The Ethics Report

Members and contacts of LeaderEthics receive a monthly copy of The Ethics Report. Each edition will include summaries of research as well as articles about ethical leadership in practice...frequently awarding a "green light" or "red flag" rating. Each month, we include a featured article from the most recent edition of The Ethics Report.

LeaderEthics Position

LeaderEthics articles are written by the Executive Director and reviewed by the Judges Panel (three former judges) prior to publication in The Ethics Report. Periodically, guest articles appear. The articles regularly award a green light or red flag. The green light is in recognition of performance that is consistent with the four principles of ethical leadership...to be:

• truthful,
• transparent with public information,
• unifiers rather than dividers, and 
• willing to represent the collective interests of their entire constituency. 

Lee Rasch is Executive Director of LeaderEthics, a nonpartisan/nonprofit organization committed to promoting ethical leadership among elected officials. You can reach Lee at: Lee@leaderethics.us.

Can Elections Become Civil Again?

 Lee Rasch - April 2025

It’s an interesting question. As we approach the nation's 250th birthday, the cornerstone for our nation's democratic republic has been the practice of orderly succession following elections. This is not to say we did not have contested and controversial elections. According to Fairvote.org the following is a list of contested and controversial elections in U.S. history. 

1800: Thomas Jefferson v. John Adams 

1824: John Quincy Adams v. Andrew Jackson

1836: Martin Van Buren v. Richard Johnson

1872: Horace Greeley v. Ulysses S. Grant

1876: Samuel Tilden v. Rutherford B. Hayes

1888: Benjamin Harrison v. Grover Cleveland

2000: Al Gore v. George W. Bush

2016: Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump

The list begins during the presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In the 1800 rematch, things got nasty between Adams and Jefferson. At one point in that race, Jefferson’s supporter, notorious pamphleteer James Calendar, claimed that Adams was a hermaphrodite, while Adams’ people said Jefferson would openly promote prostitution, incest, and adultery. That 1800 race ended in a tie fueled by deeply partisan tactics and more plotting by Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Burr. Jefferson was chosen over Burr in the House runoff election after Hamilton decided to support the man he once strongly opposed.. 

As you can see, controversial elections in the United States are not new. Nonetheless, the 2020 and 2024 elections involved some new approaches in challenging the election outcomes by claiming election fraud. The statements made by Donald Trump in questioning the integrity of the election process in 2020 became the model for some of his supporters who came up short in their own elections. The dynamic of publicly questioning voting integrity flipped in 2024 when Donald Trump won the election over Kamala Harris. Take a look at recent polling from Reuters/Ipsos. When asked whether Trump’s win was legitimate, about 94% of voters said it was. This includes 64% who agreed that Trump’s win was legitimate and supported his presidency and another 30% who accepted Trump’s victory but indicated that they would oppose his presidency. 

It is interesting to note that, according to Stateline, election denialism still had some staying power, even after Trump’s election victory. In Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Senate challenger Eric Hovdespread an unsubstantiated statement about “last-minute” absentee ballots in Milwaukee that he said flipped the outcome of the race. The Milwaukee Election Commission disputed his claims, saying they “lack any merit.” Though he conceded to incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin nearly two weeks after the election, his rhetoric helped stoke a spike in online conspiracy theories, as reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

In North Carolina, Republican State Senate leader Phil Berger told reporters last week he feared that the vote-counting process for a State Supreme Court seat was rigged for Democrats. Karen Brinson Bell, the head of the State Board of Elections, criticized Berger for his comments, saying they could inspire violence.

And in Arizona, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake, who has spent two years disputing her defeat in the 2022 governor’s race, hasn’t acknowledged her 2024 Senate loss. While she thanked her supporters in a video posted to the social media platform X, she stopped short of conceding to Democratic U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego.

The actions by Eric Hovde, Phil Berger and Kari Lake warrant a red flag for missing the opportunity to promote unity. As reported in  Reuters, Liz Ulmer stated “The election denial movement has been evolving and shapeshifting in an effort to stay relevant.” A senior vice president at States United Action, a state’s election watchdog group, added, “the movement has held onto power and influence.”

Yet, despite these examples, post election civility is not completely lost. The 2025 La Crosse Mayoral election was competitive, yet civil. Shaundel Washington-Spivey defeated city council president, Chris Kahlow by only 451 votes, out of more than 17,500 cast. Nonetheless, Chris Kahlow was polite and respectful in her concession message. “I have spoken to Shaundel and congratulated him on becoming the next Mayor of La Crosse. All of us who care so deeply about this wonderful City wish him the best in his new role.

I am so proud of the campaign we ran. l am so grateful to all of my supporters. Thank you for all your hard work and energy. It kept me going each and every day. The election results do not alter my commitment to public service. I have served on the City Council since 2019. I will continue to serve on the Council. 

I fell in love with La Crosse when I went to College here: the natural beauty, the vibrant neighborhoods, and most of all the people. This is home to me. My dedication to serving the people of La Crosse will never waver. I look forward to continuing to serve and to working, together, to move our City forward. Thank you again for your support and thank you to each and every one of you, for your dedication to a better, brighter future.” 

Washington-Spivey started his term as mayor on April 15th and will serve as La Crosse's mayor until April in 2029. He becomes La Crosse's first Black mayor, as well as the first openly LGBTQ+ mayor in the city's history. 

The 2025 election for the Wisconsin State Supreme Court should also be noted. According to Brennan, it was the most expensive state judicial election in the nation’s history. Both campaigns blanketed the airwaves with negative ads. For a supposedly nonpartisan election, the race was ugly. Despite the negative ads and name calling, Brad Schimel's concession speech was very respectful. In fact, during his remarks, when some of his supporters shouted claims of cheating, Schimel responded by saying, "No, no. You've go to respect the results." You can view his speech here on YouTube. 

The concession statements made by Chris Kahlow and Brad Schimel reflected the importance of an orderly and respectful succession...a return to the long-standing practice. Both have earned a green light for promoting unity rather than ongoing divisiveness. For good or bad, elected leaders are role models. It is encouraging to see good role models in practice.

Are We Heading Toward a Return of Colonialism?

Lee Rasch - March 2025

History repeats itself. At least that is an assumption many people make. The recent actions by the Trump administration may support this assumption. After a hiatus of more than eighty years, there appears to be growing interest in the “nations first” views that were prevalent in the colonial period. The announcement by President Trump that the U.S. would seek to acquire Greenland took some people by surprise. Trump first spoke of purchasing the massive arctic island from Denmark in 2019 and has strongly reiterated his interest in the early weeks of his second term, part of a “manifest destiny” push that has also included talk of “taking back” the Panama Canal, making Canada the 51st state and taking over control of Gaza.

Trump has said buying Greenland is essential for American economic security, and "National Security and Freedom throughout the World." As reported in NPR, experts say the island holds value geopolitically and geographically: It's home to rare earth minerals that the U.S. largely relies on China to get. And the Greenland proposal is gaining traction in Congress. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz(R-Texas) recently argued that acquiring Greenland would serve America’s national security and economic interests due to the island’s location in the Arctic, access to sea routes, and wealth of natural resources. 

Similar statements in support of protecting national interests were common in the colonial period in world history. Colonialism helped to develop the European colonial empires of the modern era, which spread globally from the 15th century to the mid-20th century, spanning 35% of Earth's land by 1800 and peaking at 84% by the beginning of World War I. Although not exclusive, European nations dominated the colonial period. 

Colonialism is defined as “control by one power over a dependent area or people”, according to National Geographic. It occurs when one nation subjugates another, conquering its population and exploiting it, often while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people. By 1914, a large majority of the world's nations had been colonized by Europeans at some point in time. In fact, Japan, Korea, and Thailand are the only recognized nations never to have been colonized by Europeans. 

For the most part, colonialism dropped off dramatically after WWII as nations began to release control over colonized populations. And the movement away from colonialism paved the way to reduced global poverty. On average, poverty declined by 0.5 percentage points annually from 1950 to 1990. This rate of poverty reduction then doubled to 1 percentage point annually in the period after 1990 leading up to 2019. The period from the 1950s to the 2020s represented a peak period of rapid economic development and innovation.

According to the recognized geopolitical expert, Peter Ziehan, opening global markets was a key factor in this dramatic global economic growth. We reached the point that almost anything you could ever want could be sent to your home within days – even hours – of when you decided you wanted it. And the United States is credited with making that happen. A major factor for the expanded globe-spanning supply chains was the protection of the shipping lanes by the U.S. Navy. Furthermore, the American dollar underpins the internationalized energy and financial markets. American security policy forced warring nations to lay down their arms. Billions of people have been fed and educated as the American-led trade system spread across the globe.

But now many in America have lost interest in keeping it going. The Make America Great Again movement has placed a higher priority on national growth over global developments. And the impact of this shift is being felt globally. While the political dynamics in the United States are not the sole reason for the shift towards nationalism throughout the world, there is no doubting that they are a significant factor. And, not surprisingly, the global poverty figures have leveled off since 2020, and disputes between long-standing trade partners have increased.

So, a question is raised. Will today’s movement towards nationalism signal a return to colonialism as a key strategy? Is the expressed interest by the United States to acquire (or acquire interest) in Greenland and the Panama Canal a door-opener for other nations to view acquisition (rather than international trade) as the preferred global strategy?At this time, many recognize that a global shift is taking place. It may be too early to tell how these dynamics will ultimately play out. Perhaps the clues are in front of us. We just need to study history

Depolarizing Within

Lee Rasch - February 2025

If you want to fix something around you, start with yourself. In looking at the hyper-partisan political environment of today, this statement may seem simple and quite naive. Yet in many ways, the message is profound. 

The National Conflict Resolution Center is committed to find ways for people to find common ground solutions. During the chaotic election year of 2024, Ashley Virtue of the National Conflict Resolution Center reported that’s she traveled to almost half the U.S. states, talking about our polarized society and strategies to work together on issues. She visited so-called red states, blue states and purple states. The common theme she heard repeatedly was, “I’m so sick of the divisiveness in our country.”  It’s no wonder why Merriam Webster identified “polarization” as the word of the year for 2024!

Clearly, people are experiencing the downsides of hyper-partisanship and the growing mistrust in institutions and in fellow citizens. Each year, Freedom House conducts a world-wide analysis on political rights and civil liberties.  A decade ago, the United States received a score of 94 out of 100 in Freedom in the World, which put it in the company of other established democracies, such as France and Germany. Today, while those former peers remain at 90 or above, the United States has fallen to a score of 83, leaving it in a cohort with newer democracies like Romania, Croatia, and Panama. Given the global influence of the United States, this drop could have a uniquely damaging effect on democracy in the rest of the world. The Freedom House data also exposes damaging concerns within our nation. It adds weight to the findings of Ashley Virtue, that many citizens simply feel overwhelmed by the divisiveness in our country.

Despite the concerns, there is evidence that the efforts of individuals can make a vital difference. Jordon B. Peterson, a renowned psychologist and author, emphasizes that individual, local efforts at improvement can add up in profound ways. Furthermore, he cautions, “You want to be very careful about doing large-scale experimentation with large-scale systems because the probability that in a large-scale social system, the result you get is likely negligible...potentially something that (even) works at counter-purposes to your original intent." Peterson adds: “You (should) try not to step outside the boundaries of your competence, and you (should) start small. You (should) start with the things that you actually could adjust, that you actually do understand, that you actually could fix.”

Another information source is Braver Angels. As a nonprofit/nonpartisan organization, they have a solid track record in bringing people together, notably people with strong liberal and conservative views. As they state on their website, Braver Angels is the nation’s largest cross-partisan, volunteer-led movement committed to bridging the partisan divide for the good of our democratic republic. They have served nearly 60,000 people in their 8 years of existence,

Braver Angels offers a variety of services. One of their key activities is the Depolarizing Within workshop. In this workshop, they encourage participants to challenge their stereotypes...one way we oversimplify and dismiss members of groups we are not a part of. Participants are encouraged to embrace our complexity. The views of people are simply not black or white.

Braver Angels has a format for helping people with the depolarizing process. They encourage people to step outside of their comfort zones and seek media sources that present different political views. They encourage people to respect our differing life experiences. And they remind us that people are not positions, nor are their policies necessarily indicative of their values. If there are inconsistencies between values and behaviors, the difference can come from blind spots, competing values or differing environments.

A good place to start is in reviewing the way we communicate to others. Braver Angels urges people to avoid generalizations and language that categorizes people. Terms such as "racist" or "socialist" can shut down conversation. In areas where disagreements occur, we should focus on policies and not question the motivations of others. Finally, they remind us to be willing to find fault on our own side as well.

The depolarizing within strategies can lead to a better political understanding among Americans. But it can also help to mend damaged friendships and family relationships. The process of bringing a divided America together starts at the personal and local level. As Jordan B. Peterson states, individual, local efforts at improvement can add up in profound ways.

A Landslide? A Mandate?

Lee Rasch - February 2025

There is certainly a flurry of activity during the opening weeks of Donald Trump’s second term. Nearly 60 executive orders were signed as of February 7, 2025. In fact, Trump signed more executive orders in his first 10 days than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Since the election, President-elect Donald Trump has claimed voters gave him a broad mandate for change. That is a bold statement. It is very early in the four-year term and, in historical terms, too early to determine the impact. Furthermore, recent elections in America have repeatedly flipped between the two major parties. Dissatisfaction with the status quo has been the theme of every recent election in the United States, and 2024 was no different. 

Was Donald Trump’s election victory a landslide? Are the election results considered a mandate? Let’s look. He received 49.8% of the popular vote, defeating Harris by 1.47%. He won the electoral college vote by 312 to 226. These totals show a clear victory. Yet is it a landslide or a electoral mandate? 

To some degree, the answer to the landslide and mandate questions depends on where you get your news. As reported by Straight Arrow News, the media outlets with a left-leaning bias, such as The New York Times, referred to Trump’s victory as 'the landslide’ that wasn’t.” MSNBC noted Trump“won every battleground state and the popular vote but not by a landslide.” Meanwhile, right-leaning outlets like National Review reported “Landslide or not, Trump won a mandate.” Breitbart reported,“Trump’s landslide victory moved 48 states to the right.”

For comparative purposes, let’s look at past presidential elections. According to History.com, in our nation’s history, 6 of 47 presidents won their election by a landslide margin. Here is a look at the seven presidents who won landslide presidential elections in U.S. history.

Lyndon Johnson - Barry Goldwater 1964 - Johnson cruised to a convincing landslide victory, winning 486 electoral votes to Goldwater’s 52, an electoral margin of victory of 80.6 percentage points.

Abraham Lincoln - McClennan 1864 - Lincoln won 212 electoral votes to McClellan’s 12, a margin of victory of 81.6 percentage points.

Ronald Reagan - Jimmy Carter 1980 - Reagan ended up trouncing the beleaguered Jimmy Carter by 81.8 percentage points in electoral votes 489 to 49.

Thomas Jefferson - Pinckney 1804 - Jefferson ran on his record and coasted to a landslide victory, taking 162 electoral votes to Pinckney’s 14, a margin of victory of 84 percentage points.

Richard Nixon - George McGovern - Richard Nixon won a commanding 520 electoral votes to McGovern’s 17 (a margin of 93.5 percentage points).

Ronald Reagan - Walter Mondale 1984 - Reagan improved on his impressive 1980 showing, absolutely crushing Mondale 525 electoral votes to 13. In 1984, Reagan took every state except Minnesota and the District of Columbia for an electoral margin of victory of 95.2 percentage points.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Alf Landon 1936 - FDR’s largest margin of victory—the greatest landslide in American presidential history—came in 1936 when he won the electoral college vote count by 97 percentage points. Note: Even his smallest margin of victory in the electoral college was still 62.8 percentage points in 1944.

Regarding the popular vote, only four times in recorded history has the U.S. president been elected with more than 60% of the popular vote. Warren Harding received 60.3% of the popular vote in 1920; Franklin Roosevelt received 60.2 % in 1936; Lyndon Johnson received 61.1% in 1964; and Richard Nixon receives 60.7% in 1972. Compared to these margins, despite the message from political pundits, the 2024 election does not qualify as a landslide.

This still leaves questions about the claim of a mandate. Beyond the votes totals themselves, many Americans disagree with the president, according to Pew Research Center data reported in The Hill. 

The recent Pew Research survey found 64 percent saying undocumented immigrants “should have a way to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met.” Just 35 percent endorse Trump’s view that “undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country legally." Furthermore, unlike Trump, 70 percent of voters see racism as a serious problem in this country, and only 22 percent want less government involvement in making sure certain children are vaccinated. Fifty-seven percent want stricter gun laws, only 34 percent want to eliminate the Department of Education and 72 percent favor expanding use of wind energy.  Other findings by the Pew Research Center show that only 32 percent support Trump’s plan to use economic coercion or military force to retake ownership of the Panama Canal and even fewer — 19 percent — favor using those tools to take control of Greenland. Fifty-seven percent oppose pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, just 29 percent want increased tariffs on imports. And finally, 60 percent think it is a bad idea for Trump to rely on policy advice from billionaires. Of course, poll results can fluctuate over time. At the same time, it is interesting to note that while Trump proclaims a mandate for undertaking mass deportations, in late 2024, 55 percent told Fox News pollsters, "most immigrants who are living in the United States illegally [should] be offered a chance to apply for legal status.”

Of course, a significant majority of voters favor actions by President Trump to dramatically reduce illegal immigration and reduce inflation. Nonetheless, given these data, while it looks like the 2024 presidential election was a clear message from voters, but it may not qualify as an across-the-board mandate. 

It's also worth noting that the answer to the mandate question may not be known until the results of the 2026 mid-term Congressional elections are in. If the Republican Party can hold on to a majority in both houses, it strengthens the position that the 2024 election was indeed a mandate. If one or both houses flip in 2026, that may be an indication that a voter mandate does not exist.

In any case, the 2024 election shows that voters expect action. And the flurry of activity in Washington DC reinforces the statement, “elections matter.”

Will There Be Another Progressive Era?

January 2025

In 1903, Wisconsin became the first state to implement direct primary elections under the leadership of the state’s Republican governor, Robert La Follette. Prior to that time, political party candidate appointments (with their corrupting elements) were common. La Follette felt that citizens should have a voice in selecting the candidates for office, as well as voting directly for referenda. He was nationally recognized for his efforts and by 1917 all but four states had adopted the direct primary for some or all statewide nominations. La Follette and other progressives in this movement were champions for electoral reform during a time called the Progressive Era…the period from 1890 to 1920 in U.S. history. 

Implementation of primary elections was but one of several significant actions taken in the Progressive Era. For example, when the founders met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they established that candidates for the United States Senate were elected by the members of state legislatures, not the voters. And notably, women were not permitted to vote. The 17th Amendment of the Constitution (approved in 1913) enabled citizens to vote for the U.S. Senate and in 1920, the 19th Amendment established the right for women to vote. These amendments represented major change in voter access.

What was driving the change in the Progressive Era? The preceding era was referred to as the Gilded Age. Political corruption was at the forefront, with politicians catering to business interests and participating in graft and bribery. Racial tensions and economic inequality were added factors. The Progressive Era was the populist response to the problems facing the American democratic republic at the time.

So fast forward to today. Many of the actions taken during the Progressive Era (think of the 19th Amendment) have had a lasting, positive impact on the American democratic republic. But the effectiveness of other actions eroded over time as the political parties developed work arounds. Notable in this group is the primary election. The primary election was an important improvement in the Progressive Era. As it is applied today in the U.S. political system, it is a problem. Many of the election districts are dominated by voters in one party or the other. For these voters, the outcomes in the low-turnout primary election largely determine who will ultimately be elected, rather than the general election. Furthermore, in today’s politically divided climate, partisan primaries tend to appeal to disenfranchised votes,thus fueling extremism. Under these conditions, political party leaders are able to “primary” members who dare to work with members of the opposing party. These conditions exist on both the left and the right.

All of this raises a key question…will there be another Progressive Era in the United States? In a report by the Brookings Institution, the book The Upswing by Robert Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett, highlights their thoughts on this question. They present evidence that our current levels of economic and political polarization are not greatly different than they were in the 1890s, at the peak of the  “Gilded Age.”, thus clearing the way for a second Progressive Era.  Putnam and Garrett however, express some caution. They point out that there are some significant differences, unique to 2024.

• The current wedge between the attitudes of working-class whites and progressives, and

• The federal fiscal crunch that grows with almost each passing year, and

• The identification of red states and blue states based upon partisan voting patterns.

So, while the national dynamics present a mixed picture of the prospects for a second Progressive Era, it is important to remember that many of the progressive steps taken in 1890 to 1920 were at the state and local level. While addressing the national polarized dynamics may seem daunting, taking steps at the state and community level. Essentially, this happened repeatedly in the Progressive Era. 

Can this state-by-state dynamic happen again? Perhaps. For example, in 2020, the State of Alaska approved the Final Four Voting (FFV) model, with open primaries and ranked choice voting in the general election. The FFV model was credited with reducing partisan gridlock. The state legislature even established an effective bipartisan budget committee…a practice that would be unheard of prior to 2020. Other states are now looking at the results. 

We should not forget, there was not an easy path for electoral reform in the Progressive Era, and there won’t be today. The persistence of Robert La Follette earned him the nickname, “fighting Bob”. If there is to be a new Progressive Era, the persistence of elected officials and voters will also be a key…the fighting Americans, if you will.

The State of Moral Values in Our Country

December 2024

Is the state of moral values in our country getting better or worse? It is an interesting question and apparently on the minds of a lot of us. A 2024 Gallup survey found that half of Americans rate “the overall state of moral values in this country today” as poor and 81% report that they believe the state of moral values is getting worse. Gallup has been conducting this poll for the past 22 years with the recent results being consistent with the ratings for the last 3 years, representing an overall low point. 

These data should be a concern. Former U.S. President Herbert Hoover opined, “When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned”. These are strong words from the former president. Although critical assessments of Hoover’s presidency by historians and political scientists generally rank him as a significantly below-average president, Hoover has received praise for his actions as a humanitarian and public official.

While the Gallup results raise a concern, they may not fully represent a pattern of moral decline. In a recent comprehensive study published in the journal, Nature, Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert conducted a meta-analysis of all the major surveys that asked Americans about the state of moral values in this country — a total of some two hundred conducted over the past seven decades. — They found that US residents have been griping about one another’s flagging sense of decency for as long as researchers have been soliciting their opinions on the matter. And yet when individual respondents are asked multiple times, over the span of a decade or more, to describe the level of civility and kindness they observe in their fellow citizens, their descriptions of other people’s attitudes and behaviors do not actually worsen at all.

Why then do we believe there is a moral decline in the US? Adam Mastroianni cites two factors for consideration: negativity bias and memory bias. Negativity bias refers to the fact that human beings generally pay more attention to negative information. In the media industry, this translates into greater coverage of violent and catastrophic news. In other words “if it bleeds, it leads”. People therefore receive and retain more negative than positive information about the current moral state of the world, and consequently are likely to conclude that it is low.

A second factor is memory bias. Our negative memories fade faster than our positive ones. Mastroianni explains, “If something good and something bad happens to you today, in five years’ time the bad thing will seem less negative and the good thing will not have lost its positive aspect”. Mastroianni adds that “negativity bias makes the present seem like a moral wasteland, while memory bias helps to explain why we long for the better days of the past.” In relative terms, the past seems like a fabulously moral universe...something we would like to re-create again.

Of course, an intervening factor in all of this is disinformation. If false information plays on our negativity and memory biases our natural tendency toward these biases will be reinforced.

So is a pessimistic view of moral values in the U.S. a significant problem? If we look at the meta-analysis of major studies on the perceived decline in moral values, we might conclude that it is not. As stated, U.S. residents have been complaining about one another’s flagging sense of decency for a long time. However, when false information plays a part, the concerns become much more serious. This is especially true if the source of disinformation is someone in a governmental leadership position. When messages are misleading and intended to feed into our innate biases and fears, it represents an erosion of the integrity of government. Clearly this is a problem...something that should be a concern for us all. Building upon the words of Hoover, for good or bad, government leaders are role models. As citizens, we should expect moral leadership from government leaders, and through our votes and our voice, we should reinforce that expectation. Simply put, we should not accept less.

Lee Rasch

Will Retribution Define the Term of the 47th President?

November 2024

Will the retribution agenda by Donald Trump undermine the policies that the voters supported? That is the question we will be analyzing over the next four years. Of course, the first question is whether there will be a retribution campaign, Reince Priebus, former Chair of the Republican Party was interviewed on the ABC News program, This Week. He believes there will be. He referenced a recent conversation he had with Donald Trump where he made his intention very clear. Priebus stated, “The Matt Gaetz pick as Attorney General is not three-dimensional chess to help another nominee get through. This was what he wanted to have happen. And when Republicans voted an impeachment against Donald Trump, he had a list of who those people were. And almost all of them in the House are gone. You have to remember, Donald Trump spent the last couple years going in and out of courtrooms, getting Mar-a-Lago raided. So, he spent that he feels like he has gone to hell and back ten times. So, this is also a big middle finger to the DOJ and the FBI.” 

Of course, political payback is as old as our nation. Thomas Jefferson originally penned, according to James Madison in Founders Online: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." But there has never been anything like the criminal charges and convictions placed against a former President as was the case with Donald Trump. Trump’s election on November 5th flips the playing field. The federal charges against Donald Trump on the January 6th insurrection and the classified documents case are now dropped by the Department of Justice. The Georgia case on election interference is now in limbo and even the criminal convictions in New York have been affected. The judge is now weighing in options for sentencing which could include delaying sentencing until after his four-year term expires. 

Was Donald Trump treated unfairly? There are citizens on both sides of the issue. On one side are the people who believe that the criminal indictments against Donald Trump were based upon his own criminal actions. No one, even former Presidents, is above the law. This is a founding element of the US Constitution. On the other side of the issue are those that believe the criminal justice System, specifically the US Department of Justice was using their authority to go after Donald Trump. The term for this is lawfare. And there have been cases in US History that demonstrated that retribution was indeed in practice. The Pulitzer Prize winning book, G Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century by Beverly Gage, is filled with stories of Hoover’s use of the FBI’s resources to investigate individuals and groups based upon personal prejudices.

The filling of cabinet positions sets the stage for the priorities for the upcoming four-year term. And to be certain, the cabinet nominees reflect the President-elect’s positions on tariffs, deportation, energy policy, healthcare and other areas. While there will be strong support and opposition to significant policy changes in these areas, the issue of retribution against political opponents could dig deeper and be longer lasting. It could also result in a bogged-down Congress. It could ultimately define the term for the 47th President of the United States. It will be worth watching over the next four years.

Thoughts of Voting and Ethical Leadership 

October 2024

There are a lot of competitive elections on the ballot this year and in most cases, the policy differences between candidates are stark. Equally important are other factors that voters should be taking into consideration. The 2024 election is a critical moment in time to view our voting decisions through the lens of ethical leadership. 

Though there are many guidelines and characteristics that describe what it means to be an ethical leader, four areas rise to the top.  Ethical leaders are 1) truthful, 2) transparent with public information, 3) unifiers, and 4) committed (to the best of their ability) to represent their entire constituency. It is reasonable to expect these values from anyone in any position of leadership.  But unfortunately, in today’s political environment, they are often dismissed in favor of winning or of maintaining party loyalty. Yet they are arguably the most crucial elements in addressing the issues and concerns of all of us, now and for the future.

So how does a voter sort through the information on hand to factor ethical leadership into their voting decision? Let’s look at some of the key variables, particularly for voters in a battle ground state like Wisconsin.

In the run up to this election, the political ads have been unrelenting. Their expressed intent is to remind us of the proposed strengths, weaknesses and policy positions of the candidates. But in a time of such extreme division a high percentage of messages in those ads are murky, misleading, or flat out false. Research shows that using negative attack ads serves two purposes: firing up the base of supporters for a candidate and discouraging targeted undecideds from voting. It should be obvious that political ads are hardly a reliable source of candidate information, especially about ethical leadership.

Pre-election debates are very informative, particularly for congressional, state and local offices. A debate allows viewers to observe how the candidate responds to (or evades) some of the primary policy issues at stake. It is very concerning when candidates refuse to debate. Debates can provide clues to how the candidate will perform under pressure, which is a constant in elected office. Candidates refusing to debate or avoiding face to face discourse in high-profile elections can be signaling concerns. Though there may be a few reasons for a candidate to decline debates, it may be a sign that the party is applying pressure on the candidate to avoid the risk of a less-than-optimal debate. A candidate who succumbs to party pressure to avoid a debate in the campaign is likely to succumb to party pressure on other concerns. The ability to negotiate legislative solutions, especially if it involves engaging the opposition party should be a minimal expectation of any elected official.

It is helpful to attend an event where the candidate speaks about his or her policy positions. In a battleground state such as Wisconsin, we’re getting lots of opportunities to attend campaign events. If there is no opportunity for audience questions or comments, the event isn’t as informative. Even if Q and A is limited, it can provide additional insight into the candidate’s way of interacting with people, viewpoints and thought process.

Finally, you can rely on various media for information about the candidates. Candidates are always seeking media opportunities, and a skillfully moderated appearance can provide good insight into the positions of the candidate. When analyzing media interviews, it is important to understand where the media source rates on the political bias continuum. The tone of an interview can be dramatically different from a liberal media source than a conservative one. Fortunately, there are media rating sites, such as AllSides and the FlipSide that estimate the perceived political bias of content on written news outlets. They and others do your homework for you by evaluating where a given media source leans on the political spectrum.

As the November 5th election is fast approaching, here are a few practical suggestions. Look at the high-profile ballot choices and compare how the candidates fare in applying the four principles of ethical leadership. Are they truthful, transparent, unifiers, and committed to representing all their constituents? Candidates who consistently strive to meet the four principles should be given a green light. Candidates who rarely, if ever, seek to apply these principles, should be given a red flag. If a given candidate’s actions are inconsistent, or the evidence is unclear, the candidate should be given a yellow caution. If the choice involves two green light candidates, congratulations. Your vote will likely be a good one either way you go. If your choice includes any combination of red flag, green light and yellow cautions, you should use your personal values as a guide. If your assessment results in two red flag candidates, you may opt to vote for the person who “represents the lesser of two evils.” Or you can leave the line on the ballot blank or write in a name. Your ballot will still count. And in this case, your vote won’t endorse candidates who are not ethical leaders. Above all, make sure you vote. Just vote.

Lee Rasch

The Murky World of Political Ads

September 2024

“I just need to view one more negative election ad, so I can make up my mind on who will get my vote.” I make this facetious statement to underline a fact…we are being inundated with political attack ads.

As the 2024 US presidential election ramps up, investment in political advertising is reaching new heights. Estimates reported in The Drum, the figure could climb as high as $12 billion before November 5th…up nearly 30% from the last presidential election in 2020.

According to John Baruch in the Upper Michigan Source, in the 1960’s, negative ads made up approximately 10% of the total election ad buy. Today, they comprise about 70%.

Why have we seen the dramatic increase in negative advertising? Baruch adds that in a close election, the intent of negative ads is to motivate the support base to vote, and at the same time, turn off independent voters, thus reducing their voter turnout.

Of course, there is an added element with political ads. They are often misleading in their message by crediting (or blaming) a candidate for issues with which they may have had little actual impact. Former Wisconsin Congressman, Reid Ribble, explains it this way. He talked  about colleagues who, when facing a complex issue, focused on the partial truths, rather than the complete story or the complete truth. This is a common practice in political ads.

The ads for the U.S. Senate race between incumbent Tammy Baldwin and challenger, Eric Hovde began in February 2024 and involved a flurry of negative ads from both sides. Both sides filed complaints. The Baldwin campaign complained that the Waukesha parade incident ad was false. And the organization responsible for the ad, One Nation, removed the ad from the TV rotation (though the ad is still available for viewing on YouTube). Meanwhile, the Hovde campaign complained that the ads which were improperly using Wisconsin Eye (WisEye) footage from the 2012 primary election campaign between Eric Hovde and Tommy Thompson. The WisEye video footage was extensively used in ads for several months. In September, WisEye stated that the Baldwin ads violate their policy which states that no WisconsinEye content can be used for any type of political or issue campaign commercials according to the network’s Terms of Use agreement. Specifically, the network’s Terms of Use reads: “Use of our content for commercial purposes or for political purposes is prohibited.” One of the ads asserts Hovde as saying that “farmers don’t work hard.” Wisconsin Watch, a nonprofit investigative news outlet and campaign watchdog, declared the ad was misleading and the claim untrue, stating: "No. Wisconsin Republican Eric Hovde did not say in a 2012 interview that farmers don't work hard." As reported in WisPolitics, WisconsinEye has asked the Tammy Baldwin for U.S. Senate campaign to withdraw these ads from commercial broadcast and social media networks and to cease using WisconsinEye content for any type of political campaign ads. In response, the ads were modified to retain the themes of the original ads without using the WisEye video footage. It is important to acknowledge that both parties have been exchanging misleading political ads during this campaign. However, the Tammy Baldwin campaign has earned a red flag for the promotion of political ads which violated the WisEye Terms of Use.

Can the Wisconsin State Supreme Court Restore Collegiality?

August 2024

The Wisconsin State Supreme appears to be as polarized as the rest of the state. It is a sad statement to make. We have often stated that ethical leaders are truthful, transparent with public information, unifiers who work to represent their entire constituency. The actions taken by the court in the last 14 years have been moving away from these principles. It should be noted that at one time, the court had an established reputation for following these principles. In fact, in 1999, the court became one of the first state high courts — if not the first — to hold its administrative meetings before the public. Though not perfect, at that time the Wisconsin Supreme Court was working to serve as a role model for government. 

Things began to shift in 2010. In a report by NPR that year served as a watershed for the politicization of WI Supreme Court elections. Nearly $9 million was spent on the highly politicized 2010 Wisconsin Supreme Court election and Justice Louis Butler was the first incumbent to lose an election in nearly 40 years. Subsequent campaigns continued the politicized pattern.As reported in Wisconsin Watch, the Court first voted to restrict open administrative practices in 2012, limiting open hearings to petitions from outside groups for Rule changes. In 2017, the conservative majority voted to discontinue the practice of holding administrative discussions in public. At the meeting, Gableman said it was time to end the experiment of holding meetings in public. Voting to end public dialogue were the court's conservatives: Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justices Rebecca Bradley, Michael Gableman, Daniel Kelly and Annette Ziegler. Liberal Justices Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley voted against the measure. 

In terms of campaign spending, things took off from there as the money spent on Supreme Court elections has skyrocketed. Incredibly, $42 million was spent on the 2023 Protasiewicz/Kelly race, which broke a national record for state supreme court elections. Roughly two-thirds of the money spent in the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election came from outside groups, a record $28.8 million, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. In a politically divided nation, state supreme court races became recognized by both parties as a key variable impacting the national political landscape. When Janet Protasiewicz won election to the WI Supreme Court in April 2023, she was very public in her statements in support of abortion rights, a key state issue following the 2022 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Given Wisconsin’s outdated state law on abortion, and the divided positions of the Governor and legislature, it became clear that the issue would be settled in the courts.

The 2023 transition from a conservative-led to liberal-led Supreme Court got off to a rocky start. Once a national model for transparency, the court took another step in the other direction. One day after the swearing-in of Janet Protasiewicz swung the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority, the four liberal members of the high court fired Randy Koschnick, the director of the state's courts system. The move invited a strong condemnation from Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, a conservative, who described it as "dangerous conduct" that the full court did not agree to. Ziegler wrote, "Allowing all seven justices the opportunity to be heard and having the benefit of thoughtful discussion and debate before a formal vote is taken is key to a properly functioning court.” 

The liberal members saw this differently. According to Ruth Conniff, the four progressives who now make up the majority responded that they went ahead and conducted court business without Ziegler only after she refused to join them. They added that instead of participating, Ziegler chose to air her grievances to the media as reported by the Wisconsin Examiner. They added that in firing the conservative chief justice’s right-hand man, Randy Koschnick, they were replacing him with Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Audrey Skwierawski, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who will answer to the whole court, not just to Ziegler. 

Meanwhile, Randy Koschnick felt the action to dismiss violated established rules for the court. He stated in an interview broadcast on WORT. “The rules basically say, ‘all seven justices agree to a schedule ahead of time.’ It gets set. And in this case, it begins in September and that’s when these matters are discussed. All seven justices under the rule have to agree to change the schedule; there was no agreement to change the schedule here. And the four liberal justices made the decision without even telling the other three justices that it was being considered. So, that goes against everything in the history of how the Supreme Court operates as a collegial court. It doesn’t follow due process, it’s rogue lawlessness, it’s a big threat to the court.” 

Suffice to say, given the developments of the past 14 years and the recent transition in the Wisconsin court, the stage is not set for a return to collegiality. The actions of the court over the next two years will be an indicator if there are any attempts to move in this direction. The individual who may be considered to be pivotal is Justice Brian Hagedorn. As reported in PBS Wisconsin, his votes have been key for every major decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court during the last two years. Elected as a conservative, Hagedorn most often gave them a 4-3 advantage. But sometimes he sided with the three liberals, infuriating his conservative colleagues. For example, around an hour before the Electoral College was to meet regarding the 2020 presidential election, Hagedorn and the liberals ruled 4-3 to reject a Trump lawsuit and uphold Biden's win in Wisconsin. 

At this time, it is unclear how the overall dynamics of the court will play out. Time will tell. At this stage, Justice Hagedorn earns a green light for his independent positions taken in support of fairness for all constituents. All other justices are poised to earn red flags, in terms of one or more of the four principles. Their actions over the next two years will tell us a lot.

Political Violence: The Visible Tip of the Iceberg

July 2024

The recent assassination attempt of former president Donald Trump has called attention to a disturbing facet of political life in America…political violence. And it is a growing concern among citizens. A recent study by the University of Chicago ’s Chicago Project on Security & Threats (CPOST)showed that 16% of the respondents believed the use of force was justified in the effort to coerce Congress, up from 9% for one year ago. Nearly one in ten Americans believe the outcome of the November 2024 presidential election could justify violence, regardless of who wins.

To be certain, political violence has been a part of this country’s history, at some times more than others. Consider the 1960’s. At that time, some of the most notorious political assassinations occurred…John F. Kennedy, Malcom X, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. Furthermore, the patterns of violence have shifted over the years, swinging between violence against property and persons. Today’s pattern of violence has shifted toward persons. Between January 2020 and June 2023, an analysis by Reuters identified 213 cases of political violence including 18 that resulted in fatalities. Two-thirds of those cases were physical assaults and confrontations; the other third involved mainly property damage.

So, what are some of the underlying reasons for the surge in violent acts against people in recent years? To get at the answer to this question, we may need to look at the larger picture. According to the July 2024 Gallup poll, the average level of confidence by Americans in major institutions (such as Congress, the media, finance, healthcare and others) remains historically low at 28%. To put this into perspective, the levels or trust and confidence in institutions was at 43% in the early 2000s. Furthermore, a Pew Research Center study looked at the patterns of public confidence in the political wisdom of Americans. In other words, the study measured our confidence that voters will make the right choices over time. This is a key facet of our democratic republic. The study showed that in 1997, nearly two-thirds of Americans had trust and confidence in the public’s political wisdom. By 2019, that number dropped to one-third. The drop apparently started at the time of the Great Recession and remained at low levels since. It is important to note that the divisiveness of the current political climate is clearly a factor in the reduced trust levels. And when we lack trust and confidence in government, major institutions and fellow citizens, we may be more inclined to take other steps, including violence.

It is important to remember that the tendency toward violent acts does not represent the majority of American citizens. Not by a long shot. The April 2024 AP NORC poll showed overwhelming support for the core Constitutional values, including support for the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, the right to assemble peacefully and freedom of the press. These are the core values that bind us together.

Still, the increased tendency toward violent acts is a significant concern. It represents the visible tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface are the growing levels of mistrust. As a start, we should support elected leaders who refrain from language that could incite violence, and better yet, speak out against violence. Clearly there should not be an acceptable level of political violence in America. Beyond that, we should look for, and support elected leaders who promote civility and seek common ground on issues. In other words, we should support elected leaders that actively work to counter the growing mistrust. This kind of work may not grab our attention, but the work beneath the surface is vitally important for us all. It can stem the tide towards political violence and benefit us in many other ways as well. It can be a better connection to the core values of Americans. It’s the right place to be.

Civics and Civility

June 2024

Is there a connection between civics and civility? Many people believe the U.S. fails to emphasize civics education enough. In the absence of accurate information about civics, the door is then opened to a broader acceptance of disinformation and misinformation. Meanwhile, increased incivility may contribute to more people being turned off by government…which then may lead to less interest in civics education. Let’s look a little deeper at these issues.

First off, recent studies affirm that more civics education is needed. A recent study by the U.S. Chamber Foundation raised concerns about civic literacy. The national survey, which examined responses from 2,000 registered voters, found that more than 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on topics like the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices, and other basic functions of our democracy. Just half were able to correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws.  Interestingly, the study also shows that while Americans lack basic understanding of government, their trust in business remains strong. 

The American Bar Association conducted a study which included questions based on the current U.S. naturalization test. They found that most respondents provided the correct answers to many of the questions. About 87% knew the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called the Bill of Rights; 88% knew the Declaration of Independence declared our nation’s independence from Great Britain; and 84% knew “rule of law” means no one is above the law. However, the scores dropped off sharply with other questions about the U.S. democracy. About 57% knew that only U.S. citizens have the right to hold a federal elective, while 52% knew there are 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives. About 50% knew that serving on a federal jury is a responsibility only for U.S. citizens

The ABA survey also revealed that 85% of respondents believe civility is worse than it was 10 years ago. The reasons? About 29% blame social media, while 24% hold the media responsible and 19% fault public officials. Only 8% and 7% blame the educational system and popular culture, respectively.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center reinforces the concerns about increased incivility. The study found that seven-in-ten Americans say elected officials should avoid heated or aggressive language because it could encourage some people to take violent action. In addition, a report by the National Civic League highlights the concerns that a lack of civic literacy leads to a well-documented decline in civic participation. And an uneducated and disengaged populace creates fertile ground for misinformation to take root.

Despite these reports, there are some good steps being taken in Wisconsin. As reported by WEAU News, the WMC Foundation announced Rya M. from Delong Middle School in Eau Claire as the first-ever Wisconsin Civics Bee champion. Rya competed against seven other finalists from around the state on stage on Friday, answering Civics trivia questions and presenting portions of her submitted essay. The middle school competition, the first-of-its-kind in Wisconsin, is modeled on traditional spelling and geography bees, encouraging students to share ideas for improving their communities and show their enthusiasm for civics. Earlier in the year, students in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades were invited to compete in regional bees, hosted by the Fox Cities Chamber of Commerce, the Racine Area Manufacturers & Commerce, and the Wausau Chamber of Commerce. Winners of the regional bees participated in the state finals.

Meanwhile, in a TMJ4 story, Wisconsin high school students put their knowledge of government to the test at the 2024 Wisconsin Civics Games. The annual program was initiated in 2018 by the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Foundation. The competition brought the top 18 teams from across the state to the Capitol in Madison. More than 100 students participate each year.

Finally, the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University, in a partnership with the City of La Crosse Parks and Recreation Department, announced the 2024 civics classes for adults…Rebuilding American Civics. Now in their third year, the classes are free and open to the public. Facilitator, Sam Scinta designed this program to provide civics education and discussion for community members. 

In isolation, these initiatives may seem small in contrast to the larger political dynamics. Yet they help to promote public awareness that civics education, at all levels, can lead to better government. The WMC Foundation, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Foundation, and the Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership (specifically, Sam Scinta) have earned green lightsfor their efforts. More communities need to follow their lead.

The Wisconsin Legislative Quagmire

May 2024

Wisconsin is in a unique and somewhat precarious position politically. In terms of voter political party preferences in statewide elections, Wisconsin is very evenly divided. The November 2022 re-elections of Republican Senator Ron Johnson and Democratic Governor Tony Evers, by relatively thin margins, reflect this pattern. By all accounts, Wisconsin is a purple state. Yet when it comes to enacting major pieces of legislation, the two parties often face a wide chasm between them.

Consider the practice of “gavel in/gavel out special sessions”. The rules for calling a special session vary from state to state. According to the National Council on State Legislators, there are no limits on the common reasons for a governor to call a special session, which typically includes responding to economic downturns or other fiscal problems; federal legislation; disasters; and war. Some special sessions addressed more than one of these issues. The common element is that timely legislative action is needed on a issue of importance. There are also no limits on the number of special sessions called by a governor. Wisconsin’s Governor Tony Evers called the state legislature into special session thirteen times. In twelve instances, Republican leaders used the gavel in/gavel out approach to stay within the letter of the law yet avoid taking legislative action. The one special session (called by Gov. Evers in January 2021) that received action ultimately passed a bill to fix and modernize the state’s unemployment system. This occurred in February 2022 after the Republican-controlled full-time legislature took a nearly 300-day break from legislating during the COVID-19 pandemic. This bill remains the first and only bill signed by the Republican-controlled Legislature under a special session called by Governor Evers.

As reported by  WIZM News, the following is the list of special sessions called in Wisconsin since November 2019: 

• Release PFAS & Emergency Health Care funding - May 7, 2024 (this was added to the WIZM list)
  
• Access to Child Care & Workforce Needs - September 20, 2023
  
• Repeal 1849 Abortion Ban - October 19, 2022
  
• Reproductive Rights/Healthcare Access – June 22, 2022
  
• Surplus Plan – Tax Cut – March 8, 2022
  
• School Funding – K-12, Special Ed, UW System, Technical College – July 27, 2021
  
• Badger Care Expansion – May 25, 2021
  
• Unemployment Insurance Modernization – January 19, 2021
  
• Use of Force by Law Enforcement – August 31, 2020
  
• All Mail Spring Election and 7th CD Special Election – April 4, 2020
  
• K-12 School Funding – February 11, 2020
  
• Agriculture Funding – January 28, 2020
  
• Gun Violence – November 7, 2019
  

Thirteen special sessions being called in a span of four and a half years is considered by many to be a high number. For example, Vermont called 27 special sessions during their entire state’s history. Some believe the Governor has been calling for a special session for political purposes, knowing that the legislature is in opposition to the proposed legislation. Others believe the gavel in/gavel out action by the Republican-led legislature is an indication of their disregard for the Democratic Governor.

The May 7, 2024 special session to authorize the release of funds for addressing PFAS water pollution is slightly different from the other special sessions called. WisPolitics reported that despite months of negotiation between Gov. Evers and the Republican bill authors, they failed to reach bipartisan consensus. Subsequently, Senate Bill (SB) 312 was advanced through the legislative process with provisions designed to remove liability for industry as a source of the PFAS pollution. Governor Evers and the Department of Natural Resources leadership had insisted this was a non-starter from the beginning. Furthermore, the Governor contended that the language in SB 312 also would not have released the $125 million as approved through the biennial budget to fight PFAS contamination statewide. Although both sides attempted a negotiated solution to the PFAS program, the jump from the negotiating table to the "special session-gavel in/gavel out" scenario still ended up in a famailiar no win pattern.

The other issue in the May 7, 2024 special sesson involved emergency funding for healthcare. In February, Gov. Tony Evers approved SB 1015, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 97, securing $15 million in crisis response resources to support healthcare access in western Wisconsin in the wake of the recent announcement of HSHS and Prevea Health’s decision to close several locations. Gov. Evers used line-item vetoes to provide additional flexibility for the $15 million in crisis response resources, enabling the investments to be used to fund any hospital services meeting the area’s pressing healthcare needs, including urgent care services, OB-GYN services, inpatient psychiatry services, and mental health substance use services, among others. The grants available under the bill also allowed the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to make the crisis response funds available for any hospital services that meet the needs of the region. SB 1015, as passed by the Legislature, included restrictions on the $15 million crisis response funding, limiting the funds to be used only for hospital emergency department services exclusively. The negotiations between the Governor and the legislature broke down on these two issues. The Governor then called for a special session to vote on PFAS relief and emergency healthcare funding. The special session was another gavel in/gavel out exercise.

Wisconsin Public Radio reported that the week following the May 7th gavel in/gavel out special session included actions by both the legislature and the Governor that moved further away from a compromise agreement on PFAS and emergency health care funding. The State Senate voted to include these two projects in a veto override vote. Although the Republicans currently hold a two-thirds majority in the Senate they fall short of this total in the Assembly. In other words, the veto override vote is largely symbolic. Meanwhile, Evers announced that he is not ruling out a legal challenge against the Legislature’s GOP-controlled budget committee after Republican lawmakers rejected his call to meet and approve spending $125 million to address PFAS contamination. This statement also appears to be posturing.

During Governor Evers first term in office, there was very little Governor/legislative dialogue. Following the reelection of Evers in 2022, their was some improvement in communication and mutual cooperation. Given the clear public interest in both projects, the failure to be able to negotiate solutions is a statement about the current state of politics in Wisconsin. Improvement or not, the current state of politics falls short of what we should expect from elected lesders. In that regard, both Governor Evers and the Republican-led legislature have earned red flags for their posturing actions on important legislation that has a direct effect on their constituents. The actions by both parties are moving away from reasonable middle-ground positions. Not every compromise is ideal. Yet compromise can only occur if the parties stay at the table. The current situation is a quagmire and the citizens are clearly on the short end. Hopefully, the Governor and the new legislature do better in 2025.

Overwhelmingly, Americans Support American Values

April 2024

As the November 2024 election draws near, we see and hear more and more news and social media warnings of dire consequences. The predicted outcomes vary depending upon the messenger’s political preferences. As a battleground state in this Presidential election, Wisconsin is squarely in the center of this media cacophony. And without question, this will be an important election. Some of the conditions surrounding the presidential race are absolutely without precedent. But there are other elements that should also be considered.

Consider this. A March 2024 Secure Elections Project (SEP) targeted poll of Wisconsin Republicans and Conservative-leaning Independents found that 62 percent of these voters say they believe the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. The results are similar to the most recent Marquette poll on the subject. However, the SEP poll also found that most conservative Wisconsinites (63 percent) believe the state’s electoral process is working properly. Furthermore, 76 percent of the respondents agree with the statement “my vote counts,” suggesting that — while they may agree with broader national political narratives about the 2020 election — they are satisfied with how elections are administered locally.

Contrary to the rhetoric from some pundits, Americans across the board place a high value on the nation’s democratic principles. A new study from the Polarization Research Lab, has found that despite a surge in anti-democratic behavior by U.S. politicians, the majority of Americans oppose anti-democratic attitudes and reject partisan violence. The researchers surveyed more than 45,000 Democrats and Republicans on their attitudes toward four specific democratic norm violations. They found that more than 80% oppose censorship of partisan media, 83% oppose placing political party loyalty over the Constitution, 85% oppose the disregard of court decisions that favor the other political party, and 90% oppose efforts to reduce polling stations. 

These results are reinforced by the April 2024 AP-NORC poll showing overwhelming support for the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, the right to assemble peacefully and freedom of the press. All are viewed as extremely important or very important to our identity as a nation. Though the noise and radical actions of some politicians may garner attention, it’s clear that they don’t reflect the beliefs of most Americans.

Samuel Issacharof, author of the book Democracy Unmoored, credits citizen loyalty to democratic norms for protecting against post-election chaos in battleground states in 2020. When election denialism was picking up steam, state and local election officials and the large numbers of poll workers kept the election process from falling off the rails. Despite the country’s deep political polarization, most Americans share many core beliefs about what it means to be an American.

This is not to suggest that we should become complacent about the political divide. That would be a serious mistake. Much of what we see online is the work of a loud, small, partisan minority. Separate studies by BYU, Utah State University and the NCSC and Pew Research Center reinforce this point. Yet this small group can distort the perception of the public, leading to the misconception that some beliefs are more common than they really are. We need to counter these messages with factual information.

Keep Our Republic is a non-partisan civic education organization working to address threats to our election processes and to promote trust and transparency at every stage of the voting and electoral process. In 2024, their efforts will focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They are holding public information sessions throughout Wisconsin, involving former elected officials, as well as state and local election officials…people who are knowledgeable about the state’s election process. This kind of effort makes sense. In upholding our democratic republic, we should work from our strengths while not disregarding the threats. We must appeal to the majority and keep the focus on the shared values we embrace in the U.S. Constitution. Overwhelmingly. Americans support American values.

Lee Rasch

Politics and the Importance of Hopefulness

March 2024

In February 2024, the Pew Research Center released the results of a study about how Americans currently feel when they think about politics. The results are quite telling. Fifty-five percent (55%) of respondents said that they always/often feel angry when thinking about politics. And 65% stated that they always/often feel exhausted. But what really stands out is that 56% reported that they rarely/never feel hopeful.

Hopefulness is a powerful state of mind and way of being. It involves optimistic thinking, focusing on good things to come. As described by the VIA Institute on Character, hope is more than a feel-good emotion. It is an action-oriented strength involving motivation and confidence that goals can be achieved, that effective pathways can be devised to arrive at a desired future. Hopefulness helps small businesses to persist and succeed. It helps parents navigate parenthood. Being hopeful helps us meet and endure the challenges we face in life.

Being hopeful is a part of the larger concept of happiness, the feeling of being in alignment with our values, our families, friends, our surroundings. Consider the World Happiness Report, a publication of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a global initiative of the United Nations. The rankings of national happiness are derived from a global Gallup, Inc. survey. In the 2024 rankings, the United States placed 23rd out of 146 nations (Finland had the highest ranking). Americans would like to be at the top. But they still fare better than most of the world. Factors considered on the World Happiness report are: strong social support; freedom and trust (which includes high levels of freedom and trust in government and fellow citizens); work-life balance; connection to nature; and equality. Except for a relatively small number of professionals working in politics, most people in the United States have a broader life experience. For the most part, outside of politics, Americans are happy...and hopeful.

So, if politics makes us feel angry, exhausted, and less hopeful, should we just avoid anything that might be political? Sometimes that might be a good idea. If you find yourself getting angry every time you play golf, it might be a good idea to take a break from the game. But the American democratic republic needs citizen engagement. It needs people to vote, to decide what matters, to chart the course we’re traveling. Citizen disengagement in not in the best interests of our government. So, how can we find ways to still be informed and engaged as citizens? Going back to the golf analogy, perhaps we can find enjoyment in the game if we seek companions whose company we really enjoy...maybe we don’t keep score.

If you’re watching the news and find the persistent negative ads increasingly annoying (the ads for the November Wisconsin U.S. Senate race started in February!), you might switch to other forms of news to stay informed, such as newspapers and public radio.

If you are feeling isolated or find yourself spending too much time watching your screen, it’s time to engage in real live, face to face human interaction. Richard Kyte, Director of the Reinhart Institute of Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University has researched the importance of social interaction outside of our home or place of work. For many of us the pandemic curtailed social engagement and we haven’t fully stepped back in. Yet it is a vital part of maintaining personal balance, forming new relationships, and preserving existing relationships. We can’t really know the people we only know through screen contacts.

Unfortunately, instilling fear and defeating a sense of hopefulness is a part of our political landscape. People we don’t even know are continually trying to influence how we think and what we do by disseminating disinformation and misinformation. We should have a healthy skepticism, which is nothing like pessimism. Remember, hopefulness recognizes that there are many right answers and effective pathways. Choosing our attitudes and the ways we want to navigate the challenges we all encounter determines the quality of our lives. Being hopeful is contagious and so much better for our collective future.

Lee Rasch

Peaceful Resistence to Conflict

February 2024

Recently, I was having a conversation with a colleague about the need for more civics education in schools. The evidence is clear. According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, civic knowledge is alarmingly low, with a bare majority of Americans (56 percent) able to identify the three branches of government. Nearly 10 percent are unable to identify any. Simultaneously, confidence in our democratic institutions, notably Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency has dropped. Such levels of civic ignorance and distrust fuel political polarization. My colleague said “Educating the next generations makes sense. But we are really divided politically, and many people simply don’t want to talk with the other side.” She added.  “Do you really see any change?”

On the same day, I was writing a report on the completion of a Rotary Global Grant project, Hearts to Schools Revisited. The project involved raising funds to refurbish three dilapidated primary schools in rural northwest Cameroon. These schools were in incredibly poor condition, with gaping holes in the roofs, broken windows, dirt floors and very limited educational materials. Not surprisingly, student and teacher morale was low, attendance was poor and educational achievement was substandard. On top of this, a sectarian conflict had erupted in this area of Cameroon and conditions at these three schools were dire.

Eight Rotary clubs, from four different states, had been approached about taking on this project. The Rotary Club of La Crosse was asked to serve as the lead club. Before agreeing to take the lead role, we wanted to know if, given the conflict, it was viable (even safe) to rebuild these three schools.  We reached out to the bishop who served in this region of Cameroon, and the Divisional Governor, for their advice. They both responded that they hoped we would proceed.  The need was great, and, in the words of the bishop, it would be a  “form of peaceful resistance to the conflict”.  So, the project moved forward.

In early 2021, $122,000 was raised. Over the next nine months, each of the schools were rebuilt with new roofs, repaired walls and windows, concrete floors, and new classroom furniture. A library was developed in each school, stocked by books from the organization, Books for Africa. The parent/teacher organizations participated in an orientation workshop to enhance the emphasis on reading. A reading competition was held.

However, there were challenges. As stated in the final report to Rotary International, the sectarian conflict in Northwest Cameroon contributed to a hazardous work environment during construction. There were a number of work stoppages due to gun shots in the surrounding area. In addition, the separatists enforced something the locals call "ghost town"...where one day a week, people were not permitted to leave their homes without risk.  Essentially, this is a community lockdown to put pressure on the government. At one point, Project Lead from the Kumbo Rotary Club, Chin Idirisu, was detained for ransom. Project staff and contractors also experienced problems with separatists. The challenges were greatest in the two schools (Nseh and Dzeng) located in the Northwest Region of Cameroon...the area where the separatist activity is greatest. Despite these significant challenges, the work was completed. All three schools are now open and operating, and a source of community pride.

But the most significant outcome goes beyond improved buildings. The combined enrollment for the three schools increased from 745 students in 2021 to 1142 in 2023. Cameroon requires all students to take a national exam during the sixth grade which determines whether students are ready to progress to the next educational level.  In 2021, only 45% of the students successfully completed the national exam. In 2023, that increased to 85%! In other words, prior to the Hearts to Schools Revisited project, less than half of the sixth-grade students were able to complete the national exam. Those that didn’t complete, with formal education abruptly ended, are prime recruitment targets for dissident activity. So, for these three communities in Cameroon, education now means hope for a better future.

This project serves as both a reminder and a lesson for us. It is important to keep our focus on community interest, even in the face of major conflict. We likely face real issues in our home community…issues that need our attention but are caught up in the political conflict. Ironically, increased civics education may be one of them and it may actually help reduce incivility. Still, the negative dynamics of the political divide are real and it‘s easy to become disillusioned. The tendency in the larger political conflict is gridlock. Local issues can get lost. Can focusing on community needs bring people together on larger conflicts? Maybe, maybe not. But we can still make progress in benefiting local constituents. This is one of the reasons LeaderEthics emphasizes the principle of representing the interests of all constituents. In the political fray, we can readily overlook important things we can do. People deserve our best effort. To use the words of the bishop, our community actions can be a "form of peaceful resistance to conflict”.

Lee Rasch

The Challenge of Ethical Leadership in 2024

January 2024

Ethical leaders are: - truthful - transparent with public information - a unifier rather than a divider - committed to represent their entire constituency. 

LeaderEthics- adopted in 2018

It is a tough time to talk about politics without seemingly stepping on someone’s toes, be it at family gatherings, in a workplace setting or on social media. Many choose to avoid political topics altogether. Of course, political conflicts in our country are not new. We have been resilient during past challenging times, despite bad actors who sought to exploit conflict for personal and/or political gain. An important part of this resilience is the determination to take action to address, rather than simply accept, our concerns. 

The commitment of LeaderEthics is to promote ethical leadership among elected officials. We believe this is an important place to start in addressing the political divisiveness of today. At the beginning of this article are the four key principles associated with ethical leadership in public office. These are the principles that have guided the work of LeaderEthics over the past six years. To be certain, these principles are a subset of a larger number of ethical principles that can serve as a guide for leaders. In our analysis, truthfulness, transparency and functioning as a unifier are consistently included as important principles for effective leadership, regardless of the setting. We believe they serve as an important guide in personal decision-making for elected leaders as well. 

Furthermore, the LeaderEthics organization believes promoting the fourth principle…being committed to represent their entire constituency…is vitally important. In a political environment, it serves as a counterbalance to the tremendous pressure political parties can place on elected leaders. At times, such pressure can place party loyalty above the interests of the nation, the state or the community being served. For example, in a study by  Pew Research, more than 90% of Democrat and Republican respondents agree that honesty is an important ethical principle for the President of the United States. However, the parties differ significantly regarding other principles, such as civility, compassion, and serving as a role model. The differences fall along political lines and lead to dramatic differences in the policy positions off the two major parties. In other words, even though members of both parties place a high value on honesty, citizens are likely willing to overlook this if they believe their party is likely to gain from the President’s positions. Elected leaders who “play to their base” certainly know this. These tradeoffs are one reason it is hard to be an ethical leader in a period of hyper-partisanship.

There are also indications that the election cycle in 2024 will ratchet up the hyper-partisan dynamics even further…particularly in the race for President of the United States.  As reported in the New York Times, six states: Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, are considered the key swing states in terms of electoral college votes. Polls show they are, including Wisconsin, on target for a very close election. An October 2023 Emerson College Polling survey in Wisconsin finds former President Donald Trump and President Biden neck and neck in a potential 2024 matchup: 42% supporting Trump and 40% supporting Biden. Eleven percent of the respondents support someone else and 8% are undecided. Spencer Kimball, Executive Director of Emerson College Polling, said that the survey also indicated that at this time, “independent voters in Wisconsin are somewhat evenly split: 33% support Biden and 31% support Trump, and 36% are undecided or plan on voting for someone else.” The Biden campaign is reported to be in deep concern over his low polling numbers. According to Gallup, Biden ends 2023 with an approval rating of 39%. Of course, the large numbers of respondents who are undecided or support someone other than Biden or Trump speaks volumes.

Another significant factor in the 2024 Presidential election cycle are the four criminal cases for Donald Trump. As reported in Reuters, It is possible the Donald Trump believes his best options to beat back criminal charges is to become re-elected as President. As the media and the political parties work through the primary election cycle leading up to the respective conventions this summer, the court cases loom as a dark cloud over the process. This certainly sets the stage for what could be a very tense, high stakes election contest in November 2024.

What does this mean for promoting ethical leadership?

With a litte more than nine months remaining in the elections cycle, it appears that the public focus is on the race rather than the issues surrounding Biden and Trump. The approval ratings for both have been low and stable over the past year, even though the surrounding conditions have been changing. An improving economy has not had any impact in improving Biden’s ratings. Likewise, the criminal indictments appear to have solidified support for Trump, rather than hurt him. Many Wisconsin citizens (perhaps four in five) are already “locked in” their views regarding the top two presidential candidates. 

These dynamics could certainly be challenging for the LeaderEthics message when citing a green light or a red flag for practices by either of the two top candidates. Many people have strong feelings for or against, either or both individuals. Some may feel we are showing bias…. even though all articles are reviewed by a panel of judges prior to publication. The dynamics of today are even more reason to continue to cite green light and red flag practices. LeaderEthics is not perfect. Yet we believe speaking out is the only way we can heighten public awareness about the importance of ethical leadership as a cornerstone for the American democracy. Furthermore, we feel we should take the longer view and believe in the resilience that has enabled our nation to persist during challenging times, much as we have done in the past. Of course, resilience does not come from standing silently on the sidelines. Finally, once this election is past, the work in promoting ethical leadership must continue for the years ahead. Ethical leadership: If we don’t expect more, we will accept less.

Things to look forward to…and some not so much

December 2023

As we approach 2024, our nation appears to be facing one of the most tumultuous years in decades. 2024 could be described as the year of unpredictable unknowns. Against that backdrop, here are some thoughts on things we look forward to in 2024…and some things, not. It might seem presumptuous to try to paint a picture of what lies beyond the horizon. There are so many complex issues and seemingly countless moving parts that could alter the course. That being said, here goes.

On the upside, the New York Times reported that the Federal Reserve has offered an inkling that it would reduce interest rates up to three times in 2024. The New York Stock Exchange responded with across the board increases in the stock indexes. The Dow Jones Industrial Average recorded an all-time high of 37,248. Borrowing costs for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages also dropped below 7 percent this for the first time in four months. The announcement is good news for homebuyers and consumers in general. The timing on this “unofficial” announcement is interesting. The rate of inflation has been falling the last two years, so an interest rate reduction seems to be a reasonable action. However, in recent years the Federal Reserve has been notoriously tight-lipped about any future changes in interest rates. This inkling is counter to that practice. And 2024 is an election year.

Final Five Voting in Wisconsin (SB 528) is moving forward following a lengthy and informative legislative hearing in the state senate. Given that this is an election year, some believe SB 528 is a long shot in 2024. However, the legislation has the backing of a solid bipartisan list of co-sponsors. And, as reported by ABC News, there is growing active support from citizens statewide, including veterans. The focused efforts of the organization, Veterans for All Voters, is continuing to build momentum. SB 528 may come up for a vote in 2024.

The presidential election will surely hold some twists and turns. There are growing signs that Americans (Republicans included) are growing tired of the chaos surrounding Donald Trump’s candidacy. Other candidates such as Nikki Haley are beginning to speak out, as referenced in The Hill. Trump’s 2024 calendar is filling up with court appointments tied to his numerous federal and state indictments. But despite these serious charges, polling indicates his sizable lead remains firm entering the Republican primary season. As it currently stands, the federal court case on interfering with the outcome of the 2020 election is scheduled to start March 4th. Meanwhile, it is projected that Donald Trump will have secured the Republican nomination by March 19th. Let that sink in. The run up to the 2024 presidential election could look more like a courtroom drama than a political campaign.

Speaking of the 2024 election, there is growing concern over the potential for violence. Presidential election extremism and the threat of violence is trending upward. According to an October 2023 national survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) in partnership with the Brookings Institution, nearly a quarter of Americans (23%) reported that "because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country." This is up from 15% in 2021.

Threats of violence against federal public officials are also on the rise. A recent U Mass Amhurst poll conducted for the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress showed that 84% of former members surveyed are concerned about the possibility of violence related to the presidential election. Nearly half of the almost 300 respondents in the poll said they or their families received threats “at least somewhat frequently” while they were in office. Women and lawmakers of color reported even higher numbers, with 69% saying they’d experienced threats “at least somewhat frequently”.

The last issue on our list involves the outcomes of the 2024 elections. There is little doubt that this is an important election year…that the future of the democratic republic may be on the line. We are not going to predict the outcomes. There are simply too many variables and too many unknowns. Despite all the challenges, many Americans are actively working to counter disinformation, hatred, and threats of violence to contribute to a stronger, more resilient democracy. According to the GuideStar Directory, there are hundreds of organizations actively working to defend democratic principles, using many differing approaches. LeaderEthics is proud to be included in this effort. As our nation approaches the 250-year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we expect the pride in our country and the U.S. Constitution to show through. With hopeful optimism we are predicting that our efforts in 2024 will be meaningful.

Final Five Voting in Wisconsin...The Time Is Now

November 2023

This article is an update of the story published in the October 2023 issue of The Ethics Report.

The hyper-partisan divide in the U.S. House of Representatives has resulted in some strangely distorted dynamics which have impacted Wisconsin in a big way. As reported in The Hill, only 10 percent of the House races in the 2022 midterm elections were competitive, noting that both Democrats and Republicans had a high number of “safe districts.” Gerrymandering (though not the only cause) is a considerable variable. What follows is that despite low voter turnout, the partisan primary process takes on an exaggerated level of importance in determining who gets elected to Congress. In addition, primary voters who tend to be affiliated with one party, are more mistrustful of the other political party. Thus, they are more likely to vote to remove an incumbent who dares to support bipartisan measures. So how is this a problem? Here are a few examples.

The concerns about our current partisan primary process go deeper than simply selecting the favored party candidate. In non-competitive districts, it negatively influences the behavior of legislators. For example, a prominent Wisconsin Republican legislator was recently asked how many of the 132 state legislators still believe the 2020 election results were wrong. The response given…” about five”. Nonetheless, very few legislators are willing to speak up on the issue, fearing that in a high-stakes election year, they will be subjected to a primary election opponent. In other words, they might be “primaried”. Their resulting silence leads many voters to surmise that there must be truth in the belief the 2020 election was stolen. Ultimately, this dynamic adds to the breakdown in trust by voters.

The current primary process also leads to increased campaign spending on primary elections, since in most districts, that’s where the action is. As reported in fivethirtyeight.com, Democrats contributed heavily in Republican primary elections by spending money to boost potentially weaker GOP contenders (primarily 2020 election deniers) in the hopes of improving Democrats’ chances in the general election. Nationally, Democratic-aligned groups spent money in more than a dozen Republican primaries, and six of their preferred candidates won congressional or gubernatorial primaries leading to Democratic victories in the general election. Primary election influencing isn’t new, but the Democratic Party took it up a notch in 2020.

And in recent years, members have capitalized on the partisan primary dynamics to raise money.  A member of the House can raise significant amounts of money by making controversial, often outrageous public statements and posting these remarks on social media. Consider the case of Rep, Matt Gaetz. He has repeatedly used the timing of his public statements to send fundraising solicitations to donors. As reported in The Hill, during his recent “motion to vacate” Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Gaetz used his statements and the extensive media coverage to solicit contributions. Republican Rep. Garret Graves criticized Gaetz for using the vote to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as a means to fundraise online for himself, and not fellow Republican lawmakers. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace also criticized the actions of Gaetz. In January 2023, Mace supported McCarthy’s efforts to become Speaker. At that time, she criticized Matt Gaetz for fundraising off his efforts to prevent McCarthy’s election. In a January 8, 2023, statement, Mace said on CBS’s Face The Nation,  “Matt Gaetz is a fraud. Every time he voted against Kevin McCarthy, he sent out a fundraising email.” She added:  “What you saw last week was a constitutional process diminished by those kinds of political actions.”

However, just nine short months later, Rep. Nancy Mace made a complete reversal. Mace joined 7 other Republican members in voting to oust McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and she sent out a fundraising message to supporters shortly after. In a divided America that leans heavily on the outcomes of partisan primaries, members of Congress can be rewarded for divisive confrontation rather than problem-solving…for grandstanding rather than governing. 

Partisan primary elections grew out of public concerns during the Progressive Era in the early 1900’s. They were seen as a vast improvement to the backroom deals previously used for political candidate appointments. But over time, the process became distorted. The examples cited here indicate that even the distortions are becoming distorted. The current partisan primary dynamics diminish the effectiveness of all elected officials. 

So, are there any concrete actions that legislators and citizens can take to restore integrity to our electoral process? Actually, there are. In Wisconsin, a good place to start is enacting Final Five Voting legislation. This fall, companion bills, SB 528 / AB 563 have been introduced which will authorize using the Final Five Voting approach for U.S. Senate and House elections.

Here is a little background about Final Five Voting. There are two parts to the process. First, it uses an open primary that allows the top five primary vote recipients to advance to the general election. This approach dramatically reduces the likelihood that an incumbent official will be primaried for seeking bipartisan solutions to complex problems. It also means that larger numbers of voters will have more choices in the general election. Secondly, in the general election, the candidate who receives more than 50% of the vote is elected. However, if no candidate reaches the 50% level on the first round, an instant runoff approach (often called ranked choice voting) is used to determine the outcome. In each round of this runoff, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and any voter who had that candidate as their first choice has their vote transferred to their second-choice candidate. The process is repeated until a winner is chosen by a true majority of voters. Since second-choice votes are important, this process benefits candidates who avoid mud-slinging. 

What is so good about this process? Let's take a look at a version of Final Five Voting (called Final Four Voting) was adpted in Alaska in 2020. The results were very encouraging. In federal races, voters elected a moderate Republican Senator (Lisa Murkowski), a moderate Democratic Congressional Representative (Mary Pelota) and a Trump-endorsed Governor (Mike Dunleavy). Meanwhile, in developing the state budget in 2022, 17 out of 20 state senators and senator-elects banded together to form a bipartisan majority coalition. The process for adopting the budget was described as smooth compared to the contentiousness of years past. An article in The Hill describes the positive outcomes with a similar model that is successfully in place in Alaska.

Election runoffs are not new. Several states, such as Georgia and Louisiana, already use a separate runoff election for the top two vote getters if no candidate achieves 50% of the vote.  Of course, these runoff elections can be extremely expensive and divisive. But using the Final Five Voting process, voters know that if their first choice doesn’t win, their vote automatically counts for their next choice instead. This frees voters from worrying about how others will vote, and which candidates are more or less likely to win.  

Twenty-three Wisconsin legislators are the initial co-authors or co-sponsors of the Final Five Voting legislation. There is an eleven/twelve split between Republicans and Democrats. Co-authors in the Senate are Jesse James (R-Altoona), Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick), Rob Cowles (R-Green Bay) and Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit). Co-authors in the Assembly are Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), Daniel Riemer (D-Milwaukee) and Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc). For more information, including suggestions for lending support, contact democracyfound.org.

The Final Five Voting legislation in Wisconsin isn’t perfect. As introduced, it will apply to the elections for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, not state legislative positions. But it is a huge step in the right direction.

For a simple explanation how Final Five Voting works, check out this short video.

Bundling Election Messaging

October 2023

“This entire season boils down to one word, bundle home and auto” ...Jake from State Farm.

The September 2022 Marquette poll showed that nearly one in three Wisconsin citizens did not believe the 2020 election results were accurate. That’s an astonishing number considering the laborious post-election recounts in Milwaukee and Madison verifying the results. In addition, a comprehensive study by conservative law firm, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), affirmed that the election outcomes were, in fact, correct.

So why is there still a refusal to believe the 2020 election results by so many Wisconsinites? First let’s recognize that we have had periods in U.S. history when there was significant doubt about the correctness of elections outcomes. The outcome of the presidential election in 2000 was decided by an incredibly small margin in Florida...a key swing state with sufficient electoral college votes to swing the presidency for either candidate. The comprehensive statewide election recount found problems with  “hanging chads” on the ballots which cast aside some votes that should have been counted. Nonetheless, five weeks after the November 7th election, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sufficient recounting had occurred and George W. Bush was declared the winner. Bush won Florida's electoral votes by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost six million cast (0.009%). This left a lot of voters questioning whether election rules were manipulated to favor the Republican candidate.

In 2016, there was much speculation that the election of Donald Trump was influenced by backroom election interference by Russia. In response a Green Party-funded recount was held in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin election results were validated. But at the national level, questions remained about election interference. Robert Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department to serve as Special Counsel to investigate the possibility of Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. After a thorough investigation, the well-known Mueller Report did not find sufficient evidence of Russian collusion. These actions did not alter the outcomes of the voting results.

So, can we conclude that citizen doubts about the 2020 election results were like those in 2000 and 2016? Well, no. First let’s recognize that both parties use political positioning to maximize election outcomes in their favor. A few examples of positioning include gerrymandering, ballot harvesting, dark money campaign contributions and rules which may suppress voter turnout. For the most part, political positioning activities operate within the gray areas of the law. Much of the battle in politics involves  “working” the rules and laws that involve political positioning. If political positioning is determined to violate certain laws (e.g., a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court), the activity may be legally altered or barred, but criminal penalties are almost unheard of.

This is not the same thing as election fraud. Specifically, the Election Crimes Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice provides advice and guidance on five types of election crime: 1) voting fraud, such as vote buying and absentee ballot fraud; (2) campaign finance crimes, including those under the Federal Election Campaign Act; (3) patronage crimes, such as political shakedowns and misuse of federal programs for political purposes; (4) frauds affecting elections, such as fraudulent fundraising schemes, including scam-political action committees or scam-PACs; and (5) criminal violations of federal voting rights statutes on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion. Fraud violations of these specific crimes can result in severe penalties, including incarceration.

While election fraud significantly differs from political positioning, many elected leaders and party supporters describe both under the umbrella term, election fraud. As an example, the comprehensive and thorough Wisconsin election analysis by WILL found very few incidents of fraud as defined by the Elections Crimes Branch. They acknowledged this in their final report. However, they also identified several political positioning activities (expanded use of ballots boxes, Voting in the Park in Madison, for example) that were deemed unfair to Republicans. They also, incorrectly, labeled these activities in their final report as fraud.

Furthermore, while there was citizen doubt about the integrity of the 2000, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the 2020 election differed in that it was fueled by widespread accusations of fraud by elected leaders. These statements were made repeatedly despite recounts and numerous legal challenges that validated the results. Actual instances of fraud were isolated and had no impact on the presidential election results or the outcomes. But to many voters, widespread accusations of fraud was interpreted as evidence of government negligence in enforcing laws against election crimes. History has shown that when people in leadership positions repeatedly put forth a message, people will believe it, whether it is accurate or not.

In the current political environment, it’s become a practice to refer to all election process issues (criminal behavior as well as political positioning) as fraud. I am reminded of the messaging in the insurance ads which promise us that we will save money by bundling our auto and home insurance. Elected leaders recognize that bundling sells. Bundling election fraud and political positioning under the label of election fraud will get more voter response. Voters should inform elected leaders that they know better.

It's Not Easy To Be A Unifier

September 2023

For the first time, 13 Presidential Foundations and Centers across the United States have issued a joint statement regarding the future of our nation and an urgent call to action for all Americans. The George W. Bush Presidential Center is joined by fellow presidential centers and foundations to reaffirm our commitment to the democratic values on which this country was founded. The following message is at the heart of the joint statement: “Each of us has a role to play and responsibilities to uphold. Our elected officials must lead by example and govern effectively in ways that deliver for the American people. This, in turn, will help to restore trust in public service. The rest of us must engage in civil dialogue; respect democratic institutions and rights; uphold safe, secure, and accessible elections; and contribute to local, state, or national improvement.” In other words, we are being challenged to be unifiers rather than dividers.

In today’s political climate, it is difficult to be a unifier. In many ways, the stage is set for conflict rather than collaboration. “Most notably, the nation came together following the 9/11 attacks,” Rachael Larimore of the Dispatch Weekly commented. “It’s unfortunate it took such a horrific tragedy for Americans to come together two decades ago. What’s even more unfortunate is that, if a similar tragedy happened today, I’m not confident Americans would respond the same way.” Consider the remarks of Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee from the latest episode of his “Huckabee” program on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. He stated, “Do you know how political opponents to those in power are dealt with in third-world dictatorships, banana republics and communist regimes? The people in power use their police agencies to arrest their opponents for made-up crimes in an attempt to discredit them, bankrupt them, imprison them, exile them or all of the above. He added that the 2024 election may be the last decided by “ballots rather than bullets” if former President Donald Trump does not win. These remarks underscore the importance (and urgency) in the statement made by the 13 Presidential Foundations and Centers.

In a Wisconsin State Journal article by Richard Kyte, Director of the Reinhart Center for Ethics in Leadership, he reflected on the importance of building trust. He stated, “Communities with high levels of trust are comprised of people who enjoy working together and know how to do it. Communities with low levels of trust have people who undermine one another or who refuse to collaborate because they are pursuing their own interests. They believe defeating their opponents is more important than achieving their shared goals.” But trust-building will not occur if people isolate in separate camps. With Rick Kyte’s permission, we are sharing his experience which was included in the article. 

Several years ago, I was asked to serve on a local council tasked with reducing the jail population. The jail was over capacity, and the county board did not want to approve an addition to a structure that had just been completed a few years before. The council was comprised of some citizen representatives, some county board members and several criminal justice professionals, including judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers. Even though nobody was formally affiliated with a political party, those with conservative leanings would sit on one side of the table and those with liberal leanings on the other. When anybody from one side proposed a strategy, the other side would oppose it. We met at 7 a.m. every two weeks for six months and accomplished nothing at all. Then somebody had the brilliant idea of bringing coffee and doughnuts to the meeting. Instead of everybody walking straight over to their usual seat at the table, folks would gather around the doughnuts and end up talking to whoever happened to be standing next to them. They would have conversations about how their children or grandchildren were doing in school, where they had traveled over the summer, how their gardens were growing. Sometimes they would wander over to a couple of open seats and continue their conversation. After a few weeks I noticed during the meeting that right- and left-leaning council members were scattered randomly around the table, and because it was no longer quite as evident whether proposals were coming from the “right” side or the “wrong” side, they were listening to each other a little bit more. Over the following months we began to make slow but steady progress, reducing the jail population by improving the intake process, reducing courthouse delays and eliminating ineffective programs. Neither side won the debate; instead, we got rid of the sides and just started to focus on fixing the problem.

This story is insightful. In a politically divided climate, people may initially feel uncomfortable interacting with people from the “other side”. Or they may simply gravitate to associate with others who appear to be like minded. However, with encouragement (as in the story, sometimes rather simple), people can shift their thinking from political ideology to problem solving.

Elected leaders, for good or bad, are role models. In the tense world of politics, it can be easy for elected leaders to lose focus beyond the next election. Bridge-building (even involving simple statements and gestures) can be presented as wrong, even treasonous. Many elected leaders choose to be silent about the growing divisiveness. Yet, in terms of potential outcomes, their silence can be deafening. One could argue that both the Presidential Foundations and Centers and former Governor Huckabee share real concerns about the future of the American democratic republic. However, there are real differences. One is appealing to Americans to follow their better angel. The other is blaming political opponents for whatever may transpire. The Presidential Foundations and Centers earn a green light for their public statement. Former Governor Huckabee earns a red flag for his public remarks

Two States on a Different Path

July 2023

The November 2022 election was emblematic of the choices being made by two states…Alaska and Wisconsin. Of course the two states are different in terms of history and culture. Yet both are operating under the pressure of the growing partisan political divide. Due to differing circumstances, the 2022 election offered some hope that the two political parties might be able to cooperate. Let’s see how that played out in developing and approving the state budgets in the respective states in 2023.

In Alaska, the Final Four Voting (FFV) model went through it’s inaugural election in November. Alaskans elected a variety of officials under FFV: a center-right U.S. Senator (Republican Lisa Murkowski), a center-left U.S. Representative (Democrat Mary Peltola) and a Governor backed by Donald Trump (Republican Mike Dunleavy). Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the two houses, as they have through most of the state’s history. The first true test of FFV came this spring in adopting the state’s budget. In a May 26, 2023 editorial in the Anchorage Daily News, they expressed, “Alaska’s budget, which passed the Legislature last week, was a classic political compromise, with a smaller divided check than many would have liked but larger spending on education and other public goods the state clearly needs. Nobody got everything they wanted, but half a loaf beats nothing at all. While normal politics is usually nothing to celebrate, it does seem like a step forward after the past few years. The return to normalcy was based around the resurrection of cross-party coalitions in both the Senate — the key mover in budget negotiations — and the House. Compromise came before party loyalty. In the Senate, Republicans joined with Democrats to form a strong supermajority caucus. In the House, 19 Republicans formed a coalition with two independents and two Democrats, marginalizing some of the more extreme voices in the chamber.”

The FFV model has been touted for providing a disincentive for hyper-partisanship. Elected leaders who are willing to compromise with the other party are less likely to by “primaried” in the FFV open primary model. This seems to be the case in Alaska. The priority policies for both political parties remain. It’s just that there is a broader range of options available in working for those priorities in the FFV model.

Compare this to the dynamics in Wisconsin. As a result of the November 2022 elections, Tony Evers was re-elected as Governor, while both the State Senate and Assembly remained solidly in Republican hands. The results appeared to reflect the sentiment of voters. As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, voters wanted to see the legislature and Governor work together. In fact, following the election, it appeared that was the direction things were going. In late November 2022, Wisconsin's top Republican leaders said that for the first time in two years they're talking to Governor Tony Evers and hope to end the ongoing stalemate between the Legislature and governor's office, the impasse that voters voiced frustration with in the mid-term elections.

As the budget approval process progressed in Wisconsin in early 2023, there were signs of compromise with shared funding for local governments and education. Nonetheless, there remained significant points of difference when the legislature passed the state budget in June 2023, most notably regarding an income tax cut and a $32 million funding reduction for diversity equity and inclusion programs in the University of Wisconsin System. The Senate passed the budget on a nearly party-line vote, with no Democrats in support. The Assembly rejected all Democratic amendments before passing the budget on June 29 by a 63-34 vote along party lines.

Governor Evers signed the budget bill on July 5th. There were a number of major items with bipartisan support, including increased funding for local governments and increased funding for public education. However, the Governor made a number of line-item vetoes in the process, not without controversy. The line-item veto practice is allowed by law in Wisconsin and has been used by other Governors in prior years. The GOP version of the budget aimed to cut income taxes by $3.5 billion across all three tax brackets, including the state's wealthiest residents. Evers vetoed the proposed cuts for the state's top two income tax brackets while preserving the cuts to the bottom. To the dismay of Republicans, this  reduced a potential $3.5 billion tax reduction to $175 million. Evers was not able to line-item veto the Republican-led $32 million cut to the UW System budget aimed at eliminating programming related to diversity, equity, and inclusion at the state's 13 universities. However, Evers' veto leaves the 188.8 positions associated with DEI intact. Evers said the budget still provides "an opportunity for the UW System to retain the $32 million in this final budget." Thus, the positions may be funded. However, in order to receive the $32 million in funding, the University System must provide a plan to focus the effort on workforce development, subject to approval by the Republican-dominated Legislative Joint Finance Committee. Evers also surgically used his veto pen to extend increased education funding commitments for 402 years. The governor did so by striking the number 20 and the hyphen from "2024-25" in budget documents to get to the date 2425. In defending his action, Evers pointed to a similar action taken by his predecessor, Scott Walker.

The net result is a state budget that, because of the final days and hours of the budget-development process, left a bad taste in the mouth for both parties. Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos claims he is preparing to sue regarding the budget vetoes made by Governor Tony Evers earlier this week, WISN reports. Vos says the governor had lied over promises made during private budget negotiations, regarding both education funding and the shared revenue agreement. Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August on Evers' vetoes said, "It will be difficult, if not impossible, to ever negotiate with this governor again in the future.” 

So how do the two states compare overall? Both Alaska and Wisconsin were able to complete the budget approval process on time. And both budgets included major items with bipartisan agreement. Beyond that, there are sharp differences. In Alaska, the budget development process involved several cross-party coalitions. As stated in the Anchorage Daily News, compromise came before party loyalty. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, initially, there was increased communication between the legislature and the Governor when compared to the prior budget process. But the increased communication did not result in the "give and take" of a bipartisan agreement. Notably, it did not reduce mistrust, setting the stage for a contentious 2023-24 legislative session. Consequently, there is a “hangover effect” that will likely resurface in future legislative situations. The Alaska Governor and State Legislature gets a green light for their efforts to incorporate FFV in order to promote bipartisan collaboration. Meanwhile, there are red flags for the Governor and legislative leaders in Wisconsin for their failure to seek models such as FFV in order to more effectively work together.

The WEC and the Heavy Lifting of Ethical Leadership

June 2023

It is difficult to serve in a leadership role if one is to lead with integrity. This statement is valid in any situation but perhaps even more so for leaders in the political arena. A Pew Research study seems to bear out that statement. They found that clear majorities of Americans are confident their fellow citizens will act in a number of important pro-civic ways. This includes reporting serious local problems to authorities, obeying federal and state laws, doing what they can to help those in need and honestly reporting their income when paying taxes.

However, this level of confidence does not extend across all civic activities. It drops down dramatically as soon as politics enters the scene. The response of U.S. adults are mixed on whether they can count on fellow Americans to accept election results regardless of who wins: 53% express “a fair amount” or “a great deal” of confidence that others will accept the results, while 47% say they have “not too much” or “no confidence at all” that others will accept the election outcome. The study also showed that 57% of the respondents questioned whether citizens cast informed votes in elections. And 67% reported that they believe ethics in government is a very big problem. Given these indicators, it seems that elected leaders and government officials do not have the benefit of starting out in their role with a clean slate, in terms of public trust. And with each subsequent action taken, the cloud of public mistrust adds weight to their votes or decisions.

Consider the situation that is unfolding with the oversight of elections in Wisconsin. Meagan Wolfe is the Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), serving as the state’s Chief Election Official. Meagan was appointed by the bi-partisan, six-member Commission in February of 2018 and unanimously confirmed by the Wisconsin State Senate in May of 2019 for a four-year term. Her term ends on June 30, 2023. 

The WEC is a six-member commission with three Democratic appointees and three Republican appointees. The administrator and WEC staff make recommendations to the commission based upon an analysis of the best available information. A majority vote is needed in order to enact any modifications to election practices. The split nature of the commission may seem ripe for political gridlock. Yet by all indicators, the election process in Wisconsin is well organized and operates with integrity. With 1851 local municipalities, the primary role of the WEC is to provide guidance and technical assistance to local election officials. In both the 2020 and 2022 elections, the conditions were politically charged and challenging. In fact, following several recounts and audits in 2020, there has been no evidence of voter fraud or tampering, other than a very small number of isolated cases. The elections were well run. Despite this, the work of the WEC has been criticized and almost all of the criticism has been directed to the non-voting Administrator, Meagan Wolfe.

In a June 27th meeting, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted on the renewal of Meagan Wolf’s term. All six members of the commission verbally agreed that Wolfe was highly qualified and successfully led the agency through some of the most contentious years for election officials. They also agreed that her tenuous status as administrator was a result of her being the face of the agency during a time when former President Donald Trump's false claims about the 2020 election had created a community of election deniers. Here’s where politics enters the picture. The commission deadlocked 3-3. The 3 Republican appointed members voted to renew, while the 3 Democratic appointed members abstained. It certainly appears that the eyes of all commission members were on the next steps in the process…and the 2024 election.

Let’s look at some of the things that apparently were going on behind the scenes. Note there are several scenarios on hand. Under scenario one, if the commission approved renewal for Wolfe, her position must then be ratified in the Republican controlled Senate, where there is strong opposition. As reported in ProPublica Democrats are suspicious that the Republican-led Senate will not renew Meagan Wolfe in any case.

Because the commission failed to vote for renewal, a second scenario seemed likely. Under state law, the commission has 45 days after the expiration of Wolfe’s term to choose a new administrator. If it’s unable to do so, the responsibility passes to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Organization (JCLO). The JCLO is made up of the majority and minority leadership of both houses, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R). The committee can select an interim administrator to serve for up to one year or until the Senate confirms someone permanently. If the position is still vacant after a year, the process starts over with another commission vote. 

However, a third, untested scenario is unfolding. Let’s call it’s the Prehn scenario. Should Republican lawmakers move to appoint a new administrator while Wolfe is still working, Democrats would almost certainly file a lawsuit arguing there is no vacancy to fill based on a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that sided with Frederick Prehn, a former Natural Resources Board chairman who decided to stay in his position nearly two years after his term expired. In abstaining on the vote on Wolfe's reappointment, all three Democrat appointees, the presumed strongest supporters of Wolfe, cited the Prehn decision as the basis for their abstentions. Should the Democrats pursue the Prehn scenario, it will certainly be tested in court, where their prospects might be better than in the Legislature. ”I will take my shots with the court rather than at the Senate,” said Democratic Commissioner Mark Thomsen. It should also be recognized that both political parties have options within each scenario.

Those in a leadership role clearly understand that it is not possible to please everyone. The nature of the leadership role is to provide direction and make decisions. This is the heavy lifting of ethical leadership. In the effort to bring people together and direct efforts toward the common good, many times these actions will be unpopular and, as evidenced by the Pew Research study, viewed with mistrust. However, at times, the actions of leaders will also carry the weight of the flaws in the system. Without question, serving as the WEC administrator is a challenge given the split makeup of the commission. It is particularly challenging in these hyper-partisan times. Based upon the commission’s action, Wolfe will remain as administrator, presumably until the issue is settled in court. Immediately following the June 27th WEC vote, Wolfe told reporters, "We are in unprecedented territory. I have a very clear intent here − and that is to make sure that our commission, our agency, our local election officials, that they have the stability they need as we move forward”. 

Meagan Wolfe is a talented and effective leader. Yet because of the political dynamics, her position is in limbo until one of the scenarios fully unfolds. In any case, it is likely that she will land on her feet. Meagan Wolfe earns a green light for her performance as Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Rebuilding Trust in Media

May 2023

Sadly, public trust in media has decreased as the political divide has increased. When any institution suffers a loss in trust, it can have a devastating impact on the institution. Yet the challenges facing the media differ somewhat from other institutions because of the ongoing reciprocal relationship to the political system.

As long as the nation is severely divided politically, the media faces an uphill climb to restore trust.

How steep is the climb? Let’s look at some of the recent studies. A collaborative research study by Gallup and Knight Foundation of 20,000 Americans highlights some of the reasons for the underlying distrust in media. This is a very comprehensive study and readers are encouraged to check out the full report. Among their findings:

•Sixty-eight percent of Americans say that it is a “major problem” that they see too much bias in the reporting of news that is supposed to be objective.

•Many Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (52%) or making them up entirely (28%).

•Nearly 3 in 4 Americans (74%) say the news organizations they distrust are trying to persuade people to adopt a certain viewpoint.

•16% say news organizations are trying to report the news accurately and fairly but are unable to do so.

•Nine percent of Americans say distrusted media are trying to ruin the country.

Despite these conclusions, the study respondents also recognized the importance of the news media. The vast majority of Americans (81%) stated that, in general, the news media is “critical” (42%) or “very important” (39%) to democracy. And large majorities say it is “critical” or “very important” for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports (88%), ensure Americans are informed about public affairs (88%) and hold leaders accountable for their actions (82%). 

Research by Trusting News reinforces the challenges faced in rebuilding trust in media. Trusting News conducted an 8-week study in the summer of 2022. Journalists from nine partner news organizations conducted 76 interviews with people in their communities. In addition to the community interviews, 76 follow-up journalist surveys were logged, and 43 follow-up community surveys were completed. Finally, a focus group of journalists was held.

There was consensus among conservatives and liberals regarding the overarching goal…they want the media to “report the facts, neutrally.” And there was general agreement that journalism was essential for democracy and also for healthy communities, but not in its current form. Despite the similarities, there were differences between community members who identified as conservatives or liberals. Conservatives want reporters to stop reporting content about Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ communities and identities, and other “liberal” topics. They want reporters to stop using politicized phrases and report “just the facts.” Liberals, on the other hand, want more context and background incorporated into coverage, especially of marginalized communities. They want reporters to call out politicians who are lying or being racist, etc., and to play a role in helping communities solve problems. They too want  “just the facts.”

The process used in the Trusting News study was insightful as well. It was determined that simply listening to community members who don’t trust you helps to build trust. In the community member follow-up surveys, 23% reported that their feelings about journalism in general changed for the better, 86% said they felt a sense of trust building with the reporter or the news organization after the conversation, and 28% were considering subscribing.

The Trusting News study led to the development of Trust Kits, a self-guided training tool. Trust Kits are intended to offer journalists and news organizations step-by-step guides for how they can demonstrate credibility and actively earn trust as independent news sources. Their goal is to break down big trust-building strategies into actionable steps designed to improve transparency and credibility with the news audience. The kits focus on nine areas: ethics, explaining coverage, listening, earning trust with sources, opinion, transparency, explaining sourcing, reporter mission statements and corrections. Furthermore, it is expected that the content in the Trust Kits will grow and evolve over time. It is an impressive endeavor. It should be noted that the Trust Kits do not strive to turn around the image of news media at the national level. But they can make a difference at the local level. They can give journalists helpful tools to better navigate the political divide. They emphasize listening, transparency and connecting with people with diverse perspectives, and have earned a green light for their efforts.

In writing about independent journalism, A.J Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times, stated, “Independence asks reporters to adopt a posture of searching, rather than knowing. It demands that we reflect the world as it is, not the world as we may wish it to be. It requires journalists to be willing to exonerate someone deemed a villain or interrogate someone regarded as a hero. It insists on sharing what we learn—fully and fairly regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be.” These words may seem to be a tall order given today’s political climate. The media and the political world are inextricably intertwined. But that is all the more reason why it is important to take steps forward, like the Trust Kits. Indeed, there are parallels between independent journalism and promoting ethical leadership for elected officials. Both require a commitment to do the heavy lifting toward meeting established principles, be it the words of Sulzberger or the commitment to the four principles of truthfulness, transparency, unification and full representation of constituents.

In the words of Marty Baron, former executive editor of the Washington Post, “Failure to achieve standards does not obviate the need for them. It does not render them outmoded. It makes them more necessary.” 

One U.S. City Cut Gun Violence in Half

April 2023

Few issues can generate more controversy than gun violence. I recently received the following unsolicited social media message, “Is anyone working locally on this crazy gun problem we have in our society? It is such a major issue, and it is hurting the soul of our nation.” By all appearances, this message seemed to be an effort to reach out to anyone, anywhere, with some hopeful information.

Gun violence is a major issue in the United States. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have already been 13,169 gun violence deaths nationally in 2023, as of April 24th. This number includes 80 children ages 0 to 11. These are staggering statistics! Tragically, across the country, communities and political leaders are gridlocked on the issue of reducing gun violence.

Despite these alarming conditions, one city...Omaha, Nebraska...has made significant progress at reducing gun violence incidents. A diverse city of a half million residents, Omaha is quite literally making measurable progress while much of the rest of the country is moving in the other direction. The city's effort is called Omaha 360. The initiative started in 2009 by the Empowerment Network, an organization comprised of nonprofits, neighborhood associations, churches, and local law enforcement. Omaha 360 focuses on addressing the immediate threats of gun violence as well as underlying issues that contribute to it. Community engagement is key. Omaha 360 partners meet weekly to review crime statistics and to discuss upcoming issues and conditions to help develop preemptive actions. They also emphasize reentry strategies for offenders as a key component in breaking the cycle of violence. Local law enforcement officers admitted that there was skepticism at first. Community engagement was a key component and they wondered if interest would wane over time. In looking back, they also realized that it would take learning on their part, to embrace new practices aimed at breaking the cycle of violence. Ultimately, they recognized that the community engagement indeed sustained. At the same time, they began to embrace the change in the culture in law enforcement. 

The Omaha numbers speak for themselves. The number of shooting victims in the city stood at 246 in 2009. in 2022, that number was 121. During that same timeframe, the number of shooting incidents dropped from 191 to 90. These results caught the attention of leaders in other U.S. cities, and several are involved in early conversations about adopting this model.

Indeed, the Omaha story provides hope. Cities can move beyond blaming and denial, toward a safer community. But given the political divisiveness surrounding the issues of gun violence, there are challenges as well. Communities planning to adopt the Omaha model should perhaps start with an initial review of these questions.

Can your community effectively collaborate in these politically divided times? Collaboration isn’t easy, even in the best of times. It is worth noting that Omaha 360 began in 2009. As shown in the studies by the Pew Research Center, this was just before the dramatic widening of the political divide in the United States. The increased political divisiveness we are seeing today has an added effect… reduced trust, a key element in resolving issues at the local level. This means that collaborative efforts on tough issues such as reducing gun violence may be harder today for those communities looking to get started.

Can your community embrace a comprehensive approach? As reported in ABC News, Thomas Abt of the Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction at the University of Maryland stated, “The country is not facing just one gun violence problem. It is facing at least four…. everyday community violence, domestic and intimate partner violence, mass shootings and suicide.” His point is that we cannot afford to get bogged down debating simple solutions. Furthermore, there is a cloud of misinformation surrounding the issues of gun violence. Jumping to simple solutions in this murky environment doesn’t work. The proposed actions tend to get mired in the political debate. Omaha 360 uses a comprehensive, measurable approach based upon the review of crime statistics and other community data. If other cities seek to adopt the Omaha model, they will need to take steps to first address the cloud of misinformation in their community, then work for broad-based buy-in for a comprehensive approach.

Can your community demonstrate the persistence needed to get results? The Omaha model has been at it for more than 14 years. Law enforcement and community leaders have been meeting weekly for that entire time. They initially did not see a significant reduction in gun violence during the first three years. Yet they persisted. By the sixth year, the numbers of gun violence incidents and victims were reduced dramatically. The lowest gun violence levels were in 2017, 2018 and 2019. It is worth noting that the incidents of gun violence in Omaha began to increase during the pandemic, as they did elsewhere in the country. But they did not rise anywhere near the former levels. And they are now trending downward again. Conditions evolve. Community actions must adapt over time with the changing conditions.

If this seems like this is a lot of work, it is. But it is also important to keep in mind, that most communities face other challenging issues as well. Using the thoughtful approach demonstrated by the Omaha model can set the stage for depoliticizing other issues at the local level...and getting results. In a politically divided time, just getting started can be daunting. The hopeful news is that while national and state solutions on tough issues such as gun violence may seem out of reach, cities like Omaha have demonstrated that they can accomplish real results.

Read more about their approach in ABC News, One city cut gun violence in half and may become a model around the country. Omaha, Nebraska, has seen a marked decrease in shootings.We award a green light to city leaders for working with community leaders to develop Omaha 360, which focuses on addressing immediate threats of gun violence as well as underlying issues that contribute to it. 

For good or bad, elected leaders are role models

March 2023

I recently heard about a friend who was reluctant to go to a community program on politics because she didn't want to  “enter a room filled with anger, hostility and a climate of distrust”. Not every program about political issues deteriorates to this state, but sadly, many do. By their words and actions, elected leaders who fail to act as ethical leaders may create or, at a minimum, contribute to the climate of hostility and distrust.

How much do we know about the impact of ethical leaders in politics? Not as much as we’d like. A recent study, Can Ethical Political Leadership Restore Public Trust in Political Leaders? was designed to understand how ethical leadership practices can restore public trust in political leaders. Conducted in the United Kingdom, the study used in-depth interviews with 121 political leaders from 65 local election districts. The study found that an ethical political leader not only sets a good example of behavior but can set the tone for other elected officials. Additionally, they are better situated to challenge those who do not behave ethically and encourage and support those who do. They concluded that with ethical leadership, the level of public trust in political leaders is likely to gradually increase.

So why are we looking at a research study in the UK? Because there are so few studies on ethical leadership in politics in the United States. As pointed out by author, Karin Lasthuisen,  “While research on ethical leadership in organizations has proliferated over the last decades, specific attention to the complexities involved in such leadership in the public and political realm remains surprisingly limited.”

Does this mean we don’t have ways of determining the impact of ethical leadership in the political arena in the U.S.? While we could certainly benefit from further study, I think we have some solid indicators. The Sienna College Research Institute is considered to be the most reliable source for ranking the U.S. presidents. They have been conducting a ranked analysis of the U.S. presidents since 1982 using 20 criteria within the overall categories of attributes, abilities, and accomplishments. Two of the 20 criteria are integrity and the ability to compromise...key characteristics of an ethical leader. It is not surprising that Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington were ranked highly in these two categories. Former president Jimmy Carter ranked second only to Abraham Lincoln in integrity. The other criteria lowered Carter ’s overall ranking. His job performance during a time of high inflation, compounded by the Iran hostage crisis, led to Carter being included among the one-term U.S. presidents, ranking 24th overall. But ethical leadership practices are a significant factor because they impact other criteria and overall ranking. Joining the one-term presidents group, former president Donald Trump was ranked 43rd by Sienna, ranking 43rd in ability to compromise, and 45th in integrity.

Among elected politicians and candidates, there can be a reluctance to take an ethically sound but unpopular stand fearing the outcomes at the polls. Taking a difficult vote or compromising with the other political party can result in being voted out of office, often during the next primary election. For example, of the 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach former president Donald Trump in 2021, four lost in the primary election, four opted to retire and two were re-elected. Our partisan primary system, with its own set of problems, likely contributed to these outcomes.

Does this mean that an ethical leader must ultimately be willing to fall on the sword? Well, maybe. Elected leaders who stand on principle may choose a legacy of integrity as a better alternative than reelection based upon deceit. However, overall performance over time can overcome these dynamics. Consider the work of the CommonGroundCommittee.org, an organization that recognizes bipartisanship and elected leaders who seek points of agreement on social and political issues through listening and productive conversation. They publicly recognize elected leaders for serving as role models for good citizenship over a sustained period. As a four-term congressman, Mike Gallagher (R-WI) is rated well above average by the Common Ground Committee, the highest ranking among Wisconsin elected leaders. Rep. Gallagher is chairing the newly formed Select Committee on China, along with co-chair Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill). The two congressmen have successfully worked together in prior years. Recognizing that the Select Committee is just getting started, it is too soon to predict how it will go and what will be accomplished. Nonetheless, in the 118th Congress, considered by many to be primed for dysfunction, the Select Committee on China is projected to use a bipartisan approach to present actionable recommendations to the full House.

We need to encourage formal study of ethical leadership within the political process. It is a far better step than the finger pointing and blaming that leads to anger, hostility, and mistrust. It is a sad situation when people are afraid to participate in public discourse. The breakdown in trust puts us all perilously at risk. For now, the responsibility is ours. As a nation we must acknowledge and place value on the impact of ethical leadership within the political process and withhold support when it is violated. And it’s also important to publicly recognize ethical leadership in practice. We need to place emphasis on building trust within our democratic republic. That process can start by using the tools of good citizenship: to speak out, to contribute, to vote.

Is the Culture in the U.S. House Hopeless?

February 2023

Recent images appearing from the U.S. House of Representatives show a confrontational and dysfunctional culture. The Republican majority in the 118th Congress is slim, leading to Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s compromise agreements with members of the most extreme faction within the House. The priority of this faction appears to be conducting investigations into the President and various Departments, including Justice and Homeland Security. Most experts believe the prospects are slim for meaningfully legislation that will pass both the House and the Senate in 2023 and 2024.

Of course, hyper-partisanship and dysfunctionality in the House of Representatives is not new. Even though significant legislation passed in the 117th Congress, much was by slim partisan margins. However, there is a notable exception to these hyper-partisan dynamics. Consider the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress (referred to as the Modernization Committee). It was established by H.Res. 6 on January 4, 2019, and is tasked to investigate, study, make findings, hold public hearings, and develop recommendations to make Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent. There certainly was a need for serious work in this area. Many of the the practices under review were outdated and obsolete and, as such, costly and time-consuming. Nonetheless, there was reason to believe this committee would not achieve significant results. The last select committee created to reform Congress, which focused on budgeting, passed no recommendations by the time it ended in 2018. Expectations for the Modernization Committee were accompanied by a sense of realism.

Nonetheless, with the leadership of chair Rep. Derek Kilmer (D) and co-chair Rep. Tom Graves (R), the Modernization Committee got off to a good start. The twelve-member committee consisted of 6 Democrats and six Republicans. The members of the modernization committee did things differently than other Congressional committees, on purpose. They started the session with a bipartisan planning retreat, which almost never happens in Congress. Rather than having separate staffs for Democrats and Republicans, they hired one bipartisn staff team. That meant they started with twice as much staffing capacity, and everyone was rowing in the same direction. The committee made good progress in their first two years. 

Then came the January 6th assault on the U.S. Capitol. This was a low point for the committee. The breach of the Capitol was a traumatic event for the members. Many Democrats refused to work with any of the 147 Republicans who had voted against certifying the election results — three of whom were on the Modernization Committee, including the new Republican vice chairman, William Timmons (S.C.). As reported in a Washington Post article by Amanda Ripley, after a long conversation that involved tequila, Kilmer and Timmons decided to confront the fracture directly. Because they felt the only way out of this difficult conflict is forward. On March 20, 2021, the committee members met for a confidential conversation (on Zoom because of the pandemic) about what they had experienced on Jan. 6 and how it was affecting their ability to work together. In a break from tradition, outside facilitators helped moderate the process. The moderated session brought out the personal, human side of the January 6th events. And it helped to restore the functionality of the committee. Once they resumed meeting, they adjusted the room layout and operating rules to encourage roundtable discussion. They scheduled periodic meals together and established joint gathering spaces for committee members. As a committee, they were back on track.

Once their planning work was completed, the Modernization Committee chose to not only focus making recommendations, but to also assist with implementation efforts. This has allowed the committee to make progress on 132 of the 202 recommendations passed in the 116th and 117th Congress. This includes 45 of which have been fully implemented and 87 that have been partially implemented. Based upon their work, the full House acted twice to extend the committee until January 2023. It is now officially expired. The success of the Modernization Committee is a story of transparency and functioning as a team of unifiers.

What about the 118th Congress?

As previously stated, the 118th Congress got off to a rocky start. But there may be an opportunity for one prominent committee to make bipartisan headway. The new select committee on China may be worth watching. Republicans and Democrats on the panel say it could be the one bright spot of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress brimming with partisan bickering. The China committee ’s two leaders — Chair Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., and ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill. — are setting the tone early, identifying areas where they say they can expect to find bipartisan agreement on policy and legislation. The following are among the committee’s priorities: spotlighting human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party; devising a strategy to reduce U.S. dependence on China; making investments in artificial intelligence, robotics and other new technology to compete with China; and investigating the alliance between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi have had a history of working together since they both arrived in Congress in 2017. That year, the two teamed up to launch a new jobs caucus, and they have served alongside each other on the House Intelligence Committee. 

The work of the Modernization Committee is encouraging. They tossed out some of the traditional practices that generally reinforce partisan competitiveness and mistrust. They were even able to overcome one of the most traumatic occurrences on Capitol Hill…the January 6th assault…and bring about significant results. Chairman Kilmer and Co-chair, Timmons and all of the members of the Modernizatiin Committee have earned a green lightfor serving as unifiers in a divided political climate. The Select Committee on China is new and untested in the partisan dynamics of the 118th Congress. It appears that they are framing their work to bring about results. We will be watching their work closely in the year ahead.

Is Gerrymandering Ethical?

January 2023

Is gerrymandering an ethical practice? It is an interesting question. The U.S. Constitution requires that legislative and congressional districts get redrawn at least once every 10 years using new census data to guarantee equal representation. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment clarified this, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently upheld this practice. This means that as nearly as is practicable, one person’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s. Gerrymandering is a term coined after the actions of Elbridge Gerry, a Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. He also served as governor of Massachusetts and signed the bill creating the misshapen state senate district designed to benefit his political party. Many contend that the practice of gerrymandering is undemocratic. However, the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling determined that gerrymandering for political party advantage cannot be challenged in federal court. The states are responsible for the redistricting process and for the determination of a process that meets the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Essentially, though the U.S. Constitution requires equal representation in numbers, based upon census data, it is silent on equal representation based upon political party preferences.

It is not surprising that the term gerrymandering is considered a partisan practice and a hot topic by both political parties. The LeaderEthics organization held a seminar in 2022 on the topic of Gerrymandering. The speaker was from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. It was an information session focusing on national practices. The speaker explained that, nationally, both political parties practice gerrymandering, however the process is much more complex and sophisticated given today’s technology. He demonstrated that you cannot just look at a map and determine a fair or gerrymandered district. Meanwhile, a Wisconsin state legislative staff member contacted one of the event sponsors (a business organization), criticizing them for sponsoring a “political” event. To their credit, the sponsor responded stating that the LeaderEthics organization, and their programs, are nonpartisan.

The State of Iowa uses a non-political model for the redistricting process, which is a variation of what is called fair maps. Within the legislative branch there is the Legislative Services Agency, a nonpartisan entity. The law directs the agency to draw maps with equal population being the primary consideration. There are other factors, including respect for political subdivisions, contiguousness, and compactness. However, what makes Iowa unique is that political factors are specifically excluded. Districts cannot be drawn to favor any political party or an incumbent. Data concerning incumbents’ addresses, their party affiliation, the party affiliation of voters, and previous election returns are excluded. 

Wisconsin maps are drawn by the legislature and the Governor. Political factors and voting patterns are very much included in the process. If the legislature and the Governor are in the same political party (as was the case for Republicans in 2010), the maps favor the party in power. It should be noted that in 2009, Democrats had majorities in the State Senate and Assembly and held the Governor’s seat. Nonpartisan redistricting legislation was proposed. Democratic Party leaders took a pass on approving the legislation, expecting to maintain the ‘trifecta’ in 2010 and thus overseeing the redistricting process. They were wrong. Instead, Republicans swept the 2010 elections by narrow margins and held the sole authority for re-drawing the legislative maps.

Does a redistricting process such as used in Iowa mean there will be balance between the two political parties? That may not be the case. Consider the situation with statewide elections in Iowa. In 2008, 52 counties voted blue. Yet in 2022, Iowa had only 5 counties that voted Democratic, primarily those in and adjacent to Cedar Rapids and Des Moines. As of January 18, 2023, The Republican Party holds the Governor's office, the State Senate, the State House and all 4 U.S. Congressional seats. Even with a fair map system, demographic changes are a factor.

Changing demographic voting patterns are also a factor in Wisconsin. Consider the second-term election results for two Democratic Governors, Jim Doyle and Tony Evers. Doyle received 52.7% of the vote in his 2006 re-election bid. Evers received 51.1% of the vote in his 2022 re-election. Though the margin for victory in the two elections was remarkably close, Doyle carried 47 counties, while Evers carried only 16 counties. In short, in the last decade and a half, most rural counties shifted to vote Republican, while larger cities overwhelmingly voted Democratic. 

There are also important trends in sub-population areas. For example, the overall population in Wisconsin grew by 9.7% between 2000 and 2020. At the same time, the Latino population grew by 126%. Latino strategists and advocacy groups say both parties are still missing the mark. They argue that the Democratic and Republican campaigns both continue to treat Latino voters like a single voting bloc, failing to recognize their individual and community-based concerns. Meanwhile, in 2022, the suburban shift in favor of Democratic votes is continuing. The so-called WOW counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington) still tend to vote Republican yet are no longer considered to be an impenetrable Republican stronghold. 

Should states like Wisconsin adopt the Iowa Model? The answer is yes. Gerrymandering is inherently divisive and lacks transparency. It employs a “winner takes all” approach that can disenfranchise half of the population. Meanwhile, a fair maps model will support legislators who focus on responsive legislative policy rather than political gamesmanship. The 2009 non-action by Democrats in Wisconsin serves as a reminder that political leaders should not take the needs of their constituents for granted. As demonstrated in Iowa, the fair maps model will not necessarily mean that partisan shifts in voting patterns will not occur. Our population needs and preferences change over time. But fair maps will allow legislators to keep their focus on the people they represent. And that is the ethical thing to do.

Lee Rasch