Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Neg Prince AS | Judge: Pascall, Christopher
Resolution:
A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.
Advantage AFF:
Util
Pleasure is an intrinsic good.
Moen ’16 – (Ole Martin, PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy @ University of Oslo, "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267). Modified for glang
Let us start by observing, empirically, that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic value and disvalue is that pleasure is intrinsically valuable and pain is intrinsically disvaluable. On virtually any proposed list of intrinsic values and disvalues (we will look at some of them below), pleasure is included among the intrinsic values and pain among the intrinsic disvalues. This inclusion makes intuitive sense, moreover, for there is something undeniably good about the way pleasure feels and something undeniably bad about the way pain feels, and neither the goodness of pleasure nor the badness of pain seems to be exhausted by the further effects that these experiences might have. "Pleasure" and "pain" are here understood inclusively, as encompassing anything hedonically positive and anything hedonically negative. 2 The special value statuses of pleasure and pain are manifested in how we treat these experiences in our everyday reasoning about values. If you tell me that you are heading for the convenience store, I might ask: "What for?" This is a reasonable question, for when you go to the convenience store you usually do so, not merely for the sake of going to the convenience store, but for the sake of achieving something further that you deem to be valuable. You might answer, for example: "To buy soda." This answer makes sense, for soda is a nice thing and you can get it at the convenience store. I might further inquire, however: "What is buying the soda good for?" This further question can also be a reasonable one, for it need not be obvious why you want the soda. You might answer: "Well, I want it for the pleasure of drinking it." If I then proceed by asking "But what is the pleasure of drinking the soda good for?" the discussion is likely to reach an awkward end. The reason is that the pleasure is not good for anything further; it is simply that for which going to the convenience store and buying the soda is good. 3 As Aristotle observes: "We never ask what ~the~is end is in being pleased, because we assume that pleasure is choice worthy in itself."4 Presumably, a similar story can be told in the case of pains, for if someone says "This is painful!" we never respond by asking: "And why is that a problem?" We take for granted that if something is painful, we have a sufficient explanation of why it is bad. If we are onto something in our everyday reasoning about values, it seems that pleasure and pain are both places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value. Although pleasure and pain thus seem to be good candidates for intrinsic value and disvalue, several objections have been raised against this suggestion: (1) that pleasure and pain have instrumental but not intrinsic value/disvalue; (2) that pleasure and pain gain their value/disvalue derivatively, in virtue of satisfying/frustrating our desires; (3) that there is a subset of pleasures that are not intrinsically valuable (so-called "evil pleasures") and a subset of pains that are not intrinsically disvaluable (so-called "noble pains"), and (4) that pain asymbolia, masochism, and practices such as wiggling a loose tooth render it implausible that pain is intrinsically disvaluable. I shall argue that these objections fail.
Weighing—(a) Parsimony – metaphysics relies on long chains of questionable claims that make conclusions less likely. (b) Epistemology – thousands of years of abstract theorizing has failed to resolve ethics. (c) Hijacks – intuitions are inevitable since even every framework has to take to some unjustified assumption as a starting point.
And, consequentialism is true—
A~ All actions are forward-looking, so intentions are constituted by foreseen consequences. If I throw my hand towards your face, I intend to punch you.
B~ Moral substitutability—if I ought to mow the lawn, then I ought to turn on the lawnmower. Thus, an obligation requires all of its necessary enablers.
Thus, the standard is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Calc indicts don’t link—my framework is a general principle to be applied intuitively, not a rigid calculator. Prefer—
1 – Death first – their framework assumes perfect rationality but agents can’t deliberate on ethics if they fear for their bodily security – proves my offense turns and outweighs theirs.
2 – Actor-Spec – Governments are institutions with pragmatic purposes and not agents with intentions so non-consequentialist impacts are incoherent—outweighs since different agents have different obligations. Takes out calc indicts—
3 – A just government refers to one that acts utilitarian meaning that a utilitarian framework is key to understand the perspective of the actor in the res
MVO 18’ What does a just government mean? ~https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-does-a-just-government-mean/~~
A just government is fair to ALL people that it governs. This includes not only the governed, but also the governors. Subjecting the governors to the same laws as the governed will help to ensure that no one group’s interests are served at the expense of others.
Advantage –Democracy
Global democracy is collapsing now.
Freedom House 3/3 ~Freedom House. Freedom House works to defend human rights and promote democratic change, with a focus on political rights and civil liberties. We act as a catalyst for freedom through a combination of analysis, advocacy, and action. Our analysis, focused on 13 central issues, is underpinned by our international program work. "New Report: The global decline in democracy has accelerated". 3-3-2021. . https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-decline-democracy-has-accelerated.~~
Washington -March 3,2021 —Authoritarian actors grew bolder during 2020 as major democracies turned inward, contributing to the 15th consecutive year of decline in global freedom, according to Freedom in the World 2021, the annual country-by-country assessment of political rights and civil liberties released today by Freedom House. The report found that the share of countries designated Not Free has reached its highest level since the deterioration of democracy began in 2006, and that countries with declines in political rights and civil liberties outnumbered those with gains by the largest margin recorded during the 15-year period. The report downgraded the freedom scores of 73 countries, representing 75 percent of the global population. Those affected include not just authoritarian states like China, Belarus, and Venezuela, but also troubled democracies like the United States and India. In one of the year’s most significant developments, India’s status changed from Free to Partly Free, meaning less than 20 percent of the world’s people now live in a Free country—the smallest proportion since 1995. Indians’ political rights and civil liberties have been eroding since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014. His Hindu nationalist government has presided over increased pressure on human rights organizations, rising intimidation of academics and journalists, and a spate of bigoted attacks—including lynchings—aimed at Muslims. The decline deepened following Modi’s reelection in 2019, and the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 featured further abuses of fundamental rights. The changes in India formed part of a broader shift in the international balance between democracy and authoritarianism, with authoritarians generally enjoying impunity for their abuses and seizing new opportunities to consolidate power or crush dissent. In many cases, promising democratic movements faced major setbacks as a result. In Belarus and Hong Kong, for example, massive prodemocracy protests met with brutal crackdowns by governments that largely disregarded international criticism. The Azerbaijani regime’s military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh indirectly threatened recent democratic gains in Armenia, while the armed conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region dashed hopes for the tentative political opening in that country since 2018. All four of these cases notably featured some degree of intervention by an autocratic neighbor: Moscow provided a backstop for the regime in Belarus, Beijing propelled the repression in Hong Kong, Turkey’s government aided its Azerbaijani counterpart, and Ethiopia’s leader called in support from Eritrea. The malign influence of the regime in China, the world’s most populous dictatorship, ranged far beyond Hong Kong in 2020. Beijing ramped up its global disinformation and censorship campaign to counter the fallout from its cover-up of the initial coronavirus outbreak, which severely hampered a rapid global response in the pandemic’s early days. Its efforts also featured increased meddling in the domestic political discourse of foreign democracies, as well as transnational extensions of rights abuses common in mainland China. The Chinese regime has gained clout in multilateral institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council, which the United States abandoned in 2018, as Beijing pushed a vision of so-called noninterference that allows abuses of democratic principles and human rights standards to go unpunished while the formation of autocratic alliances is promoted. "This year’s findings make it abundantly clear that we have not yet stemmed the authoritarian tide," said Sarah Repucci, vice president of research and analysis at Freedom House. "Democratic governments will have to work in solidarity with one another, and with democracy advocates and human rights defenders in more repressive settings, if we are to reverse 15 years of accumulated declines and build a more free and peaceful world." A need for reform in the United States While still considered Free, the United States experienced further democratic decline during the final year of the Trump presidency. The US score in Freedom in the World has dropped by 11 points over the past decade, and fell by three points in 2020 alone. The changes have moved the country out of a cohort that included other leading democracies, such as France and Germany, and brought it into the company of states with weaker democratic institutions, such as Romania and Panama. Several developments in 2020 contributed to the United States’ current score. The Trump administration undermined government transparency by dismissing inspectors general, punishing or firing whistleblowers, and attempting to control or manipulate information on COVID-19. The year also featured mass protests that, while mostly peaceful, were accompanied by high-profile cases of violence, police brutality, and deadly confrontations with counter protesters or armed vigilantes. There was a significant increase in the number of journalists arrested and physically assaulted, most often as they covered demonstrations. Finally, the outgoing president’s shocking attempts to overturn his election loss—culminating in his incitement of rioters who stormed the Capitol as Congress met to confirm the results in January 2021—put electoral institutions under severe pressure. In addition, the crisis further damaged the United States’ credibility abroad and underscored the menace of political polarization and extremism in the country. "January 6 should be a wake-up call for many Americans about the fragility of American democracy," said Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House. "Authoritarian powers, especially China, are advancing their interests around the world, while democracies have been divided and consumed by internal problems. For freedom to prevail on a global scale, the United States and its partners must band together and work harder to strengthen democracy at home and abroad. President Biden has pledged to restore America’s international role as a leading supporter of democracy and human rights, but to rebuild its leadership credentials, the country must simultaneously address the weaknesses within its own political system." "Americans should feel gratified that the courts and other important institutions held firm during the postelection crisis, and that the country escaped the worst possible outcomes," said Abramowitz. "But the Biden administration, the new Congress, and American civil society must fortify US democracy by strengthening and expanding political rights and civil liberties for all. People everywhere benefit when the United States serves as a positive model, and the country itself reaps ample returns from a more democratic world." The effects of COVID-19 Government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the global democratic decline. Repressive regimes and populist leaders worked to reduce transparency, promote false or misleading information, and crack down on the sharing of unfavorable data or critical views. Many of those who voiced objections to their government’s handling of the pandemic faced harassment or criminal charges. Lockdowns were sometimes excessive, politicized, or brutally enforced by security agencies. And antidemocratic leaders worldwide used the pandemic as cover to weaken the political opposition and consolidate power. In fact, many of the year’s negative developments will likely have lasting effects, meaning the eventual end of the pandemic will not necessarily trigger an immediate revitalization of democracy. In Hungary, for example, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán took on emergency powers during the health crisis and misused them to withdraw financial assistance from municipalities led by opposition parties. In Sri Lanka, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa dissolved Parliament in early March and, with new elections repeatedly delayed due to COVID-19, ruled without a legislature for several months. Later in the year, both Hungary and Sri Lanka passed constitutional amendments that further strengthened executive power. The resilience of democracy Despite the many losses for freedom recorded by Freedom in the World during 2020, people around the globe remained committed to fighting for their rights, and democracy continued to demonstrate its remarkable resilience. A number of countries held successful elections, independent courts provided checks on executive overreach, journalists in even the most repressive environments investigated government transgressions, and activists persisted in calling out undemocratic practices.
The plan solves:
First, civic engagement–strikes increased democratic participation which reinvigorates democracy.
McElwee 15 ~Sean; Research Associate at Demos; "How Unions Boost Democratic Participation," The American Prospect; 9/16/15; https://prospect.org/labor/unions-boost-democratic-participation/~~
Labor organizer Helen Marot once observed, "The labor unions are group efforts in the direction of democracy." What she meant is that more than simply vehicles for the economic interests of workers (which they certainly are), labor unions also foster civic participation for workers. And nowhere is this clearer than in voter turnout, which has suffered in recent years along with union membership. Indeed, new data from the Census Bureau and a new analysis of American National Election Studies data support the case that unions' declining influence has also deeply harmed democracy. In 2014, voter turnout was abysmal, even for a midterm. Census data suggest that only 41.9 percent of the citizen population over 18 turned out to vote. However, as I note in my new Demos report Why Voting Matters, there are dispiriting gaps in turn out across class, race, and age. To examine how unions might affect policy, I performed a new analysis of both Census Bureau and American National Election Studies data. The data below, from the 2014 election, show the differences in voter turnout between union and non-union workers (the sample only includes individuals who were employed, and does not include self-employed workers). While only 39 percent of non-union workers voted in 2014, fully 52 percent of union workers did. As part of ongoing research, James Feigenbaum, an economics PhD candidate at Harvard, ran a regression using American National Election Studies data suggesting that union members are about 4 percentage points more likely to vote and 3 points more likely to register (after controlling for demographic factors) and individuals living in a union household are 2.5 points more likely to vote and register. This is largely in line with the earlier estimates of Richard Freeman. These numbers may appear modest, but in a close national election they could be enough to change the result. Other research has found an even stronger turnout effect from unions. Daniel Stegmueller and Michael Becher find that after applying numerous demographic controls, union members are 10 points more likely to vote. What's particularly important is that unions boost turnout among low-and middle-income individuals. In a 2006 study, political scientists Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler found that, "the decline in union membership since 1964 has affected the aggregate turnout of both low and middle-income individuals more than the aggregate turnout of high-income individuals." In 2014, the gap between unions and non-union workers shrunk at the highest rung of the income ladder. There was a 15-point gap among those earning less than $25,000(40 percent turnout for union workers, and 25 percent turnout for non-union workers). Among those earning more than $100,000, the gap was far smaller (49 percent for non-union workers and 52 percent for union workers). Individuals living in union households are also more progressive than those in non-union households. I examined 2012 ANES data and find that union households aren't largely different from non-union households on many issues regarding government spending, but they are more likely to have voted for Obama, identify as Democratic, and support a robust role for the government in reducing income inequality. When looking at union members specifically, the gaps become slightly larger. More upscale union members are far more progressive than their non-union counterparts. Non-union households with an income above $60,000 oppose government intervention to reduce inequality by 11 points, with 32.2 percent in favor and 43.4 percent against. But richer union households support government intervention, with 42.5 percent in favor and 29.9 percent opposed. As Richard B. Freeman has pointed out, "union members are more likely to vote for a Democrat for the House or Presidency than demographically comparable nonunion voters." He similarly finds that "unionism moves members to the left of where they would be given their socioeconomic status," in line with the data I examined from 2012.A 2013 study by Jasmine Kerrissey and Evan Schofer finds that union members are not only more likely to vote, but also more likely to belong to other associations, and to protest. They also find that these effects are strongest among people with lower levels of education, suggesting that unions may help mobilize the least politically active groups. A recent study of European countries finds union members vote more and identifies those aspects of union membership that contribute to the higher turnout. The strongest factor is that workers who engage in democratic organizations in the workplace (via collective bargaining) are more likely to engage in democracy more broadly by, for instance, voting.
Other studies support the idea that civic participation creates a feedback loop that leads to higher voting rates. Another factor is that union members make more money, and higher income is correlated with voting behavior. Finally, union members are encouraged by peers and the union to engage in politics, which also contributes to higher levels of turnout. It's not entirely surprising that politicians who savage unions often share a similar contempt for the right to vote. Democracy in the workplace leads to democracy more broadly throughout society. Workers with more democratic workplaces are more likely to democratically engage in in society. Further, when unions and progressives demonstrate that government can benefit them, Americans are more likely to want to participate in decision-making. For all these reasons, unions play a unique and indispensable role in the progressive project. As Larry Summers, certainly not a leftist, recently argued, "the weakness of unions leaves a broad swath of the middle class largely unrepresented in the political process."
Independently, our coordinated civic engagement is key to comprehensive climate action globally.
Fisher and Nasrin 20~Dana R; Professor of Sociology and the Director of the Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on questions related to democracy, activism, and environmentalism —most recently studying climate activism, protests, and the American Resistance. Her research employs a mixed-methods approach that integrates data collected through open-ended semi-structured interviews and participant observation with various forms of survey data; Sohana; University of Maryland, College Park, UMD, UMCP, University of Maryland College Park · Philip Merrill College of Journalism Master of Arts; "Climate activism and its effects," Wiley Interdisciplinary Review; October 2020; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345455893'Climate'activism'and'its'effects~~
As coordinated school strikes have taken place around the world to draw attention to the climate crisis, they have mobi-lized an increasing number of participants in a growing number of locations. This type of activism involves particular forms of civic engagement that specifically aim to pressure governments to take action that addresses the issue of climate change. Civic engagement is the term used to describe the manifold ways that citizens participate in their societies with the intention of influencing communities, politics, and the economy. Forms of engagement range from tactics that involve citizens working directly to change their individual behaviors, along with those that involve indirect efforts to bring about change through the political and economic systems (like school strikes). Tactics run the gamut and range from those that work within these systems to those that work outside of them (Meyer and Tarrow, 1997). Collective efforts are mediated by various organizational forms (Anheier and Themudo, 2002), which can either create or remove obstacles to participation (Fisher and Green, 2004; for more general discussion, see Gamson, 1975; McAdam, 1983). Ashas been noted by numerous studies, civic engagement is much higher in democratic countries where citizens are afforded rights to participate and to voice their opinions (DeBardeleben and Pammett, 2009; see also Putnam, Leonardi, andNanetti, 1994; Schofer and Longhofer, 2011; Skocpol and Fiorina, 1999; de Tocqueville, 2002; see particularly Verba,Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). At the same time, digital technologies have been found to facilitate the spread of various forms of activism while they connect countries and cultures (Bennett, 2013; Theocharis, Vitoratou, and Sajuria, 2017)This paper reviews the specific ways that citizens have engaged civically around the issue of climate change, paying particular attention to the documented effects of these efforts on climate change itself. Our discussion provides a review of the range of direct and indirect forms of climate activism (for a general overview of the direct and indirect effects of social movements, see Snow and Soule, 2010). After this review, we present the case of school strikes as a specific tactic that has gained attention in recent years. In this section, we review the limited research that presents data collected from participants of climate strikes in 2019 to understand trends in the expansion of this popular tactic. As the world responds to the COVID-19 outbreak and activism (including climate strikes) move increasingly online, we discuss the potential implications of the pandemic on climate activism and engagement. The conclusion of this paper emphasizes that future research must pay more attention to the relationship between climate-related civic engagement and measurable environmental outcomes. It highlights the methodological challenges facing scholars who take on the difficult analytical task of assessing the outcomes of climate activism in a way that is scalable for a global movement aiming to stop a global crisis. 2 | ACTIVISM WITH DIRECT EFFECTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE There are limited forms of civic engagement that involve efforts to have a direct effect on individual greenhouse gas emissions. For example, some environmental movements and environmental groups encourage their members to make lifestyle changes that reduce their individual carbon footprints. These efforts focus on changing consumer behaviors, such as reducing car-use, flying, shifting to non fossil fuel-based sources of electricity, and eating less dairy or meat (Büchs, Saunders, Wallbridge, Smith, and Bardsley, 2015; Cherry, 2006; Cronin, McCarthy, and Collins, 2014; Ergas, 2010; Haenfler, Johnson, and Jones, 2012; Middlemiss, 2011; Salt and Layzell, 1985; Saunders, Büchs, Papafragkou, Wallbridge, and Smith, 2014; Stuart, Thomas, Donaghue, and Russell, 2013; Wynes, Nicholas, Zhao, and Donner, 2018; for an overview on these measures, see Wynes and Nicholas, 2017). So far, there are only a limited number of case studies that measure the direct effect of participation in these types of movements as it relates to climate outcomes. In their study of the electricity use of 72 households in southern England, for example, Saunders and colleagues find an association between low levels of electricity use and contact with environmental organizations (Saunders et al., 2014). Similarly, in a longitudinal ethnographic study of a small number of participants in an environmental campaign in Sweden, Vestergren and colleagues conclude that participants in an environmental campaign sustained reductions in plastic use and meat consumption over the period of their study (Vestergren, Drury, and Chiriac, 2018, 2019). There is a clear need for research on the material outcomes of these movements that aim to have direct effects on consumption patterns that goes beyond single case studies. At the same time, measuring direct effects of these efforts in a way that scales up is extremely challenging, especially when crossing cultural and institutional contexts. 3 | ACTIVISM WITH INDIRECT EFFECTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE Most types of activism, however, do not aim to have direct effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they work to pressure economic and political actors to change policies and behaviors in a way that will lead to reductions in emissions. In other words, their goals are indirect: these forms of engagement target nodes of power—policymakers, regulators, and businesses—to change their behaviors and/or accelerate their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These forms of civic engagement involve providing the labor and political will needed to pressure political and economic actors to enact the kinds of emission-reducing policies recommended by scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Edenhofer, 2014, pt. IV). Much of the research in this area looks at the role of internationally focused environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which tend to target international environmental negotiation processes (Betsill and Corell, 2008; Boli and Thomas, 1999; Fox and Brown, 1998). Within this research area, there are numerous studies that analyze 2 of 11 FISHER AND NASRIN quantitative data sets to understand the relationship between NGOs and a country's environmental impact comparatively (see also Frank,
Hironaka, and Schofer, 2000; Grant, Jorgenson, and Longhofer, 2018; Jorgenson, Dick, and Shandra, 2011; Longhofer and Jorgenson, 2017; Schofer and Hironaka, 2005). Other studies focus specifically on the relationship between NGOs and environmental impact within nations (Dietz, Frank, Whitley, Kelly, and Kelly, 2015; Grant and Vasi, 2017; Shwom, 2011). In their quantitative analysis of the effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes in countries around the world, Schofer and Hironaka find clear evidence that the rise of an "international environmental regime," which includes environmental NGOs, is associated with lower levels of environmental degradation, including reduced carbon dioxide emissions (Schofer and Hironaka, 2005). More recently, scholars have worked to understand this relationship within the context of development. For example, Longhofer and Jorgenson conclude that nations with the highest levels of membership in international environmental NGOs experience a moderate "decoupling" in the association between economic development and carbon emissions (Grant et al., 2018; see also Jorgenson et al., 2011; Longhofer and Jorgenson, 2017) Although these studies provide a good first step in understanding this connection, more research is needed about how exactly the existence of NGOs bring about lower emissions. Beyond these studies that explicitly analyze the relationship between NGOs and carbon emissions, there is a small but growing literature that assesses the broader consequences of activism, which aims to pressure policymakers to take action across a range of issues (Amenta, Caren, Chiarello, and Su, 2010; Giugni, McAdam, and Tilly, 1999; Soule and Olzak, 2004). This research focuses specifically on the outcome of specific forms of engagement, or tactics (for an overview, see Caren, Ghoshal, and Ribas, 2011). Some of the most common tactics that activists are employing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions indirectly are summarized in the sections that follow. 3.1 | Activism through litigation Litigation is one of the tactics that citizens, local governments, NGOs, and even corporations are using to pressure governments. This tactic aims to work through the judicial system to take action or enforce existing legislation (McCormick et al., 2017; Peel and Lin, 2019; Peel and Osofsky, 2015; Setzer and Vanhala, 2019; see also Pfrommer et al., 2019). In May 2017, UN Environment reported that climate change-related cases had been filed in 24 countries plus the European Union (UN Environment, 2017). In some cases, this tactic is being used to pressure businesses and governments to meet their policy commitments (Setzer and Vanhala, 2019; UN Environment, 2017). So far, however, there remains insufficient evidence regarding what effect these judicial efforts are having on greenhouse gas emissions. 3.2 | Activism targeting business actors At the same time, some groups focus their attention on targeting the economic sector and specific businesses. These efforts employ shareholder activism and cooperative board stewardship, as well as protest (King and Soule, 2007; M.-D. P. Lee and Lounsbury, 2011; McDonnell, King, and Soule, 2015; Szulecki, 2018; Yildiz et al., 2015). Shareholder activism focuses on investors' response to corporate activities and performances (Gillan and Starks, 2007). It involves investors who are dissatisfied with the company's management or operation taking advantage of their role as shareholders to pressure the company to change (Bratton and Mccahery, 2015; Gillan and Starks, 2007). Cooperative board stewardship, in contrast, involves "jointly owned and democratically controlled businesses" that support renewable energy (Viardot, 2013, p. 757; see also Yildiz et al., 2015). Some of this business-focused activism involves working through transnational advocacy networks, which have been documented to target governments and corporations (Hadden and Jasny, 2017; Keck and Sikkink, 2014; McAteer and Pulver, 2009). In their comparative study of shareholder activism in the Amazon region, McAteer and Pulver come to mixed conclusions, finding that one of the shareholder advocacy networks in Ecuador was successful in limiting oil development, while the other was not (McAteer and Pulver, 2009). Other types of activism that target business practices involve environmental groups working as part of a campaign to pressure institutional investors and universities to divest from fossil fuels. Groups employ "a range of strategies to shame, pressure, facilitate, and encourage investors in general, and large institutional investors in particular, to relinquish their holdings of fossil fuel stocks in favour of climate-friendly alternatives" (Ayling and Gunningham, 2017, p. 131; Franta, 2017; Grady-Benson and Sarathy, 2016; Hestres and Hopke, 2019). Although research has yet to conclude FISHER AND NASRIN 3 of 11 that these efforts have a substantial effect on fossil fuel funding or greenhouse gas emissions (Tollefson, 2015; but see Bergman, 2018), a recent study of fossil fuel divestment and green bonds provides some evidence of success. In it, Glomsrød and Wei model green investment scenarios that include funding allocation constraints due to divestment around the world. The authors find that these efforts yield notable emissions reductions (Glomsrød and Wei, 2018, p. 7). 3.3 | Activism working within the political system Activism also frequently involves citizens working individually or in groups to take advantage of opportunities to pressure governmental actors from within the political system. These tactics involve lobbying elected officials or working to change political representation through democratic elections of candidates (for an overview, see Clemens, 1997; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady, 2012). Turning first to lobbying, there is some evidence that these efforts by civic groups have a positive effect on environmental outcomes. In their 2016 study, Olzak and colleagues find that the number of environmental lobbyist organizations has a positive effect on the enactment of environmental legislation (Olzak, Soule, Coddou, and Muñoz, 2016). Although the authors do not specifically document the effects of the legislation on material outcomes, more recent research has found climate laws to reduce carbon emissions (Eskander and Fankhauser, 2020). Even though groups representing both the general public and businesses engage in lobbying, research has found business groups have (and spend) more financial and human resources, which affords them "privileged access" to policymakers and policymaking (Freudenburg, 2005). In his study of the "climate lobby," Brulle compares the amounts spent by different groups for lobbying around the climate issue in the U.S. Congress. He finds that the "major sectors involved in lobbying were fossil fuel and transportation corporations, utilities, and affiliated trade associations. Expenditures by these sectors dwarf those of environmental organizations and renewable energy corporations" (Brulle, 2018, p. 289; see also Farrell, 2016). In some cases, representatives from business interests that have been lobbying against environmental policies are given opportunities to join the government. This process leads to "Regulatory Capture" by the specific business interest and is found to be associated with substantial negative public and environmental health consequences (for a recent example, see Dillon et al., 2018). Activism within the political system also involves citizens working through the electoral process to affect all sorts of social change (for a discussion of engagement in electoral politics as activism, see Fisher, 2012, 2019a). In some cases, elections focus on the differences between candidates who are supportive of policies that include more aggressive climate change mitigation strategies. Although research has yet to analyze extensively the relationship between this type of election-related civic engagement and climate outcomes, there is already some evidence. For example, a 2019 study finds that individuals in the United States who installed solar panels participate more in elections (Mildenberger, Howe, and Miljanich, 2019). At the same time, other research has documented various forms of electoral backlash against climate policies, both individually (Stokes, 2016, 2020), as well as in combination with other progressive agenda items (Muradian and Pascual, 2020). In their study of the success of "far-right movements" around the world and the concurrent election of "far-right" candidates, Muradian and Pascual note that far-right-leaning elected officials tend to have low concern for environmental issues and to deny climate change and disregard scientific evidence (Muradian and Pascual, 2020). Although they do not specifically look at the environmental outcomes of these officials holding office, given their common values and the empirical evidence coming out of the early years of the Trump Administration (Bomberg, 2017; Fisher and Jorgenson, 2019), it is likely that these officials will contribute to the passage of policies that limit the effectiveness of climate-related plans, reduce enforcement of these plans, or block them outright. 3.4 | Activism outside the economic and political system At the same time, there is expansive research on the ways citizens with less access to resources and power participate by challenging the economic and political system from outside it (for an overview, see Meyer and Tarrow, 1997). These efforts include a range of more confrontational tactics, such as boycotting, striking, protesting, and direct action that target politics, policymakers, and businesses. Many studies have explained this type of activism using climate change as a case (Fisher, 2010; Hadden, 2015; Saunders, Grasso, Olcese, Rainsford, and Rootes, 2012; Swim, Geiger, and Lengieza, 2019; Wahlström, Wennerhag, and Rootes, 2013; see also Fisher, Stanley, Berman, and Neff, 2005; Walgrave, 4 of 11 FISHER AND NASRIN Wouters, Van Laer, Verhulst, and Ketelaars, 2012). So far, however, onlya handful of studies have explored the effect of these tactics on climate-related outcomes (but see Muñoz, Olzak, and Soule, 2018; Olzak et al., 2016). In their research on the success of environmental legislation in the U.S. Congress, Olzak and colleagues find that some civic tactics have a more positive effect than others: while they conclude that the number of environmental lobbyist organizations is positively associated with the enactment of environmental legislation, which can lead to carbon emissions reductions, they also find that protest by constituents has no effect (Olzak et al., 2016; see also Olzak and Soule, 2009). In a2018 piece, which uses more recent data to analyze the relationship between protest, policy, and greenhouse gas emissions across states in the United States, the authors come to different conclusions. They find that emissions in states decline when there is more pro-environmental protest (Muñoz et al., 2018).A good deal of research has concluded that activism, including tactics such as protests or strikes played a large role in pressuring governments to create environmental laws and environmental agencies tasked with enforcing those laws around the world(Brulle, 2000; see also Longhofer, Schofer, Miric, and Frank, 2016; McCloskey, 1991; Rucht, 1999; Schreurs, 1997; Steinhardt and Wu, 2016; Wong, 2018). Moreover, research has documented how coalitions of activists achieved a degree of success when they protested environmentally damaging projects, including the Narmada Dam development in India (Khagram, 2004), and environmentally harmful nuclear power plants, dams, and airports in Japan (Aldrich, 2010). In her study of the campaign against coal mining and burning in South Africa, Cock finds that the campaign challenged inequality and generated solidarity (Cock, 2019).4 | CLIMATE STRIKES AS A GROWING TACTIC Climate strikes are a~n~ particular outsider tactic that aims to pressure both the political and economic system. On August 20, 2018, Greta Thunberg decided not to attend school and sit on the steps of the Swedish parliament to demand that the government take steps to address climate change(Gessen, 2018). Inspired by the national school walkout against gun violence in the United States that was organized after the Parkland School Shooting in Florida, the 15-year-old has spent her Fridays sitting with a hand-written sign protesting ever since. Fridays for Future—the name of the group coordinating this tactic of skipping school on Fridays to protest inaction on climate change—flourished due to its usage of digital technologies to engage young people and the tactic has spread. In March 2019, the first global climate strike took place, turning out more than 1 million people around the world. Six months later in September 2019, young people and adults responded to a call by young activists to participate in climate strikes as part of the "Global Week for Future" surrounding the UN Climate Action Summit.1 The number of participants in this event globally jumped to an estimated 7.6 million people (Rosane, 2019). Figure 1 presents the growth in the tactic of climate strikes in terms of the numbers of nations where strikes have taken place and the total number of participants involved. Even before this movement had mobilized millions to strike, a narrative synthesis of studies that focused on youth perceptions of climate change from 1993 to 2018 documented how youth voices on climate change had become much more prominent and more widely publicized (K. Lee, Gjersoe, O'Neill, and Barnett, 2020). Specific research on this movement and its consequences has yet to be published in peer-reviewed publications (but see Evensen, 2019; Fisher, 2019b; Wahlström et al., 2013). However, in a series of pieces published in the Washington Post, Fisher presents analyses of data collected from participants in climate strikes during 2019 to understand how this tactic and the movement have grown in the United States (Fisher, 2019c, 2019d).As an outsider tactic by school-aged children that aims to pressure governments to implement more radical climate policies that will lead to emissions reductions, school strikes are a popular example of activism with the goal of having an indirect effect on climate change. Measuring the outcomes of these efforts, in terms of political outcomes and emissions reductions is extremely challenging given the indirect nature of this activism. Such calculations are made even more challenging given the scale and scope of the activism, which has mobilized millions of people to act locally to pressure governments at the local, national, and international levels. Although the overall numbers are large, most of these strikes involve relatively small proportions of overall populations.
Climate change causes extinction.
Specktor 19 ~Brandon; writes about the science of everyday life for Live Science, and previously for Reader's Digest magazine, where he served as an editor for five years; "Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims," live science, 6/4/19; https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by-2050.html~~
The current climate crisis, they say, is larger and more complex than any humans have ever dealt with before. General climate models—like the one that the United Nations' Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) used in 2018 to predict that a global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) could put hundreds of millions of people at risk —fail to account for the sheer complexity of Earth's many interlinked geological processes; as such, they fail to adequately predict the scale of the potential consequences. The truth, the authors wrote, is probably far worse than any models can fathom. How the world ends What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions. "Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability, "the authors hypothesized. Meanwhile, droughts, floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees. This mass movement of refugees —coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability —begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States. Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely. The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end of human global civilization as we know it. "
Second, corruption reduction–the right to strike fights concentration of power while reducing inequality.
IER 17~Institute of Employment Rights. The IER exists to inform the debate around trade union rights and labour law by providing information, critical analysis, and policy ideas through our network of academics, researchers and lawyers. "UN Rights Expert: Right to strike is essential to democracy". 3-10-2017. . https://www.ier.org.uk/news/un-rights-expert-right-strike-essential-democracy/.~~
The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, has reminded member states of the International Labour Organization (ILO) –including the UK –that they have a positive obligation to uphold the right to strike. Speaking at an ILO meeting on Monday 06 March 2017 in Geneva, Kiai argued that the right to strike is fundamental to the preservation of democracy. "The concentration of power in one sector –whether in the hands of government or business –inevitably leads to the erosion of democracy, and an increase in inequalities and marginalization with all their attendant consequences. The right to strike is a check on this concentration of power," he explained. The right to strike has been established in international law as a corollary to the right of freedom of association for decades, and is enshrined in the European Convention on Human
Rights as Article 11. As a member state of the ILO and of the EU, the UK is legally obliged to uphold the right to strike, although through the Trades Union Act 2016 and the anti-trade union laws that preceded it, the government is making it harder and harder for trade unions to take industrial action. Kiai criticised such actions, saying government’s have a duty not to impede workers’ ability to take industrial action. "I deplore the various attempts made to erode the right to strike at national and multilateral levels," the expert said, reminding delegates: "Protest action in relation to government social and economic policy, and against negative corporate practices, forms part of the basic civil liberties whose respect is essential for the meaningful exercise of trade union rights. This right enables them to engage with companies and governments on a more equal footing, and Member States have a positive obligation to protect this right, and a negative obligation not to interfere with its exercise
Third,electoral legitimacy–striking iscriticalto political influencewhich can checkelectoral illegitimacyandbroader fascism.Luce 20~Stephanie; Professor, received her B.A. in economics from the Universityof California, Davis and both her Ph.D in Sociology and her M.A. in IndustrialRelations from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Her research focuses on low-wage work, globalization and labor standards, and labor-community coalitions. Sheis the author of Labor Movements: Global Perspectives. Well-known for her researchon living wage campaignsand movements, she is also the author of Fighting for aLiving Wage and co-author (with Robert Pollin) of The Living Wage: Building a FairEconomy. She is co-author of A Measure of Fairness; and co-editor of What Worksfor Workers?: Public Policies and Innovative Strategies for Low-Wage Workers. Shehas published numerous reports on labor and wages in the New York City area,including the annual "State of the Unions" report co-authored with Ruth Milkman;"Strike for Democracy!" 10/26/20; OrgUP;https://www.organizingupgrade.com/strike-for-democracy/~~Trump and the Republican Party have launchedafull-fledged assaultontheelectoral process,fromvoter suppressiontomisleading ballotboxes. We may seeviolenceaimed at keepingpeople from thepollsor just meant tocreategeneralfearandchaos. Trump has droppedrepeated suggestions thathemay try toshutdownthe election,stopvotes from being counted,orrefusetostepdowneven if he loses.A range of groups have mobilized to fight for a fair election and plan around worst case scenarios. Some unions have beenactive in a few of these groups, such as Protect the Vote.According to experts who study coups, the best way to stop an electoral coup is by getting a large turnout and strong victory.The larger a vote for Biden, the smaller the space Trump will have to claim the vote is illegitimate. Unions are doing theirpartto make this happen. This is a major part of union activity every election cycle. But according to Bob Master, Assistant to theVice President of District 1 of the Communications Workers, it was tough to get union members to volunteer for Hilary Clintonfour years ago. This year, there are hundreds of memberssigned up to phone bank, some doing it three or four nights a week.It isn’t that they are necessarily Biden fans, he says, but they understand what is at stake.UNITE HERE is running an intensive "Take Back 2020" get-out-the-vote effort, phone banking andeven knocking on doors inArizona, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, for example, over 100 hospitality workers plan to visit 100,000homes before the election. In Arizona they are partnering with Seed the Vote.Unionssuch as theCommunicationsWorkersofAmerica, SEIU, AFT and the UAWarelooking toconnectsome of theircoreactivistswith local "protectthevote" groupings inkey states and cities to show up to polls and fight to make sureeveryvote is counted.Unions areincreasinglyturning attention topossibleelectionscenarios. "There’s somesense in the leadership thatinfascistcountries,unions are at thetopofthe list oftargets," Master says. "And it is therole ofunions, which are theguarantorsof some measure ofdemocracyin the workplace, toensure thatdemocracysurvivesin the society."A handful of activists have started to organize in their workplace for labor to be ready to respond. Postal workers in Detroitare handing out flyers that ask coworkers to signa pledge from Choose Democracy, committing to vote then take action ifneeded to protect the vote.
ARE UNIONS READY?Will unions be ready to strike if Trump won’t step down? The sizable share of union members backing Trump makes it toughfor some unions toframe the fight as anti-Trump, or pro-Biden. But ifunionscommit to theintegrityofthedemocraticprocess, they have more ground to stand on.The Rochester Central Labor Council in New York passed a resolution calling for a general strike in the eventthat Trump losesand does not step down. Theresolution calls onthenationalAFL-CIOand all otherlabororganizations to "prepare for and enact ageneralstrike, if necessary,to ensure aConstitutionallymandatedpeacefultransitionof poweras a resultof the 2020Presidential Elections."A handful of other labor bodies have followed suit.Sara Nelson, International President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, is also taking a bold stand, statingthat in the event of a contested election,labor "has to beready tomobilizein aseriesofstrikesorleading to a general strike." Despitehighunemployment,workers still havepower, shesays. She points to how the federal government ended its shutdown last year, after Nelson spoke publicly about the idea of ageneral strike and a handful of air traffic controllers did not show up for their shifts. "Where can we actuallyflexthat muscle in aseriesofstrikes. . .in a way that is going to beveryeffective?" she asks. "Andfrankly, if the planes all stop that is something that will grab everyone’s attention and suddenly there has to be action tofixthat."Writers following these discussions have described some of the history and challenges of general strikes. We have never hadan actual national general strike in the U.S., although some have argued that the 2006 immigration protests were a version ofone. And W.E. B. DuBois made a case in Black Reconstruction that up to a half a million enslaved workers held a general strikeduring the Civil War, by stopping work and leaving plantations.Strikes are rare in the U.S. Despite the mini-strike wave of 2018-19, most union members have never been on strike, and fewunions prepare to do so. And of course, it is illegal for many public sector unions to strike, and in some states the penalties canbe stiff. Even in the private sector, most unions also have no-strike clauses in their contracts, meaning to strike during the lifeof the contract is violating the terms.Finally, when workers do strike, it is usually for their own wages and working conditions: an economic strike. To pull off ajobaction in defense of democracy means moving to a political strike: something the U.S. labor movement has even lessexperience with. "Just getting workers to strike for their own contract is really hard," says Liz Perlman, Executive Director ofAFSCME 3299. "Most people just don’t do it. And we don’t teach strikes, we don’t talk the language of strikes in labor."Democratic backsliding causes extinction.Kendall-Taylor 16~Andrea; Deputy national intelligence officer for Russia andEurasia at the National Intelligence Council, Senior associate in the Human RightsInitiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington; "HowDemocracy’s Decline Would Undermine the International Order," CSIS; 7/15/16;https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-democracyE28099s-decline-would-undermine-international-order/~~It is rare that policymakers, analysts, and academics agree. Butthere is an emerging consensus in theworld of foreign policy:threats tothe stability of the currentinternational order arerising. Thenorms, values, laws, and institutions that have undergirded the international system and governedrelationships between nationsare being gradually dismantled. The most discussed sources of this pressure arethe ascent of Chinaand other non-Western countries, Russia’s assertive foreign policy, and the diffusion of power fromtraditional nation-states to nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, andtechnology-empowered individuals.Largelymissingfrom these discussions, however,isthespecterof widespreaddemocratic decline. Risingchallenges todemocratic governanceacross theglobeare amajor strainon the international system, but they receivefar less attentionindiscussions of the shifting world order.In the 70 years since the end of World War II,theUnitedStates hasfostereda globalorderdominated by states that are liberal, capitalist,and democratic. TheUnited States haspromoted the spread of democracy to strengthen global normsand rules that constitute thefoundation of our current international system. However, despite the steady rise of democracy since the end of the Cold War,over the last 10 yearswe have seen dramaticreversals inrespect fordemocratic principlesacross the globe.A 2015 Freedom House reportstated that the "acceptance of democracy as the world’s
dominant form of government—and of an international system built on democraticideals—isundergreater threatthan at any point in the last 25 years."Although the number of democracies in the world is at an all-time high, there are a number ofkey trendsthat are working toundermine democracy. Therollback of democracyin a few influential states or even inanumber of less consequential ones would almost certainlyacceleratemeaningfulchangesin today’s global order.Democratic decline wouldweakenU.S.partnershipsanderodean important foundation for U.S.cooperationabroad.Research demonstratesthat domestic politics are a key determinant of the international behavior ofstates. In particular,democraciesaremore likely toform alliances and cooperatemore fullywith other democracies than with autocracies. Similarly,authoritarian countrieshaveestablished mechanisms for cooperation and sharing of "worst practices." Anincrease in authoritarian countries, then,would provide a broader platformforcoordination that could enable these countries to overcome their divergent histories, values, and interests—factors that arefrequently cited as obstacles to theformation of a cohesivechallenge tothe U.S.-ledinternationalsystem.Recent examples support the empirical data.Democratic backsliding in Hungary andthe hardening ofEgypt’s autocracyunder Abdel Fattah el-Sisihave led to enhanced relations between thesecountries and Russia. Likewise, democratic decline in Bangladesh has led SheikhHasina Wazed and her ruling Awami League to seek closer relations with China andRussia, in partto mitigate Western pressure and bolstertheregime’s domestic standing.Although none of these burgeoning relationships has developed into a highly unified partnership, democratic backsliding inthese countries has provided abasis for cooperation where it did not previously exist. And while the United States certainlyfinds common cause with authoritarian partners on specific issues,thedepth andreliability ofsuchcooperation is limited. Consequently,furtherdemocratic declinecouldseriouslycompromisethe United States’ ability to form the kinds ofdeep partnerships that will berequiredto confront today’s increasingly complex challenges. Global issues such asclimate change,migration,andviolentextremism demandthecoordination andcooperationthatdemocratic backsliding would put in peril. Put simply,the United States is a less effective andinfluential actor if it loses its ability to rely on its partnershipswith other democratic nations.Aslide towardauthoritarianismcould alsochallenge the current global order bydilutingU.S. influence in critical internationalinstitutions, including theUnited Nations, the World Bank, and theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF). Democratic decline wouldweaken Western efforts within theseinstitutions to advance issues suchas Internet freedom and the responsibility toprotect. In the case of Internet governance, for example, Westerndemocracies support an open, largelyprivate, global Internet. Autocracies, in contrast,promote state control over the Internet,including laws and other mechanisms that facilitate their ability to censor and persecute dissidents. Already many autocracies,including Belarus, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have coalesced in the "Likeminded Group of Developing Countries" within theUnited Nations to advocate their interests.Within the IMF and World Bank, autocracies—along with other developing nations—seek to water down conditionality or thereforms that lenders require in exchange for financial support. If successful, diminished conditionality wouldenfeeble animportant incentive for governance reforms. In a more extreme scenario,the rising influence ofautocraciescould enablethesecountries to bypasstheIMF and World Bankall together. Forexample,the Chinese-created Asian Infrastructureand Investment Bank and the BRICS Bank—whichincludes Russia, China, and an increasingly authoritarian South Africa—provide countries with the potentialto bypass existing global financial institutions when it suits their interests.Authoritarian-led alternativespose theriskthat globaleconomic governance willbecomefragmented and less effective.Violence and instabilitywouldalso likelyincreaseif more democracies give way to autocracy.International relations literaturetells us thatdemocraciesareless likely to fight warsagainst other
democracies, suggesting that interstate wars would rise as the number ofdemocracies declines. Moreover,within countries that are already autocratic, additionalmovementaway from democracy, or an "authoritarianhardening," wouldincrease global instability. Highlyrepressive autocracies are the most likely toexperience state failure, as was the case in the CentralAfrican Republic, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In this way,democratic decline wouldsignificantly strain the international orderbecause rising levels of instability would exceed the West’sability to respond to the tremendous costs of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and refugee flows.Finally,widespreaddemocratic declinewouldcontribute torisinganti-U.S. sentimentthat couldfuel a global order that isincreasinglyantagonisticto the United Statesand its values.Most autocracies are highly suspicious of U.S. intentions and view the creation of an external enemy as an effective means forboosting their own public support. Russian president Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, and Bolivianpresident Evo Morales regularly accuse the United States of fomenting instability and supporting regime change. Thisvilification of the United States is a convenient way of distracting their publics from regime shortcomings and fostering publicsupport for strongman tactics.Since 9/11, and particularly in the wake of the Arab Spring, Western enthusiasm for democracy support has waned. Risinglevels ofinstability, including in Ukraine and the Middle East, fragile governance in Afghanistan and Iraq,andsustained threats from terroristgroups such as ISIL have increased Western focuson security and stability. U.S. preoccupation withintelligence sharing, basing and overflight rights, along with theperception that autocracy equates with stability, are trumping democracy and human rights considerations.Whilerising levels of global instability explain part of Washington’s shift fromanhistorical commitment to democracy, the nature of the policy process itself is a lessappreciated factor. Policy discussions tend to occur on a country-by-country basis—leading to choices that weigh thecosts and benefits of democracy support within the confines of a single country. From this perspective,the benefits ofcounterterrorism cooperation or access to natural resources are regularly judged to outweighthe perceived costs of supporting human rights. A serious problem arises, however, when thisprocess isreplicated across countries. The bilateral focus rarely incorporates the risks to the U.S.-led global order that arise fromwidespread democratic decline across multiple countries.Many of the threats to the current global order, such as China’s rise or the diffusion of power, are driven by factors that theUnited States and West more generally have little leverage to influence or control.Democracy, however,is an areawhereWestern actions can affect outcomes. Factoring in the risks that arise from a global democratic declineinto policy discussions is a vital step to building a comprehensive approach to democracy support.Bringing thisperspective to the table may not lead to dramatic shifts in foreign policy, but itwould ensure that we arehaving the right conversation.