To the Editor:
I broadly agree with the points made in Andrew J. Seligsohn’s op-ed, “Which Pro-Democracy Initiatives Work? Philanthropy Has No Idea” (May 14). It would indeed be helpful to know if there are any effective solutions to the existential threats facing democracy and to then direct funding to those solutions. However, I strongly disagree when he writes that “neither outcome of [the 2020 election] could have solved the problems facing our democracy.”
As a longtime fundraiser in the public policy field, I take issue with the false equivalency Seligsohn creates between two very different election outcomes. He is correct that the solution to the problems facing democracy did not lie in the results of that election. But he also completely glosses over the fact that one outcome ensured that for now the Republic stands, while the other came with no such assurances.
As an immigrant, woman, and mother of a daughter, one outcome came with an explicit existential threat, which we unfortunately face again. For many working at pro-democracy organizations, this current election isn’t an abstract thought exercise about ideals but a very real fight for the country’s future.
I would be delighted to have empirical data to prove to potential grant makers that their investments will yield results. But as Seligsohn himself notes, the stakes are too high to wait for perfect evidence, if indeed it even exists. I can only hope that such research might still be useful in 2026, 2028, and beyond.
Aoife Toomey
Director of Development
DEMOS