Mediaboss Marketing

Thanks to millennials, socially responsible investing is now a big deal.

Investment funds dedicated to sustainable investing rose 33% during 2014-16 to $8.72 trillion, says the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.

Millennials no doubt played a big role in this. More than 70% of them say they favor sustainable investing, according to Morgan Stanley. Its a trait they picked up from their baby-boomer parents.

This is all well and good, but many sustainable investing devotees, young and old, have a blind spot that needs fixing. Blame it on the so-called experts in the industry.

They make a big deal of avoiding fossil fuel companies and polluters. The environment isnt the only thing that needs minding. We also need a sustainable democracy. Without that, it doesnt matter how clean the environment is. Life could get ugly.

And make no mistake, sustainable democracy is at risk. No, this isnt another Donald Trump rant. Democracy was precarious before he came into office.

A key turning point was in 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled against government restrictions on corporate political spending in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Since companies have deep pockets, their interests may trample those of average voters.

In short, its hard to say which did more harm, Citizens United or the Gulf oil spill, as baby boomer Jackson Browne wrote in his song The Long Way Around.

Whatever you think about Citizens United, its not going away soon. The best thing to do now is to learn how to contain the potential damage. For socially responsible investors, this means favoring companies with these three traits in the arena of campaign contributions:

Political spending transparency

Policies governing how they donate

Strong board oversight of managements campaign contributions

Above all, these qualities help shareholders understand how companies are contributing to politicians. If investors disagree, they can sell their shares or challenge boards of directors and management. Openness and board oversight help prevent managers from secretly going rogue with campaign contributions that work against shareholder values.

All of this seems fairly obvious. So its odd that the sustainable investing experts often put little emphasis on investing in sustainable democracy.

A list of sustainable investing themes from Arabesque Asset Management, which you can find in this note, appears comprehensive. It includes 30 topics of interest everything from carbon emissions and community relations, to diversity and CEO pay. What about political campaign contributions and investing in sustainable democracy? Nowhere to be seen.

In a way, this isnt surprising, since definitions of sustainable investing are all over the map.

The first stop for investors wanting to invest in sustainable democracy is the Center for Political Accountability (CPA) website. CPA examines the websites of S&P 500 SPX, -0.33% companies to gauge whether they have 24 qualities that CPA says companies need in the realm of campaign contributions. The big picture is that CPA is looking for the three qualities I mentioned above: transparency, policy and board oversight.

CPA then ranks S&P 500 companies on a scale of 0-100. You can find a spreadsheet with rankings here. This ranking serves two purposes:

It tells you as an investor which companies are doing the right thing. Its a handy guide to investing in sustainable democracy.

The rating system also pressures companies to change their ways if they arent up to snuff.

It is pushing companies to more broadly disclose their political spending and political spending policies, where no disclosure is required by law, says Bruce Freed, CPAs president and founder. There are a growing number of companies that take our index seriously that are looking to strengthen the way they oversee and disclose political spending.

A big question for investors is whether sustainable investing hurts performance. One theory says it should help. Consider companies that are more responsible because they are more transparent and they take the long view on matters like the environment. They may also naturally make wiser long-term business decisions and attract more customers because of good will.

Research results vary. Arabesque Asset Management claims 80% of academic studies found the stocks of companies with good sustainability practices outperform other stocks. Morningstar thinks social impact funds gained about 5% annually in the past 10 years, lagging behind other funds by about a percentage point a year.

Morgan Stanley seems to be in the middle, concluding in this note that sustainable investments have usually met, and often exceeded, the performance of comparable traditional investments.

I think investing in a sustainable democracy may well give you an edge, for two reasons.

1. Better governance

I had a hunch that companies ranking high in CPAs system also have solid corporate governance, which can work in your favor as an investor. So I asked Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) to help check. ISS assigns companies a corporate governance rating, called ISS QualityScore, based on four factors: board structure and independence, executive pay policies, shareholder rights, and audit and risk oversight.

Heres what we found. The top 48 ranked companies in CPAs system (those with a score of 90% or higher) had a median corporate governance risk rating of 4 on the ISS 1-10 scale, where a lower score is better. The bottom 48 companies, which all got a 0% rating from CPA, had a median ISS rating of 7.5. (A higher ISS score is worse.)

This makes sense, because companies that are generally more open and transparent with shareholders tend to get better governance scores, says John Roe, head of ISS Analytics. But he also cautions the sample size is too small to draw definitive conclusions on whether CPA scores are a proxy for governance scores.

2. Better results

To test how youd do if you used CPAs system as a sustainable democracy investment guide, I looked at how well CPAs top 48 companies did against the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF RSP, -0.45% I chose this ETF because I used a simple equal weighting of the companies, so this ETF is the fairest comparison. (In contrast, the S&P 500 Index that most people track uses a market-cap weighted system. This means that smaller companies have a smaller impact on overall index returns.)

The results are remarkable.

CPAs top 48 stocks beat the market by 7 percentage points over the past three years. From the start of 2011 through Feb. 21 of this year, CPAs stocks returned 41.5% compared with 34.3% for the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF. (For reference, the market-cap-weighted S&P 500 Index did a little better. It advanced 36.1%. But the CPA stocks still beat that.) All returns include dividends.

One pushback on my performance test might be that the CPAs list of top-ranked companies may have over-represented companies in sectors that just happened to do well during that time frame. So I looked at a different time frame, the past five years. The results were even better. CPAs top 48 stocks beat the market by 20 percentage points. They advanced 133.3% vs. 113.3% for the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (and 108.9% for the market-cap-weighted S&P 500 Index).

Some of the best-performing stocks in this group, in either time frame, included: Bank of America Corp. BAC, -0.75% Morgan Stanley MS, -0.56% J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM, -0.95% Visa Inc. V, +0.17% Altria Group Inc. MO, +0.01% Time Warner Inc. TWX, -0.65% Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +0.03% Boeing Co. BA, -0.69% Becton Dickinson & Co. BDX, -0.11% Celgene Corp. CELG, -0.11% Edwards Lifesciences Corp. EW, -2.69% and Tesoro Corp. TSO, +1.14%

Some of the weaker performers included: International Business Machines Corp. IBM, +0.23% Coca-Cola Co. KO, -0.71% Qualcomm Inc. QCOM, +0.02% Praxair Inc. PX, +0.11% Schlumberger Ltd. SLB, +0.02% Gilead Sciences Inc. GILD, -0.89% Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. BMY, -0.51% Express Scripts Holding Co. ESRX, -2.14% Noble Energy Inc. NBL, +0.27% and Exelon Corp. EXC, -0.69%

Before you conclude that my mini-study proves you can do well by doing right, as the clich goes, a few qualifiers are in order. Statisticians would point out that theres no attempt to tease out what caused the performance difference. Correlation does not equal causation. The sample size is small. And there are only two time frames.

Plus, my test for outperformance against a rising market might be the wrong way to look at this. Heres what I mean. Lets assume Im right that CPA scores are a way to measure corporate governance. The nuance here is that quality corporate governance is really better at suggesting possible protection against downside risk, as opposed to outperformance, says Roe, the head of ISS Analytics.

Even if investing in sustainable democracy didnt help you outperform the market, does this really matter?

After all, if socially responsible investing is about putting money into the stocks of companies that share your values, then maybe its OK to give up some gains in the process. People give up money and time whenever they donate to charities or volunteer. There is a cost to those activities. But its offset by the benefit of knowing you might be improving the world. Why should investing be any different?

A lot of millennials seem to agree with this. Over half of them in the Morgan Stanley study I cited above said they get it that sustainable investing may involve some trade-off in financial gain yet they are some of the biggest fans of this style of investing.

At the time of publication, Michael Brush had no positions in any stocks mentioned in this column. Brush has suggested BAC, JPM, CELG,KO, GILD and BMY in his stock newsletter, Brush Up on Stocks. Brush is a Manhattan-based financial writer who has covered business for the New York Times and The Economist group, and he attended Columbia Business School in the Knight-Bagehot program.

More:
Now there's a way to invest and save democracy at the same time ... - MarketWatch

FBI Director James Comey is asking the Justice Department to publicly refute President Trumps unsubstantiated claims that former President Obama ordered Trumps phones be wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign. FBI Director Comey, President Obama and others have all rejected Trumps allegations, which he first made during a tweet storm on Saturday. Trump began by tweeting "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" He went on to tweet, "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!" Trump has called for a congressional investigation and the White House is standing by the allegations, even though it has not provided evidence to back them up. This is Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaking to Martha Raddatz on ABCs "This Week" Sunday.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: "Look, I think hes going off of information that hes seen that has led him to believe that this is a very real potential. And if it is, this is the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power that I think we have ever seen and a huge attack on democracy itself. And the American people have a right to know if this took place."

It appears the "information" Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders is referring to is a Breitbart article that has been circulated within the White House. The article draws on a Thursday report by the far-right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who claimed without evidence that Obama submitted a request to the secret FISA court to tap Trumps phones at Trump Tower. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, say they have seen "no evidence" supporting these claims. This is California Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi: "This is called a wrap-up smear. You make up something, then you have the press write about it, then you say everybody is writing about this charge. Its the tool of an authoritarian, to just have you always be talking about what you want them to be talking about."

The Intercept reports that, as President of the United States, Trump has the power to declassify surveillance recordsmeaning if his wiretapping claims were true, he could prove it immediately.

More here:
At Oklahoma Capitol, Muslim Students Asked if They Beat Their Wives - Democracy Now!

Its been said that winning entities -- whether sports teams, warring countries or business rivals -- share one overriding characteristic: they minimize their serious errors. An occasional misstep along the way perhaps, but they rarely beat themselves with a critical unforced error.

Certainly, Bostons two highest-profile sports teams have displayed opposite sides of that trait: for decades the hapless Red Sox would find a way to snatch defeat from the virtually-certain jaws of victory, from Johnny Pesky inexplicably holding the ball allowing the Cards to win the World Series in 1946, to no defensive replacement for Bill Buckner against the Mets in 1986, to leaving Pedro in against the Yankees too long in 2003 when it was obvious to everyone that he was out of gas. The Patriots, on the other hand, always seem to find a way to win, defying the odds time after time and making all the clutch plays. They hardly ever commit grievous mistakes that doom their effort. Talk to the great golfers and theyll tell you the same thing: Its not scoring eagles and holes-in-one that count, its the avoidance of the disastrous double and triple bogeys that makes for a winning round. Not so much getting the 2 on a Par 4 as it is avoiding the 7. In boxing, they say, Dont fight the other guys fight. Dont hook with a hooker.

Minimize the errors. Avoid the mistakes. Play or fight smart. War is no different --the winning side is usually the one that commits fewer major blunders.

This is instructive as we look at Germany and Britain in the early stages of World War II. War in Europe erupted on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Poland fell within weeks and after a quiet winter period known as the Phony War, Germany resumed large-scale hostilities in the spring of 1940. German forces smashed through the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium and swung around to invade France from a point behind its main defensive eastern border with Germany.

With German forces slicing through the French countryside, France found itself in grave danger of quick defeat. The British sent military aid to France (The British Expeditionary Force or BEF), but it was a lost cause. The French -- despite their world-leading military efforts against Germany in World War 1 (1914-1918) -- showed no real interest in fighting for their homelands survival this time, and French resistance quickly collapsed. By the end of May 1940, the Germans had pushed French, British, and other Allied forces to the French coastal town of Dunkirk. There, virtually the entirety of the European Allied armed forces were cornered and defenseless, awaiting destruction at the hands of German Panzer divisions.

However, using sports analogies again, Germany 3-putted. They dropped the game-ending pop-up. They missed the gimmie 20-yard winning field goal. They let the Allied armies escape largely intact, as Britain organized an unlikely, heroic boatlift and carried nearly 400,000 soldiers off the beaches and safely back to England. Confusion and political infighting on the Germans side over what forces to use and how best to attack led to one of historys greatest military unforced errors. With a decisive victory easily within their grasp, the Germans let it get away. And almost a half-million Allied soldiers lived to fight another day.

Still, the big-picture war situation for Britain was dire. They stood alone against Germany and a very substantial portion of their equipment had been abandoned on the beaches of Dunkirk. A final, conquering German invasion of England was sure to come, probably by fall 1940.

But before a sea-launched invasion could take place, Germany would need to establish air superiority over southern England, destroy their major logistical and defensive targets and reduce the effective fighting strength of the Royal Air Force (RAF) to the point where it didnt pose a major threat to German invasion forces.

The German air offensive against Britain that began in the summer of 1940 is known as The Battle of Britain. All of Western society and culture as we have come to know it depended on the outcome of this battle. Had Britain lost, the world would be in a completely different condition today. Very, very few large-scale armed events from the last 50-75 years -- not Stalingrad in 1943, Korea 1950-53, Vietnam 1964-75 or Iraq in 1991 -- carried anywhere near the same everything in Western culture will change instantly potential as did a British loss to the Germans in 1940.

Unlike the Pacific, where it could be convincingly argued that Americas inherent structural advantages over Japan in raw materials, industrial capability, and matriel would eventually prevail, no such absolute guarantee could be made for the West vs. Germany, especially absent the logistical staging/launching point that the actual physical island of England represented. Germany had immense industrial capability, very advanced technology and unfettered access to crude oil reserves, crucial to sustaining long-term military operations.

Therefore, without Britain, a continued European war against Germany mighthave provenimpossible -- hence the significance of the immediacy of Britains survival.

Germany began its air operations in July 1940. Even though its Heinkel 111, Dornier 17, and Junkers 88 bomber aircraft were better-suited for tactical close-support missions than the longer-range strategic responsibilities they were being tasked with here, the Germans could have accomplished the goals set before them had they followed a sound strategy.

Broadly stated, those responsibilities were:

This was all well within Germanys equipment and technical capabilities at the time. Initially, they followed the anti-fighter base strategy and it was effective. British commanders privately worried amongst themselves that Fighter Command would not remain an effective fighting force much past late summer of 1940 if German attacks continued apace. But the Law of Unforced Military Errors intervened and Britains fighter force -- the Wests lifeline -- was spared virtually certain destruction.

Rivals: British Supermarine Spitfire I and German Messerschmitt BF109 E-4

For reasons still not entirely clear to historians, Germany abruptly switched its tactics from attacking British fighter airfields and instead began bombing British cities. Some people have put forth the theory that the Germans mistakenly bombed London in late August, causing the British to retaliate by bombing Berlin on August 25th. The Germans, not realizing their navigational error that led to them bombing London, thought that Britain was initiating a war on their cities, so they responded in kind.

Others posit that Hitler, accustomed to very fast victories early in the war and growing increasingly impatient with the slow progress of the air campaign that was dragging on for months, wanted to switch tactics. They say he felt that bombing British cities would break the will and spirit of the British public and cause them to pressure their government into surrender in order to stop the destruction and civilian casualties.

Regardless of the actual reason, the Germans did change their tactics from a game-winning strategy to a game-losing one. With the pressure off their airfields, British fighter strength recovered. Technical and performance shortcomings of German bombers (such as short range/limited time-over-target and inadequate, small bomb loads) were exacerbated, since the large cities were farther away (forcing the Germans to trade bombs for added fuel) and the small bomb loads limited the amount of truly serious damage that could be inflicted.

British fighter strength increased. German losses mounted. The amount of strategic damage inflicted by the Germans that curtailed the Brtis ability to actually wage an effective defensive war was markedly reduced. Although tragic, the air attacks on London increased the British publics resolve to keep fighting.

By the late fall of 1940, far from having established air superiority in preparation for an invasion of Britain, the Germans had been fought into a bloody stalemate. Numerical fighter losses on each side were roughly equal. German tactics and bomber aircraft had been exposed as woefully inadequate for the task. A likely winning starting strategy to the battle was switched for no militarily sound reason partway through the conflict, and Britain survived.

And so too, arguably, did Western culture and democracy as we know it today.

Its been said that winning entities -- whether sports teams, warring countries or business rivals -- share one overriding characteristic: they minimize their serious errors. An occasional misstep along the way perhaps, but they rarely beat themselves with a critical unforced error.

Certainly, Bostons two highest-profile sports teams have displayed opposite sides of that trait: for decades the hapless Red Sox would find a way to snatch defeat from the virtually-certain jaws of victory, from Johnny Pesky inexplicably holding the ball allowing the Cards to win the World Series in 1946, to no defensive replacement for Bill Buckner against the Mets in 1986, to leaving Pedro in against the Yankees too long in 2003 when it was obvious to everyone that he was out of gas. The Patriots, on the other hand, always seem to find a way to win, defying the odds time after time and making all the clutch plays. They hardly ever commit grievous mistakes that doom their effort. Talk to the great golfers and theyll tell you the same thing: Its not scoring eagles and holes-in-one that count, its the avoidance of the disastrous double and triple bogeys that makes for a winning round. Not so much getting the 2 on a Par 4 as it is avoiding the 7. In boxing, they say, Dont fight the other guys fight. Dont hook with a hooker.

Minimize the errors. Avoid the mistakes. Play or fight smart. War is no different --the winning side is usually the one that commits fewer major blunders.

This is instructive as we look at Germany and Britain in the early stages of World War II. War in Europe erupted on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Poland fell within weeks and after a quiet winter period known as the Phony War, Germany resumed large-scale hostilities in the spring of 1940. German forces smashed through the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium and swung around to invade France from a point behind its main defensive eastern border with Germany.

With German forces slicing through the French countryside, France found itself in grave danger of quick defeat. The British sent military aid to France (The British Expeditionary Force or BEF), but it was a lost cause. The French -- despite their world-leading military efforts against Germany in World War 1 (1914-1918) -- showed no real interest in fighting for their homelands survival this time, and French resistance quickly collapsed. By the end of May 1940, the Germans had pushed French, British, and other Allied forces to the French coastal town of Dunkirk. There, virtually the entirety of the European Allied armed forces were cornered and defenseless, awaiting destruction at the hands of German Panzer divisions.

However, using sports analogies again, Germany 3-putted. They dropped the game-ending pop-up. They missed the gimmie 20-yard winning field goal. They let the Allied armies escape largely intact, as Britain organized an unlikely, heroic boatlift and carried nearly 400,000 soldiers off the beaches and safely back to England. Confusion and political infighting on the Germans side over what forces to use and how best to attack led to one of historys greatest military unforced errors. With a decisive victory easily within their grasp, the Germans let it get away. And almost a half-million Allied soldiers lived to fight another day.

Still, the big-picture war situation for Britain was dire. They stood alone against Germany and a very substantial portion of their equipment had been abandoned on the beaches of Dunkirk. A final, conquering German invasion of England was sure to come, probably by fall 1940.

But before a sea-launched invasion could take place, Germany would need to establish air superiority over southern England, destroy their major logistical and defensive targets and reduce the effective fighting strength of the Royal Air Force (RAF) to the point where it didnt pose a major threat to German invasion forces.

The German air offensive against Britain that began in the summer of 1940 is known as The Battle of Britain. All of Western society and culture as we have come to know it depended on the outcome of this battle. Had Britain lost, the world would be in a completely different condition today. Very, very few large-scale armed events from the last 50-75 years -- not Stalingrad in 1943, Korea 1950-53, Vietnam 1964-75 or Iraq in 1991 -- carried anywhere near the same everything in Western culture will change instantly potential as did a British loss to the Germans in 1940.

Unlike the Pacific, where it could be convincingly argued that Americas inherent structural advantages over Japan in raw materials, industrial capability, and matriel would eventually prevail, no such absolute guarantee could be made for the West vs. Germany, especially absent the logistical staging/launching point that the actual physical island of England represented. Germany had immense industrial capability, very advanced technology and unfettered access to crude oil reserves, crucial to sustaining long-term military operations.

Therefore, without Britain, a continued European war against Germany mighthave provenimpossible -- hence the significance of the immediacy of Britains survival.

Germany began its air operations in July 1940. Even though its Heinkel 111, Dornier 17, and Junkers 88 bomber aircraft were better-suited for tactical close-support missions than the longer-range strategic responsibilities they were being tasked with here, the Germans could have accomplished the goals set before them had they followed a sound strategy.

Broadly stated, those responsibilities were:

This was all well within Germanys equipment and technical capabilities at the time. Initially, they followed the anti-fighter base strategy and it was effective. British commanders privately worried amongst themselves that Fighter Command would not remain an effective fighting force much past late summer of 1940 if German attacks continued apace. But the Law of Unforced Military Errors intervened and Britains fighter force -- the Wests lifeline -- was spared virtually certain destruction.

Rivals: British Supermarine Spitfire I and German Messerschmitt BF109 E-4

For reasons still not entirely clear to historians, Germany abruptly switched its tactics from attacking British fighter airfields and instead began bombing British cities. Some people have put forth the theory that the Germans mistakenly bombed London in late August, causing the British to retaliate by bombing Berlin on August 25th. The Germans, not realizing their navigational error that led to them bombing London, thought that Britain was initiating a war on their cities, so they responded in kind.

Others posit that Hitler, accustomed to very fast victories early in the war and growing increasingly impatient with the slow progress of the air campaign that was dragging on for months, wanted to switch tactics. They say he felt that bombing British cities would break the will and spirit of the British public and cause them to pressure their government into surrender in order to stop the destruction and civilian casualties.

Regardless of the actual reason, the Germans did change their tactics from a game-winning strategy to a game-losing one. With the pressure off their airfields, British fighter strength recovered. Technical and performance shortcomings of German bombers (such as short range/limited time-over-target and inadequate, small bomb loads) were exacerbated, since the large cities were farther away (forcing the Germans to trade bombs for added fuel) and the small bomb loads limited the amount of truly serious damage that could be inflicted.

British fighter strength increased. German losses mounted. The amount of strategic damage inflicted by the Germans that curtailed the Brtis ability to actually wage an effective defensive war was markedly reduced. Although tragic, the air attacks on London increased the British publics resolve to keep fighting.

By the late fall of 1940, far from having established air superiority in preparation for an invasion of Britain, the Germans had been fought into a bloody stalemate. Numerical fighter losses on each side were roughly equal. German tactics and bomber aircraft had been exposed as woefully inadequate for the task. A likely winning starting strategy to the battle was switched for no militarily sound reason partway through the conflict, and Britain survived.

And so too, arguably, did Western culture and democracy as we know it today.

The rest is here:
The Battle of Britain Saved Western Democracy - American Thinker

GERMAN PRESIDENT-ELECT Frank-Walter Steinmeier gives a speech after the first round of voting in the German presidential election at the Reichstag in Berlin last month. But are dark, undemocratic clouds gathering?. (photo credit:REUTERS)

It is now undeniable that Britains decision to leave the European Union and Donald Trumps election as president of the United States are part of a much broader global change. The coming to power of conservative right-wing governments in Hungary, Poland and the Philippines; the increased strength and influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin; the draconian steps taken by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, and the iron fist of President Abdel Fattah Sisi in Egypt are all part of this phenomenon. Israel can also be added to this ignominious list.

Eyes are now set on the upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany, in which rightwing candidates are set to gain strength or even control of the government.

The global rise of the Right poses a grave threat to liberal values, and in some cases could even lead to the collapse of democratic regimes. The process can be traced to the early 2000s, when, according to political scientist Larry Diamond, 27 democratic governments collapsed. Freedom House shows that in 2000, 63% of the worlds population lived under democratic regimes, but by 2013, this percentage dropped to 40%.

Scholars and journalists quickly labeled this the end of liberalism or the collapse of the global liberal order.

The reasons for this phenomenon are diverse: globalization, which made it possible for corporations to accumulate tremendous wealth at the expense of ordinary citizens and led to the loss of jobs due to factory relocations to cheap labor countries; the influx of millions of refugees to first-world countries, as a result of civil wars, unemployment and famine, has threatened traditional demographic divisions; and widespread terrorism has re-awakened deep-rooted fears and prompted isolationism.

These changes have had two main outcomes: first, hopes for strong regimes and charismatic leaders who can bring order and counter such threats. Second, a strengthening of local identities, whether through narrow-minded intolerant nationalism bordering on fascism in countries that enjoy territorial legitimacy (in the West), or through religious fundamentalism in others (in parts of Africa and the Middle East).

In retrospect, the outcome is not entirely unexpected.

Samuel Huntington, who analyzed the third wave of democracy in global history which began in the mid-1970s in Portugal and peaked with the collapse of the Soviet Union argued that each of the two previous waves of democratization was followed by a counter- wave: Between 1820 and 1922, 29 democracies were established. The counter-wave was initiated in 1922 with the rise to power of Benito Mussolini in Italy and continued in 1933 with the Nazi regime in Germany.

Democracys second wave began after World War II, and reached its peak in 1962. During that period, the number of democracies increased to 36. This, too, was followed by a counter-wave, between 1962 and 1975, reducing the number of democracies to 30 (while not a significant decline in absolute terms, this still was a 20% decline).

In democracys third wave, which began in Portugal in 1974 and ended in 1990, 30 more countries became democracies. According to Huntingtons analysis, the counter-wave to each wave of democracy was the result of anti-liberal and anti-democratic political, cultural and societal forces.

On the one hand, this approach offers some optimism, as the waves are related and a positive wave is expected to follow every negative wave. This approach is, however, beleaguered by two problems: first, based on the past, the transition from one wave to another occurs only after a devastating war (World War II) or revolution (the collapse of the Soviet Union). Should democracys fourth wave actually take place, it may likely begin only after a major catastrophe of as yet unforeseeable proportions. Second, there is no way to predict the duration of the current wave. In the past, counter-waves never lasted longer than two decades, but we are not even sure if the current anti-democratic wave, if it indeed commenced in the early 2000s, has even reached its peak. In any case, this counter-wave seems to be here to stay for the coming years.

These developments should rally all liberal forces from all parts of the political spectrum into action.

It would first be wise to recognize the enormity of the threat to liberal values, which until recently were considered universal values. Actions to confront these threats should be taken at the national level, but transnational coalitions are also necessary to defend a joint liberal, democratic vision. Liberal and democratic voices are everywhere, including Israel, and its high time that they start acting in concert. After all, even in the US, more than half of the votes in the recent election were cast for a candidate who represented an alternative worldview and not the worldview that won the elections. This, if you will, is an alternative fact, although in this case it is true. Being aware of these global trends is the first step toward mobilizing all the liberal forces in Israel, and the world at large, in order to ensure that the third counter-wave will become a transitional phenomenon.

The author teaches at the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a board member of Mitvim the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

The Shaked-Levin initiative

LETTERS:Pledge of allegiance

Next Article

See more here:
The third counter-wave to democracy and liberalism - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Despite these disagreements, Americans are relatively liberal compared to countries across the world, where the consequences for gay or transgender citizens are far more dire.

In Europe and here in the Americas, only a minority of people believe that homosexuality is never justified. The percentage increases in places like Russia, India and China. In Africa, the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia, attitudes become even more conservative.

Why are there such big differences in public opinion about homosexuality? My book, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality, shows that a key part of the answer comes in understanding how national characteristics shape individuals attitudes.

Within countries, a similar set of demographic characteristics tend to influence how people feel about homosexuality. For example, women tend to be more liberal than men. Older people tend to be more conservative than younger ones. Muslims are more likely to disapprove of homosexuality than Catholics, Jews and mainline Protestants.

Just like people, countries too have particular characteristics that can sway residents attitudes about homosexuality. I have analyzed data from over 80 nations from the last three waves of the World Values Survey, the oldest noncommercial, cross-national examination of individuals attitudes, values and beliefs over time. It is the only academic survey to include people from both very rich and poor countries, in all of the worlds major cultural zones. It now has surveys from almost 400,000 respondents.

My analysis shows that differences in attitudes between nations can largely be explained by three factors: economic development, democracy and religion.

Money matters

Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are some of the richest nations in the world. They are also some of the most tolerant. In sharp contrast, countries like Uganda and Nigeria are quite poor and the vast majority of residents disapprove.

How does the amount of money a country has shape attitudes? In very poor countries, people are likely to be more concerned about basic survival. Parents may worry about how to obtain clean water and food for their children. Residents may feel that if they stick together and work closely with friends, family and community members, they will lead a more predictable and stable life. In this way, social scientists have found that a group mentality may develop, encouraging people to think in similar ways and discouraging individual differences.

Because of the focus on group loyalty and tradition, many residents from poorer countries are likely to view homosexuality as highly problematic. It violates traditional sensibilities. Many people may feel that LGBTQ individuals should conform to dominant heterosexual and traditional family norms.

Conversely, residents from richer nations are less dependent on the group and less concerned about basic survival. They have more freedom to choose their partners and lifestyle. Even in relatively rich countries like the United States, some people will still find homosexuality problematic. But, many will also be supportive.

Regardless of how much money they make, most people living in poorer countries are likely to be affected by cultural norms that focus on survival and group loyalty, leading to more disapproval.

Freedom of speech

The type of government also matters. People living in more democratic countries tend to be more supportive of homosexuality.

Democracy increases tolerance by exposing residents to new perspectives. Democracy also encourages people to respect individuals rights, regardless of whether they personally like the people being protected.

Freedom of speech also allows residents to protest and not be arrested. When residents feel that they can freely express their ideas, they become even more inclined to speak up for themselves and others. This leads to more tolerance.

Dominant religious views

The final factor shaping individuals attitudes is religion. Countries dominated by Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy and those that have a mixture of conservative and mainline Protestant faiths are more likely to disapprove.

In contrast, nations dominated by mainline Protestant religions and Catholicism such as Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom are much more liberal.

Why are people from Muslim majority nations so opposed to homosexuality? Both Islam and conservative Protestant faiths generate high levels of religious belief. Most religious texts say that homosexuality is problematic. More religious people are more likely to take these religious precepts seriously. When a large proportion of people are highly dedicated to their religion, everyone within the country tends to develop more conservative views.

In these countries, the media are likely to reflect dominant religious views. Schools and businesses are more likely to support religious perspectives that disapprove of homosexuality. The government may censor the media so that they do not violate religious sensibilities. They may also restrict nonprofit organizations and human rights groups that promote views inconsistent with conservative religious values. Religious friends and family members are likely to reinforce anti-homosexual views.

Finally, there may not be any gay bars or other places to meet people with friendlier attitudes in these countries. Likewise, there may be limited internet access where residents could get more information about gay men and lesbians. In these countries most people are likely to disapprove, regardless of whether or not they are personally religious.

Are most nations becoming more liberal?

In 1996, there were only six nations that allowed for civil union or marriage. Seventeen years later, 43 nations allowed for it.

However, there has also been an increase in the number of nations that have a constitution or legal ban on homosexuality, indicating that there seems to have been a small backlash. These actions could be a reaction against the liberal legislation put in place in other countries.

As people across the world develop more liberal attitudes, many still disagree. Countries that are highly opposed to homosexuality tend to put in place policies and laws that reflect this disapproval.

While religion, economic development and democracy have a major role in shaping attitudes, the march toward greater liberalization is less straightforward than these factors alone would suggest.

Nations are embedded in a global context. Many countries located in Europe and North America were the first to become wealthy and democratic. Because they were the leaders, they were not subject to the pressure that currently up-and-coming countries now face from more powerful countries that led the way for gay rights.

Additionally, religion remains relevant, even in many rich societies, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and up-and-coming countries, like Egypt and South Africa.

Future changes in attitudes are likely to be complicated by international forces and the continuing significance of religion.

Eighty percent of the countries I examined are becoming more liberal. However, we cant assume that these changes will always be linear or simple. While weve seen a general trend toward more liberal views regarding homosexuality, there are likely to be hiccups along the way that affect how these different socioeconomic and cultural influences take shape nationally and across the world.

Amy Adamczyk, Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Read more:
Money, democracy and religion: Why some countries disapprove of homosexuality - Salon