arrests targeting opponents (Trump has also said anyone criticizing the Supreme Court should be jailed)
5. Government appointments not based on merit but ideology (existing government employees will be purged unless they are loyal to Trump)
6. Fewer dependable allies from abroad as NATO(and the EU) is abandoned; China becomes stronger as Taiwan is abandoned
7. Russian power increases as Ukraine is left to itself; US pivots to possible war against Iran
8. Climate problems worsen – pollution regulations are eliminated; drilling allowed in National Parks
9. Polarization and hatred worsen as “remigration” and forced deportation is scaled up
10. Leadership focuses on past grievances – including personal vendettas against people who didn’t support Trump
11. Possibility of mental deterioration of Trump after election – leading to the installation of JD Vance as President
12. Women lose their reproductive rights, and other civil rights as well
13. More tax cuts for the rich and corporate interests, leading to further deficits (military programs to increase at the expense of everything else)
14. Increase in Christian Nationalism and intolerance for other faiths
15. Implementation of Project 2025 and abandonment of constitutional boundaries

What will happen if Harris wins the Presidency?

1. Lower prices as Inflation continues to fall; corporate price-gouging is dissuaded
2. Major job creation with new factories and new investments in renewabletechnologies
3. Higher taxes on the super-rich and corporate profits to support better health and education – this funds Social Security and eliminates austerity measures
4. Strong dependable allies abroad – NATO is supported to create a better, secure future
5. More progress in controlling climate problems – investment in renewables and battery technologies
6. Her international experience will further peacemaking to reduce international disputes
7. Union support instead of opposition and more worker benefits including a higher minimum wage
8. Less polarization and more goodwill amongst the general population; opposition to the culture wars
9. Leadership is younger and motivating for younger generations
10. Women’s rights are secured nationally and across states; abortion rights are strengthened
11.  Church and state are kept separate and America avoids a decline into Christian Nationalism by embracing a culture of respect
12.  Increased regional investments in Latin America to encourage residents to remain in their home countries
13. Support for a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine
14. Support for  job-creation through small business and start-up incentives
15. Corporates and billionaires pay a fairer share of taxes

Does this comparison of likely outcomes help you choose your candidate?

ASK: Which candidate is working for the Common Good? Which candiadte is working for the future wellbeing of our children?  Which candidate has demonstrated a commitment to justice?

May the best candidate win.

As more campuses join the protests against Israel’s continuing engagement in war crimes in Gaza, one common thread runs through the student demands. It’s this: divest from supplying the Netanyahu government and the IDF with weapons of mass destruction.

What compels many of these youthful demonstrators to occupy the public spaces and offices of their universities is the complicity of college portfolios with investments in U.S. weapon manufacturers. They know that the products of defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighterjet and General Dynamics’ MK 84—a 2,000-pound bomb—are slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians throughout Gaza.

They also understand that the U.S. government, from President Joe Biden to the Congress, is opposed to legislative efforts to hold Israel accountable to its violation of various on-the-books prohibitions for governments “engaged in gross human rights abuses” (Section 502 B of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act). Instead, they see the Biden Administration exploiting every loophole in any restrictions to supply Israel with unending transfers of bombs and military equipment. While countries, like Canada and numerous others, have stopped shipping weapons to Israel, the U.S. seems oblivious to the suffering and devastation caused daily by the IDF in Gaza.

They are aware that Israeli state propaganda spreads constant disinformation about its war crimes in Gaza, from rationalizing its attacks on the staff and patients in hospitals to the murder of over 200 aid workers. They know that countless human rights agencies have condemned these kinds of war crimes in Gaza. (These same human rights agencies have also condemned the brutal killing of 1,200 Israeli civilians and the taking of hostages on October 7). In order to justify the murder of so many innocent civilians, the Netanyahu government has insisted that they have actually killed 9,000 Hamas militants. However, if they read one of the recent articles in the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz from March 31, they understand this figure is reflective of what the IDF calls “kill zones” (think “free-fire zones” in the U.S. war on Vietnam) where anything in those zones, including women and children, were legitimate targets to then be counted as Hamas militants.

They are surely aware of what Netanyahu cabinet members have said about the Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank that they are just “human animals.” The Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, has bragged about destroying the “electricity, food, and fuel” in Gaza. One of his advisers, a former IDF General, reflective of the targeting of aid workers, including those murdered seven from World Central Kitchen, acknowledged that “in order to make the siege effective, we have to prevent others from giving assistance to Gaza.” Such mass murder and wanton destruction of property in Gaza is part of a campaign of killing that one UN official has cited as “probably the highest kill ratio of any military killing anybody since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.”

When students see and hear about all of this, they are obviously motivated to express their moral outrage. On one hand, these expressions may not always comport with so-called civility. On the other hand, they are not prepared to remain silent and/or passive in the face of an unfolding genocide. In their adherence to Dr. King’s reference to the “fierce urgency of now,” they are committed, as Dr. King was, to disturbing the peace.

Indeed, we need to be reminded of another quote from Dr. King that was central to his famous Riverside Address (“A Time to Break Silence”) from April 4, 1967. He warned prophetically that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Beyond the horrors in Gaza and the long tragic history of the oppression of Palestinians, these student protestors are trying to save their own nation from its death-dealing spiral. What their protest ultimately signifies is their commitment to an authentic advocacy for peace and justice abroad and at home.

Fran Shor is a Michigan-based retired teacher, writer, and activist.

Licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Original here.

In our book – REGENERATION: The Future of Community in a Permacrisis World, we point out that in the US today, we see that our politicians can’t even stand up to the NRA, let alone address climate collapse.  Instead, they distract us with culture wars and fake controversy – banning books, and literally canceling democracy via gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Shouldn’t our governments be promoting the Common Good?  Isn’t that the definition of regenerative governance?  Here’s a citizen’s checklist we compiled – does your government check the boxes?

If you were to grade your elected government officials against their support  for the Common Good, you might get a better idea if they really care about you and your children’s children.

Christian Sarkar, Philip Kotler, and Enrico Foglia are the co-founders of The Regenerative Marketing Institute, and the joint authors of REGENERATION: The Future of Community in a Permacrisis World.

What does Ukraine need for the future? We interviewed Dr. Iryna Tykhomyrova, President of MIM Business School in Kyiv, to get her views on rebuilding Ukraine.

Dr. Tykhomyrova is the Head of Management and Economics Department, and supervisor of consulting projects for international and Ukrainian companies. As an expert on evaluation of business education needs for Central and Eastern Europe at European Training Foundation, her vision is a key to winning the future for the next generation of Ukrainians.  

Dr. Tykhomyrova is a member of the academic—methodological commission on management at the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. Her educational path led through the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), the Central European University (Hungary), and the International Management Teachers Academy (Slovenia).

What does Ukraine need to do now? On the war front? On the peace front?

 We need to win. We are fighting many fronts now. To win on the battlefield we need to be strong, brave, and resilient. To win on the economic front, we need to develop the economy and lay the foundation for the future revival of Ukraine. We also need to use all the resources available internally and look for the resources available through our international partners.

How do you view this war? Is it possible to say that this is Ukraine’s revolt against Russian corruption?

It is the war between the past and the future. It is not the war against corruption but rather the war of different mindsets: the past-oriented imperial and colonial and forward-looking and democracy-based. If we compare Russian and Ukrainian leadership, we’ll see that Russians are a generation older. That’s why it is safe to say that they are free of the Soviet legacy. They were brought up in an open world with different values. We are fighting for a lifestyle based on respect and cooperation against the obsolete, and malevolent regime. Besides, it is the fight for our path to the future that is enrooted in European humanistic values.

How does planning for peace create a roadmap for the future? What will end this war?

 All wars end up in peace treaties. We do not know when we will draw up our treaty of peace.

We also do not know yet what price we will pay for our victory, whether we are talking about the war death toll or damage to our cities, industrial sites, energy infrastructure, etc. Because of those unknowns, we cannot start making our business plans. However, it is high time to lay the foundation of our future and start working to make the future happen. I see three main priorities that need to be dealt with now. Firstly, education will be the key to success because we need people with certain skill sets and mindsets. Secondly, the launch of judicial system reform is pending to create a transparent and favorable legal and regulatory framework. And thirdly, as the result, a favorable investment climate and availability of human capital with the right competencies will drive the economic revival. The establishment of a viable financial market is important for economic restoration projects as well. After our victory and signing the peace treaty we will need to move quickly.

What steps should be taken to ensure the rebuilding of Ukraine is regenerative, that is, it builds community wealth in a sustainable way, rather than extractive?

Our war is the war for the future. We see immense environmental damage in our country. The inflicted damage may affect the whole world, especially if we are talking about nuclear power plants. Even if our war is in Central Europe, the environmental damage may be global. That’s why we need to adopt an environment-oriented approach to what we do and will do. Thinking environmentally is critical because we need to recover not only our economy but our habitat from war-inflicted damages.  Much will depend on the new technologies and technological businesses. Investments and investors are critical for developing those new technologies and businesses. Besides, many obsolete manufacturing sites located in the East of Ukraine were ruined. In my opinion, we will need to recover those metallurgy or energy sites with new technologies. I believe that the country’s restoration will mean new, greener businesses.

What role does business have in rebuilding Ukraine? How do the businesses that left Ukraine return?

Businesses will be the driving force of the country’s post-war economic revival. As we mentioned, the economy is our second front. Although relocated abroad, most businesses are sure that they are expanding their activities rather than leaving the Ukrainian market. After the war, they will return to Ukraine because rebuilding the economy means an abundance of opportunities. We believe that not only relocated businesses will return to domestic markets, but new investors will come to Ukraine for more opportunities. The economic revival will become the driving force for those people who fled abroad. To secure the inward businesses movement, we should create a legal and regulatory framework that encourages doing business, a favorable tax regime, and judicial reform that will be instrumental in the protection of investors’ rights. Without investors’ confidence in their protection businesses will struggle.

The western part of Ukraine has become more developed because of the war? What steps can be taken to ensure these developments don’t stop when the war is over?

Many businesses did move there. In the western part, agrarian business, tourism, and high tech have always accounted for a substantial share of the economy. Currently, people have fled their homes in the eastern part of Ukraine and moved westward. Some businesses moved as well. I think that the western part of Ukraine will become a part of the overall recovery strategy. Due to its geography, it will become an important logistic hub.

At a time when democracy is in decline in the world, how does Ukraine plan on building a more democratic society?

We sacrificed a lot for democracy. I think we are laying the foundation for the future of democracy. Our civil society is developing quickly due to the people participating in the war as military service people or members of the territorial defense units, volunteers, and people who are working against all odds. They have already taken the responsibility for the future of the country. After the war, they will return to normal lives and become important actors in business, politics, and in social institutions. They are paying dearly for the future. That’s why I believe that our veterans, volunteers, and civil society will become a driving force and guarantors of the democratic boost and democratic changes.

Thanks for your time and hard work. We look forward to a time soon when the people of Ukraine can live in peace and prosperity, and democracy.

INTERVIEW by Christian Sarkar

After the FBI completed a lawful search of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Aug. 8, 2022, conservative politicians responded with one of three strategies: silence, circumspection and attack.

Many responses echoed Trump’s own framing of the search. In his Aug. 8 message he claimed his residence was “under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.” In the statement, replete with war metaphors, Trump alleged that executing a legal warrant was “the weaponization of the Justice System” and an “assault” that “could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries.”

Trump’s framing of the event was quickly echoed by most Republican politicians commenting immediately on Twitter, despite the fact that they, like Democrats and the public, lacked relevant knowledge of the facts of the case that prompted the search and seizure of classified documents.

The impulse to hastily legitimize Trump’s perspective illustrates a dangerous rhetorical strategy frequently employed by GOP politicians during the Trump era: message laundering.

Conditioned to accept violence

Message laundering occurs when inflammatory language and/or unsubstantiated claims are mixed with mainstream partisan communication and presented to the public with an air of respectability. Just as money laundering enabled mobsters to disguise their ill-gotten gain as the profits of a legitimate business, message laundering presents dishonest and dangerous speech as credible, innocuous or persuasive.

As a political communication scholar, I study how rhetoric strengthens or erodes democratic institutions. The aftermath of the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search illustrates how message laundering can undermine democratic processes and gradually condition its audience to expect and accept violence.

After Trump released his statement, conservative politicians echoed key aspects of his message. Some sanitized Trump’s ideas by combining them with more measured critique or references to democratic processes.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., decried an “intolerable state of weaponized politicization” in the Justice Department, even as he promised to “follow the facts” and “leave no stone unturned” if the GOP retook the House. Democrats interpreted his directive to Attorney General Merrick Garland, “preserve your documents and clear your calendar,” as a threat. But the tweet launders Trump’s notion of a weaponized Justice Department by combining it with McCarthy’s promise to use democratic processes to “follow the facts.”

Similarly, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem recycled Trump’s war metaphors in her tweet, saying, “The FBI raid on President Trump’s home is an unprecedented political weaponization of the Justice Department.” She tempered that imagery, however, by appealing to the rule of law in the same tweet, asserting that “using the criminal justice system in this manner is un-American.”

Not all of the GOP’s early statements were measured, however. Some laundered more extreme ideas and edged readers toward an acceptance of violence.

In a tweet sent the night of the search, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis labeled the search a “raid” and described it as “another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents.” He continued, saying, “Now the Regime is getting another 87k IRS agents to wield against its adversaries? Banana Republic.”

DeSantis’ invocation of “the Regime” legitimizes a fringe notion peddled by Michael Anton, a right-wing commentator and member of Trump’s administration. Anton speculates that Democratic elected officials would work in concert with members of the Biden administration, liberal judges and the media – who, together, form “the regime” – to prevent Trump from taking office again using legal or illegal means.

DeSantis referenced a budgetary item included in the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act that would allocate “$80 billion to the IRS.”

McCarthy also referred to that aspect of the bill, alleging a “new army of 87,000 IRS agents” are “coming for” American taxpayers. Politifact and The Washington Post debunked the notion. Yet Republicans repeatedly made that argument.

‘Gestapo’ and ‘brown shirts’

The imagery of an “army” of federal agents turned against ordinary Americans via legislative mandate legitimized the alarmist rhetoric that followed. As GOP tweets coalesced, the line item from the Inflation Reduction Act merged with reports of the Mar-a-Lago search in ways designed to make individual voters feel vulnerable.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., tweeted, “If they weaponize the FBI to go after President Trump, they will surely weaponize the IRS’s 87,000 new agents to go after you.”

The GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee tweeted, “If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you.” Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., tweeted, “This #DepartmentofInjustice must be held accountable. It was President Trump today, but it’s you next if we don’t take a stand.”

After making audiences feel personally threatened, GOP messaging returned to the war posture implied in Trump’s original statement.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., tweeted that the FBI “raiding President Trump’s home” was the “type of things that happen in countries during civil war.” Conservative pundits and politicians cast FBI agents as “Gestapo” and “brown shirts,” the latter referring to Hitler’s storm troopers. In an interview on Fox News, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., exclaimed, “This should scare the living daylights out of America citizens” and compared the U.S. federal government to the Nazis, the Soviet Union and Latin American dictatorships.

What’s next, #CivilWar?

Communication scholars have observed that once political opponents are cast in those terms, democratic remedies are insufficient. The opponent must be destroyed, and violent repercussions seem reasonable.

A Bloomberg newsletter noted that during the week of Aug. 8, the #CivilWar hashtag gained traction on various platforms, reflecting a “war-time mentality (that) has become increasingly common since it’s started to find footing with politicians.”

The Texas Nationalist Movement issued a statement citing the “raid” on Mar-a-Lago, the “weaponization and politicization of federal instruments of power” and the “announcement of the hiring of 87,000 IRS agents” as grounds for Texas to secede.

During the week that followed the Mar-a-Lago search, FBI officials reported numerous instances of individuals threatening FBI field offices, with some confrontations ending in violence. On Aug. 12, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security released a joint bulletin documenting an increase in violent threats to law enforcement and other government officials.

Message laundering does not always result in politically motivated violence, but it can make violence seem like a logical and reasonable response to partisan disagreement. Voters should be aware of this rhetorical tactic.

Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

IMAGE: Supporters of former President Donald Trump rally in Bedminster, N.J., on Aug. 14, 2022. Kyle Mazza/Andalou Agency via Getty Images