Month: June 2024

Abstract

Wealthy citizens have influenced public debates and the political process in the United States in many ways, for example through donations or campaign finance. Philanthropy is viewed increasingly as another vehicle of more indirect elite influence. Although institutionally designed to stay above the partisan fray, philanthropy has increasingly been politicized over the last decades against the backdrop of growing partisan polarization. The conservative side in particular has consolidated influence through conservative foundations, think tanks, and new tools of giving such as donor-advised funds. Climate change is one issue in which conservatives have pushed skeptical views and disinformation over the last decades. Conservative actors backed by philanthropic activity have shaped public discourse according to climate-skeptic views and have worked to block political action on climate change while also forming global networks and practices across the Atlantic. While trying to retain the image of academic research and political neutrality, right-wing European think tanks are spreading climate change disinformation, often with connections to their American counterparts and with the support of American conservative donors and foundations. Overall, this paper argues that parts of the philanthropic sector in the United States have abandoned early notions of public charity in order to pursue considerable societal and political goals under the guise of philanthropic activity that provides tax benefits and the image of political neutrality. This paper builds on research that shows how much the interests of the wealthy are reflected in political decision-making in the United States (Bartels 2008; Page, Bartels, and Seawright 2013; Gilens and Page 2014), dark money debates in U.S. politics (Mayer 2017; Oklobdzija 2019), and discussions around the role of philanthropic foundations in a democratic society (Reich 2013, 2018).

Abstract

Since Donald Trump’s presidency and the diverse efforts to undermine the transfer of power after the 2020 election, the risks of extreme polarization and democratic backsliding in the United States (US) have been highlighted in the literature. Yet the epistemic dimension of these developments remains underresearched. Embedded in a genealogical Foucauldian governmentality/counter-conduct approach, this contribution addresses the puzzle of how election denialism and related (violent) anti-system activity are being rationalized, legitimized, and anchored in political subjectivities as efforts to ‘protect’ American democracy. This perspective allows to inquire into liberalism’s authoritarian potential that can be mobilized through different forms of counter-conduct. The study analytically disentangles these forms based on their prime targets, modes of operation, and the forms of knowledge they rely on. Focusing on the swing state of Arizona, the empirical analysis furthermore highlights the role of the subnational level in interlinking counter-conduct and (autocratizing) governmental practices in a federal system. Conceptually, the study renders visible a profound struggle over the epistemic foundations of the current liberal constitutional and political order that clearly transcends the issue of the 2020 election, Donald Trump, and even the context of the United States. Indeed, similar patterns of subjectivation and counter-conduct can also be detected for example in Germany. Moreover, this paper expands the scope of the concept of counter-conduct to study radical right-wing contestations and related questions of epistemic (in)justice. It thereby seeks to encourage debate on how political science can address the pluralization and polarization of contents, standards, and forms of knowledge as they become relevant to democratic backsliding.

Abstract

This descriptive study sought to explore how child welfare agencies and community partner organizations experienced and adapted service provision for immigrant children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed with 31 child welfare agency practitioners and community partners in 11 states who work with immigrant clients or on immigration related policies within the child welfare sector. Data were coded and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Results: Findings documented ongoing immigration-related fears in accessing services due to the anti-immigrant climate as well as increased scarcity of resources and basic needs stressors among immigrants served by the child welfare community during the pandemic. Results also identified child welfare systemic and structural barriers to accessing needed case supports for immigrants, in addition to innovative practice and policy adaptations to meet immigrant needs during the pandemic.

COVID-19 created overwhelming challenges for already overburdened immigrant families at risk of or involved with the child welfare system. Child welfare agencies should foster collaborations with immigrant-serving community organizations who can share information and resources about COVID-19, immigration enforcement, and vaccine distribution. Agencies should adopt policies for tele-visiting that support transnational participation in virtual family visits and court hearings to create more equitable opportunities for reunification and permanency.