Category: Ethics in Government

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, localism/locavore, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Open letter to the government of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts

Context: Residents of a tiny one-block street called Warfield Place have been fighting to preserve a line of beautiful cherry trees planted several decades ago. The city (pop. 28,726) has claimed  that the street needed to be redone and these trees are at the end of their useful life, while residents said the trees could easily survive for a few more years–and that many other streets with more traffic and worse infrastructure conditions deserved higher priority. Both sides have brought in arborists who support their positions. The residents recently brought in support from national leaders in the Buddhist community, and ordained the trees as Buddhist priests. Neighbors were actively negotiating with the city, as well as seeking help in the courts. Thursday morning, the city brought in heavy equipment and a large police presence and destroyed the trees.

For the numerous stories chronicling the controversy over the past several months, visit http://gazettenet.com and use the search tool at the top to look for “warfield place cherry trees” (nonsubscribers get five free articles per month). See more pictures of the trees in bloom taken by Shel Horowtiz (author of this open letter and owner of this blog) and protest signs at (20+) Facebook

A Warfield Place cherry tree in bloom, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
A Warfield Place cherry tree--close-up of flower, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
A Warfield Place cherry tree–close-up of flower, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
It was shocking to read in yesterday morning’s Daily Hampshire Gazette that the sacred cherry trees the community has fought so hard to preserve that it actually ordained them as Buddhist priests–the trees that hundreds of local residents and many others from farther afield, including several of national stature, signed petitions and joined protests and wrote letters to the editor to save–were torn down with no warning, even while the city was aware that a judge was considering a restraining order, and even while the city and the residents of the street were still negotiating.
The trees were murdered at 9:00 a.m. and the restraining order that would have prevented their untimely death was given at noon.
Why the rush? Why the need to act unilaterally when many people were willing to work out a solution that made sense for all parties: the city, the residents, and of course, the trees?
This is the legacy of Public Works Director Donna LaScaleia and Mayor David Narkewicz. All the considerable good work of the 10-year Narkewicz administration will not sustain its former reputation for progressive policies and fostering democracy. When people remember this adinistration, they will not remember how it stood against racism and for inclusion, how it was a champion of addressing climate change. Their memories will be rooted in this horrible and utterly avoidable incident.
It was an attack not only on these beloved trees, but an attack on democracy–on the ability of people to feel they have influence over their own lives, and their ability to have their concerns listened to, and, hopefully, acted on.
And it was also an attack on separation of powers in government; the city was aware that a judge was considering the injunction that was eventually granted (too late), but couldn’t be bothered to let that process play out.
And of course, removing living trees goes against the Narkewicz administration’s long-stated goals of mitigating climate change locally. Trees are far and away our most effective weapons against climate catastrophe.
I think what may have happened was a felt need to be right at all costs–not to admit that there could have been one of several other ways forward that would have had far more positive outcomes, such as:
  • Harnessing the neighbors’ considerable energy into a working committee that would actively participate WITH the Department of Public Works Director to develop solutions that worked for the city and the residents. Even if the ultimate outcome were the same, the residents would have owned it.
  • Moving Warfield Place off the calendar for a few more years until the trees died naturally, while adding plantings of newer trees so when that day came, the street would have a decent tree-canopy-in-process.
  • Redirecting the construction funds to a city block whose need for repair was undisputed.
This need to be right, to save face, culminated in an extreme wrong. The city engaged in a “process” that not only disenfranchised the Warfield Street residents, ending in a hostile unilateral action–it undermined Northampton’s reputation as a citadel of democracy, a place that values its citizens’ public discourse and involvement. This violation of residents’ real concerns makes it harder for the next administration to get people to even trust–let alone become involved in–city government. And the city has even created a construct where it faces accusations of a hate crime–even though Mayor Narkewicz spent so much of his decade as mayor creating a wonderful climate of acceptance and even embrace of diversity.
It’s very sad. It’s irreversible–the trees are gone, democracy was seriously weakened, and the city’s reputation is in tatters–and it was completely avoidable. I expected better of Northampton and am deeply disappointed.
While we can’t bring the trees back, and this action has done potentially permanent harm to Northampton’s civic virtue, it is still possible to atone. I ask in all seriousness: How, specifically, will the city make restitution? How will this administration restore confidence in the city? How will the city offset the negative climate impacts of the tree destruction? And how will the city make the residents and neighbors of Warfield Place whole again? It won’t be easy, especially this close to the end of this administration, but it has to be done, and done very soon. What exactly is the plan?
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, language, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Jews, who were forced away from Israel/Palestine more than 2000 years ago, have the “right of return” automatically. They can come and instantly claim Israeli citizenship, and the government helps them resettle–even offering intensive Hebrew language instruction. But Palestinians, who were only forced off their land in 1948, have no such right–even though some of those people are still alive and no one is more than four generations into the exile. Meanwhile, in many parts of the country, Palestinians can’t get building permits from Israeli authorities. “But they still need places to live. They still have children.” So they build illegally, and when Israel wants to up the repression, the government bulldozes these houses.

That inequity made CNN political commentator and journalist Peter Beinart (latest book: The Crisis of Zionism) very uncomfortable. As he struggled with the ethics of this inequality, he began learning more. Beinart is Jewish, has lived in South Africa, Israel, and the US,  and is very aware of the ethical teachings in classical Judaism about treating the stranger well, doing good deeds, being a good guest when you travel to others’ lands, and treating people fairly.

Over 200 people gathered on Zoom June 8, 2021 to hear Beinart discuss the prospects for peace and justice in the Middle East in a program for Critical Connections entitled “Palestinian Rights, Jewish Responsibility.” At least five rabbis were in the room, as were large contingents from both the mainstream and progressive Jewish communities. A number of Muslims were in the audience, as well.

Originally a supporter of two separate states, Beinart now sees that as impossible because of the ways the Israeli government has carved up the West Bank into “Bantustans” with Jewish settlements separating once-contiguous Palestinian areas. Instead, he has joined many Palestinian thinkers in calling for a single multiethnic state, sharing power, with parallel more-or-less autonomous governments for internal governance within each community, and offering equality for all.

Both Israelis and Palestinians would be safer with this model–just as South Africa is safer for whites as well as blacks, and Northern Ireland is safer for both Protestants and Catholics, he says. Once the dominant group gives up its total control and need to dominate, the oppressed group starts to get less hostile because the repression has eased off.

He says the late Israeli writer Amos Oz is wrong in calling for a “divorce” between Israeli and Palestinian society. “The marriage will not be easy. But it is essential.” And just as activists in the US have begun to make land acknowledgements to the indigenous people who had the land before Europeans, “acknowledgments and apologies [for past wrongs] have great healing power.”

Beinart took many tough questions, particularly from mainstream Jews worried about the security of Israeli Jews under that scenario.

  • On antisemitism from the Left: “We cannot deny that some on the Left are antisemitic–especially in recent weeks [during the exchange of bombs and rockets between Israel and Gaza]. All the Palestinian intellectuals and activists I know condemned those acts. But virtually all Palestinians will be anti-Zionist,” because Israel has dispossessed their families. It didn’t help that major Israeli statesmen made incendiary remarks. Abba Eban, for example, claimed that a return to the 1948-67 frontiers would be “Auschwitz borders.” Beinart made this distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism several times, and pointed out that the Palestinian statesman Edward Said was on record as appreciating the impetus behind Zionism–though not its effects on his people. Beinart also stood unequivocally against antisemitism from any source: “If Jews are being dehumanized, as Jews, we should speak up.”
  • On whether either side had a right to call the other fascist: He did not feel that Palestinians should see Jews as Nazis. But he also recognizes that there is a massive power imbalance and had strong criticism for those Jews who see Palestinians as akin to the Nazis: “If you see Palestinians as Nazis, you erase the moral responsibility of power. You frame it as survival, but the issue is denial of basic rights.
  • On how to negotiate in good faith: Both sides have made offers, but their offers were unacceptable to the other side. NNo matter how many offers have been tendered, they haven’t been able to reach common ground for a meaningful agreement so far.
  • On the safety of Israeli Jews in a single multicultural state and the danger of falling into Lebanon-style permanent civil unrest: Growing up in South Africa, he noted there was great fear among whites about what would happen when apartheid ended and blacks took power. South Africa is only about 10 percent white, while Israel/Palestine would be much more Jewish. Jews, he said, have enough economic privilege and enough political and social organization to protect their interests. He also noted several important differences between Israel/Palestine and Lebanon: Lebanon had a weak economy, a weak government with weak restraints on executive power, low literacy, and multiple invaders (Israel and Syria).Israel/Palestine is in a much stronger position. It has much higher per capita income and literacy levels, including among Palestinians, which according to political science research is correlated with democratic stability. For Jews, it also has strong judicial, parliamentary and media institutions that check executive power—those are a foundation upon to build in a state that offers equality to Palestinians
  • On whether comparisons between Israel and South Africa’s apartheid-era regime are apt. He noted that Israelis and Palestinians have vastly different experiences on a whole range of situations, from border checkpoints to land claims to obtaining various types of permits–and that numerous Israeli groups have described the occupation as apartheid. I didn’t hear him directly take a position–but he did say, “Self-determination does not mean the right for a given ethnic, religious or racial group to have a state that grants it rights that are denied to people of other ethnic, religious or racial groups in that same state.”
    . And “to be stateless is to be under the power of a government but” not to have the rights afforded citizens, or to have any agency in dealing with state power.
  • On why American Jews need to get involved and not see the conflict as an internal matter that only concerns Israeli Jews: US Jews have skin in the game because our government has a long history of supporting and funding even very extreme Israeli government positions.
  • On how to end anti-Jewish terrorism: “You have to show that nonviolence can work. When you respond by criminalizing BDS [boycott-divestment-sanctions] and calling it antisemitic, you doom nonviolence. [PLO President Mahmoud] Abbas has cooperated on security for 15 years. When you continue building [Jewish West Bank] settlements [despite that cooperation], you strengthen Hamas.” He also praised organizations such as Encounter, that provide opportunities for Jews and Palestinians to meet in structured formats, in a society that makes meaningful contact quite difficult, noting that “Israeli media doesn’t do a good job of presenting the reality of Palestinian existence. He does see hope in social media connections, and described a Clubhouse room that attracted many perspectives and was going 24/7 during the Gaza conflict: “Many of the Israelis were exposed to the Palestinian perspective, some for the first time.” This is a bilateral problem, though; he expressed concern about an “antinormalization” movement among Palestinians..

Author’s note: I have done my best to render material within quote marks as accurately as I can, but they are from handwritten notes–and while accurate in substance and meaning, may vary from his exact words. Also, I’ve grouped comments that were thematically related; this article does not attempt to put Beinart’s remarks in the sequence they were presented.

To read or subscribe to Beinart’s blog, visit peterbeinart.substack.com

Shel Horowitz is Editor of Peace and Politics Magazine and a peace activist for over 40 years. His latest book is Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

Guest Post by Robert Hubbell

[Note from Shel: I discovered Robert Hubbell’s 5-times-per week newsletter last fall and immediately became a devotee. Coming from a center-left, pro-Democratic Party perspective, he’s a retired lawyer, a great researcher, and one of the most perceptive political analysts I’ve encountered anywhere. This is the March 29, 2021 edition of his newsletter, in full (reprinted with his permission). Unfortunately, when I copied from the email and pasted, I lost all his formatting and hyperlinks (I added the links I felt were crucial back in, but not his italics). I’ve emphasized a few parts in bold type. If you’d like to subscribe, please visit https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001-oTDvYSKv8YU5Zx86Gk74yggRFimBmzfub5KIYj1SYTKlGBz-UVnt3Vykchgti1ORm6drUerMqIT9IV7eCyEaYd8O66yVspRSOt4DcB_kaY%3D ]

 

As Georgia Republicans do their best to disenfranchise the state’s Black citizens, the Georgia Film Commission invites the entertainment industry to come to Georgia with the friendly slogan, “Let’s make movies, Y’all.” The friendly tone of the Film Commission’s invitation is belied by the state’s criminalization of an act of mercy: handing water to voters standing in unconscionably long lines. It is belied by provisions in the Republican voter suppression bill to reduce the number of early voting days in Georgia. Nor is it friendly, “Y’all,” to limit the number of drop boxes in counties with large populations of Black voters. And it is downright mean-spirited to impose registration requirements for absentee ballots that will impose hardships on poor and elderly voters. Perhaps the Georgia Film Commission should consider modifying its slogan: “Let’s make movies, Y’all—as long as you don’t want Black members of your film crews to be able to vote on equal terms with white crew members.”

Georgia Republicans have re-instituted the Jim Crow era because they believe no one will care. Let’s prove them wrong. Major entertainment companies continue to reward the voter suppression policies of Georgia’s Republicans by accepting the financial inducements to produce films and television shows in Georgia while the GOP voter-suppression bill denies equal protection of laws to its citizens. American consumers should let those companies know how they feel about entertainment content that is produced under the reincarnation of the Jim Crow era. Per the Georgia Film Commission’s page, “Now Filming In Georgia,” the following major companies have multiple productions currently filming in Georgia:

Amazon Emergency
Amazon I Want You Back
Amazon My Best Friend’s Exorcism
CW Black Lightning S4
CW Legacies S3
CW Naomi
CW Power Puff Girls
Disney + Anchor Point
Disney + Jersey
Disney + Just Beyond S1
Disney + She Hulk
Netflix Cobra Kai S4
Netflix First Kill
Netflix Raising Dion S2
Netflix Sweet Magnolias S2

Consider these actions: If you are a fan of an actor in one of these productions, let them know on social media how you feel (so they can tell their producers). If you subscribe to any of the above services (Amazon, CW, Disney+, or Netflix), consider ways of expressing your displeasure over their support of voter-suppression fueled economy created by the Georgia GOP. Tell your friends how they can identify which shows are being produced in Georgia so they can post and share that information on social media. The link is here: Now Filming In Georgia.

An effort is already underway for entertainment companies to pressure Georgia to change its laws. Campaigns to boycott Coca-Cola and the Georgia entertainment industry have already been reported in the media. See NBCNews, “Calls for economic boycott grow after Georgia adopts voter restrictions.” And pressure will mount for Major League Baseball to move the 2021 All-Star Game away from Atlanta. See NJ.com, “MLB players want to discuss possibly moving the All-Star Game after Georgia passes controversial voting laws.”

I receive dozens of emails a month from readers asking, “What can I do now to make a difference?” Here’s a way to make a difference: Join millions of other Americans in telling major corporations that they should not remain silent in the face of efforts by Georgia Republicans to roll back the gains of the last fifty years. Republicans in Georgia currently believe they can have the best of both worlds: A one-party system that remains in power by disenfranchising Black voters and a robust economy fueled by entertainment and sports dollars funded by hundreds of millions of Americans who oppose those policies. Let’s prove Georgia Republicans wrong: They can’t have it all.

Is the Georgia Voter Bill Really that Bad? Yes, It Is.

Republicans in Georgia and commentators in the media have begun a charm offensive that tells Democrats, “Relax! The bill actually expands voter access and increases election integrity.” For example, one reader sent a note saying that on PBS’ News Hour, “David Brooks opined that Georgia’s voting restrictions were theatre and would not have a significant effect. Strangely, neither Judy Woodruff nor Jonathan Capehart disputed this.” Another reader who wants to make sure I don’t get out over my skis on this issue sent a link to an op-ed by Michael Goodwin in The New York Post, “The scare-Crow tactics of Democrats Goodwin.” I appreciate the caution from readers who are helping me in my effort to be an honest broker of information (recognizing, of course, that I do have a political point of view).

Let’s examine the facts. First, despite the barrels of ink spilled over this issue, few commentators refer to the actual language of the bill. The text of the bill is here if you want to fact check me (or others): Senate Bill 202 (as passed). The text of the bill proved difficult to find—because it was passed with haste and stealth. For a bill that Governor Kemp is proclaiming as a major expansion of voter rights, it was sprung on Democrats as a surprise. A two-page Senate bill was amended to a 98-page bill one hour before the committee hearing on the bill. It is barely possible to read the bill in an hour, much less comment on it during a legislative hearing. See Georgia Public Broadcasting “Georgia House Committee Hears Newer, Bigger Voting Omnibus You Haven’t Seen Yet.” If the bill improves voter access and election integrity, why did Republicans keep it a secret until the last minute (literally)? Legislation by ambush suggests a nefarious purpose.

We need not look far to find that nefarious purpose. The bill strips the independently elected Secretary of State of his position as a voting member of the State Elections Board—a position that the Secretary of State has held for fifty years. (Senate Bill 202 at p. 8). It also allows the Republican-controlled state legislators to fire (and replace) local election officials by demanding a “performance review” of local officials who fail to adhere to as-yet-defined performance expectations of GOP legislators. (S.B. 202 at pp. 20-22). What happened in 2020 that prompted Georgia Republicans to hastily change procedures that have been in place for half a century? We all know the answer, so let’s not pretend otherwise: Georgia’s Secretary of State refused to concede to Trump’s corrupt request that he “find” 11,780 votes—the exact number that Trump needed to win in Georgia.

In evaluating the intent and effect of the bill, we need not set aside all common sense and logic. Trump and the GOP failed to overturn a free and fair election that Biden won, and this is their revenge. There is simply no other explanation for the sudden effort to subordinate the previously independent Secretary of State and local election officials to the whims of the GOP-controlled legislature. Notice that Michael Goodwin’s essay in The New York Post fails to mention these nakedly partisan provisions of the bill. They are embarrassed by these provisions—as they should be.

One of the cynical tactics of Georgia Republicans is to include provisions that sound reasonable on their face but that operate to benefit white voters in small counties while disenfranchising Black voters in large counties. To understand how this cynical scheme works, we need to know a little about Georgia’s electoral structure. Elections are run at the county level. Georgia has 159 counties, many of which are tiny from an electoral perspective, and a handful of which are huge. See “Georgia Votes | County Viewer.” Forty-eight of those 159 counties have 10,000 registered voters or fewer. Fulton County, where Atlanta is (mostly) located, has 834,000 registered voters. With that in mind, let’s examine some of the provisions of the bill that allegedly “expand” voter access.

The law mandates that each county provide at least one ballot drop-box. Sounds good, right? But it also limits the ability of counties to deploy additional drop boxes. Under the S.B. 202, counties may “add only one dropbox for every 100,000 active registered voters.” (S.B. 202 at p. 47). Thus, the 48 counties with less than 10,000 voters each receive one dropbox. Fulton County, with 834,000 registered voters, can deploy only 8 drop boxes—one dropbox for every 100,000 voters. That is a wild disparity and is manifestly unfair. But here is where it becomes manifestly racist: The two counties with the largest population of voters—Fulton and Dekalb—also have the largest populations of Black voters. For example, Fulton County has the largest non-white population in Georgia at 595,000. The Demographic Statistical Atlas of the United States – Statistical Atlas. Thus, in counties with large populations of Black voters, there is one dropbox for every 100,000 voters, while in small counties of white voters (ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 voters), there is one dropbox. But to hear Governor Brian Kemp tell it, that provision “expands” voter access. In practice, it does the opposite by making it more difficult for Black voters to use drop boxes.

Another provision touted by the bill’s promoters is that it “requires” early voting for at least a week before an election, with such voting taking place on at least two Saturdays. County clerks have the “option” to include two Sundays of early voting. Sounds great, right? Wrong! The provision actually cuts short the advance voting for run-off elections (like those of Senators Warnock and Ossoff). Prior law mandated three weeks of early voting in run-offs. (See S.B. 202 at 60), and NPR, “Georgia Governor Signs Election Law Limiting Mail Voting.

So, why do GOP legislators claim that reducing early voting from three weeks to one week in run-offs “expands voting access”? Because they make a “finding” in the bill that, “More than 100 counties have never offered voting on Sunday and many counties offered only a single day of weekend voting.” (S.B. 202 at 4.) Hmm. . . that does sound like the bill expands early voting. But wait! The smallest 100 counties in Georgia have voter populations that range from 1,100 to 21,000. In such small counties, multiple weekend voting days are (may be?) unnecessary. But in Counties with large voter populations and large Black populations (e.g. Fulton with 834,000 voters), limiting early voting in run-offs to one week ensures long lines and making Sunday voting “optional” allows GOP election officials the opportunity to undermine a tradition of Black churches for voting on Sunday.

And what about the seemingly innocuous requirement that voters provide a driver’s license number when applying for a mail ballot? Sounds like a wise election security measure, right? Wrong, again! Georgia (and 30 other states) use signature matching for absentee ballots. Mr. Goodwin in his NYPost op-ed claims that signature matching is “unreliable” but fails to identify a single instance of fraud related to signature matching on mail ballots. So, why is signature matching “unreliable”? Because it is a Republican talking point. There was no fraud relating to mail ballots in Georgia in 2020.

If there was no fraud, why change? Because it is more difficult to register for absentee voting if you have to provide a copy of an I.D. If you have a driver’s license or other approved I.D., you can provide your I.D. number. But if you don’t have a driver’s license or other I.D. number, then you must send an electronic COPY of other identification. How many voters in Georgia don’t have a driver’s license or other specified I.D? Fair Fight Action estimates that 230,777 Georgia voters do not have the approved form of I.D. See The Hill, “Georgia’s GOP-led Senate passes bill requiring ID for absentee voting.” If you are poor, elderly, or don’t have a computer, sending an electronic copy of an I.D. may be the difference between being able to vote or not. Again, the requirement sounds reasonable, but the effect makes it harder to vote for the poor and elderly without access to a computer.

Here is another provision of the bill that bears discussion: Any voter may lodge an unlimited (!) number of challenges to the right of other voters to vote!! The local board of registrars must “immediately consider” the challenge and rule promptly. Hmm. What could go wrong with that? Oh, I know! What if a single individual intent on creating chaos challenges thousands of voters in Fulton County just because voters in other states have a similar name? Under S.B. 202, the local board of registrars will be overwhelmed with election challenges in the weeks before an election. This provision is essentially white vigilantism on steroids.

Finally, S.B. 202 limits early voting hours to the period from 9 AM to 5 PM—times when working voters won’t be able to take advantage of early voting! (S.B. 202 at p. 59) Fulton County had previously allowed early voting from 7 AM to 7 PM. See FultonCounty.gov, “Early Voting Locations.” Despite a shortening of hours that will make it more difficult for working people to vote, Governor Brian Kemp wants you to believe the GOP has “expanded” access to the polls. Don’t believe a word he says.

Concluding Thoughts.

I have gone on much too long, but the amount of disinformation being circulated by GOP talking heads—and promoted by the right-wing media—is overwhelming. Do not believe it. S.B. 202 is Trump’s revenge on Black voters in Georgia for electing Joe Biden. This travesty must be stopped.

Let me close by recommending that you read Professor Heather Cox Richardson’s essay on this subject, March 26, 2021 – Letters from an American. Professor Richardson is always superb, but her essay on S.B. 202 is exceptionally fine. Her essay begins:

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed his state’s new voter suppression law last night in a carefully staged photo op. As journalist Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer pointed out, Kemp sat at a polished table, with six white men around him, under a painting of the Callaway Plantation on which more than 100 Black people had been enslaved. As the men bore witness to the signing, Representative Park Cannon, a Black female lawmaker, was arrested and dragged away from the governor’s office.

We must send an unequivocal message to Georgia Republicans that they cannot simultaneously resurrect the Jim Crow era and enjoy the economic benefits of a diverse and open economy. Tell a friend.

Talk to you tomorrow!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , ,

Dear Republican senators,


Before you vote not to convict, please consider a few things:

  1. If you are worried about a primary challenge from Trump supporters, put those worries aside. If you vote to acquit, you will face a challenge from at least one person who believes in the Constitution. It might be in the primary, it might be in the general election, and it might be both. If you are worried about death threats if you vote to acquit, that is one of the strongest reasons not only to convict but to make sure that those identified as committing violent acts on January 6th are swiftly brought to justice and serving long prison terms. Appeasement of bullies didn’t work with Hitler, didn’t work with Trump, and won’t work with a bunch of white nationalist hoodlums. Giving in will only embolden them and make it less safe for you as you try to do your job in a climate of increasing street violence by heavily armed thugs.
    Noose erected by rioters at the Capitol. January 6, 2021
    A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.
  2. It is in your self-interest to make sure as many as possible are identified, arrested, and convicted. Potential future rioters must know ahead of time that they will face major consequences for threatening the lives and safety of our elected representatives and for vandalizing our public spaces. And for those of you considering a run for president in 2024, you don’t want to face him again i the primaries.
  3. If you are one of those who voted to impeach or convict President Clinton for not keeping his pants zipped and lying about it, recognize that what the 45th president did was far, far worse. He even tried to turn House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s desperate plea for help during the insurrection into  “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” I don’t justify Clinton’s conduct. I only ask you to look at why you were willing to throw one president out of office for something that only affected himself, his family, and Ms Lewinsky but are not willing to hold accountable another who is entire presidency was mired in corruption, ending in clear incitement to overthrow our system of government.
  4. If there were pipe bombs planted in advance of the January 6th insurrection, doesn’t that only provide more evidence to the Impeachment Managers’ argument that the incitement didn’t start on January 6th? It started well before the election.
  5. This is your last chance to have history cast you in a positive light. Do you want to be remembered for understanding that your country, your republic, is more important to you than being loyal to a man who has been loyal to no one, even willing to throw fiercely loyal Vice President Pence and Attorney General Barr to the wolves because he saw even them as so insufficiently loyal that Pence’s personal safety was not a matter of concern? Or do you want to be remembered as such a coward that you put your chances of re-election–which will be no sure thing even if you vote to acquit, as I’ve noted above–ahead of your oath of office?

The choice is yours. History is watching. Do the right thing. Vote to convict.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,
Dear (in alphabetical order) Representatives Castro, Cicilline, Dean, DeGette, Lieu, Plaskett, Neguse, Raskin, and Swalwell
 
In the weeks since the coup attempt at the Capitol, I was unaware of the 2-minute video shown at Trump’s rally until yesterday. The article in Just Security (link is near the bottom of this post) analyzes this video in detail. Please read the analysis before watching the video–you will notice a lot more as you view the film, including many images that flash by too quickly for the casual viewer to notice, but they still do their work on the viewers’ brains.

The analysis clearly demonstrates that 1] the Trump agenda for January 6 was to incite an insurrection, 2] this was planned ahead of time, and 3] Trump was actively involved in making this movie and choosing to show it at the rally. And this might be the item that convinces more Republicans to convict.

A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.

 As someone who has studied marketing, I recognize in this analysis many instances of subliminal/hypnotic brain manipulation of the sort described in dozens of books including such classics as The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard (1957) and Subliminal Seduction by Wilson Bryan Key (1974)–not to mention the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Tack this onto two months of prepping his followers to repudiate the election results as a “steal,” and it is a recipe for rebellion.
 
Here is the first paragraph from the analysis. I urge you to read the entire article, but at least the section entitled “II. The Movie Shown at the Ellipse”

On January 6, Trump supporters gathered at a rally at Washington DC’s Ellipse Park, regaled by various figures from Trump world, including Donald Trump Jr. and Rudy Giuliani. Directly following Giuliani’s speech, the organizers played a video. To a scholar of fascist propaganda, well-versed in the history of the National Socialist’s pioneering use of videos in political propaganda, it was clear, watching it, what dangers it portended. In it, we see themes and tactics that history warns pose a violent threat to liberal democracy. Given the aims of fascist propaganda – to incite and mobilize – the events that followed were predictable.

Thank you for your service as an Impeachment Manager. The American people are rooting for your success. This man needs to be banned from ever holding office again.

Window broken in Capitol riot January 6, 2021. Photo by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
Window broken in Capitol riot January 6, 2021. Photo by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

 

 
 
Sincerely,
Shel Horowitz
Marketing consultant to social entrepreneurs, speaker, and award-winning author of eight marketing books
Transformpreneur at Going Beyond Sustainability

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Dear Republican Senators:

The man who was President at the time incited a seditious mob that tried to have you captured and possibly killed, just a few weeks ago. Yet 45 of you just voted to ignore this and act as if this was okay.

A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.

Four years ago, you told us you would hold this man’s worst instincts in check. Instead, you’ve appeased and enabled almost every whim. What has that brought us? Here are 10 of hundreds of low points:

Frankly, you have everything to gain and little to lose by voting to convict. Several of you would like to run for that seat in 2024–and once you convict, you can ban him from holding public office in the future. You can’t win if he is in the race as a third-party candidate, and you also can’t gain that office if he is the nominee.

What few restraints we saw against this man’s megalomania came when the public resisted. Like most bullies, he will stand down if challenged–but gather strength and power if encouraged.

Yet you cower in your virtual basement as you cowered in the physical basement on January 6. You give in to your own fear. Fear of what? That he’ll badmouth you? He has zero loyaty. Sure, he’ll badmouth you. He’s been badmouthing anyone he sees as crossing him all along, even long-time allies from Bill Barr to Governor Kemp. He even wants to stiff Rudi, as he’s stiffed so many small businesses in his long and dishonorable career. So what? If 80-year-old Dr. Fauci can take the heat, so can you–especially now that he’s lost his platforms on social media.

Are you worried about being primaried? Let me tell you a couple of things:

  1. You are far more at risk of losing a general election to a Democrat who can call you to account for your four years of enablement and appeasement than you are at risk of losing a primary challenge by an ultra-right fringe candidate whose credibility you can easily undermine. Just ask your former colleagues in “safely Republican” Georgia.
  2. Despite his baseless campaign to overturn the results, there’s nothing dishonorable about losing an election. Thousands of former legislators have found excellent positions with major corporate or institutional employers, or started their own successful businesses (often consulting or lobbying businesses). Yes, you’ll lose your Medicare-for-all-style healthcare that only Members of Congress get to enjoy–but you can lobby your former colleagues to finally join the rest of the world in treating healthcare as a right.

This could be your last chance to show that even if you came late to the party, ultimately you were willing to honor your Oath of Office. That the Constitution and the idea of a democratic republic are ultimately more important to you than fealty to a would-be authoritarian dictator who has coddled our enemies, attacked our allies, and repeatedly attempted to shred anything in the Constitution he doesn’t like that day. Vote your princples, not your fears!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology

In Wednesday’s daily Gratitude Journal (which I’ve been posting on Facebook for more than 1000 days), I took a rare digression into things that don’t deserve any gratitude:

…Evil raised the ugliest manifestation yet today. Let there be no mistake: the armed invasion of the Capitol by right-wing thugs egged on by DT himself was an attempted Fascist coup. This should have been prevented by police. How and why were these thugs allowed inside the building? Why didn’t they stop similar craziness in Michigan this summer and Wisconsin a couple of years ago so this would not have happened?

Even then, I was able to find some bright spots:

But I am grateful that the cops eventually did clear the fascists out. I hope every one of them is identified, arrested, and charged with some serious crimes.

What I am grateful for in this attack on our freedom to vote, on our very democracy, is the groundswell of pushback.  Finally, we are hearing calls to invoke the 25th Amendment (incapacity of the president), re-impeach to prevent any future run for office, press criminal charges. Finally, the handful of Senators and 100 or so members of the House who have supported this fraudulent and baseless effort to undermine the count are being asked to withdraw their objections or face consequences. And this “little episode” may shorten DT’s term by two weeks, putting at least some limits on the damage he has been inflicting since the election, instead of governing. I will be very grateful for that, though we still won’t open the special bottle of Port we’ve been saving until Biden has taken the oath of office.

But now, it’s some 40 hours after the insurrection began. Representatives Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush have pledged to submit articles of impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and–do we call him Majority Leader now?–Chuck Schumer have said it’s time to impeach if VP Pence continues to refuse to start the 25th Amendment process.

What are they waiting for? Pelosi has publicly acknowledged the danger of letting him stay in office for the less than two weeks of his term. He can be expected to wreak maximum havoc, even more than the round of unfounded pardons, absurd executive orders, firings, etc. that has been the closest he has come to governing in the past few weeks. It is well known that since he lost, he is spending even more of his time fulminating, Tweeting, and golfing–and now, inciting sedition.

It’s been too much for even the toadying loyalists like Bill Barr and yes, even Mike Pence.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, localism/locavore, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy

By Shel Horowitz

“When someone shows you who they a­re, believe them the first time.”

–Maya Angelou

 

Despite his 20,000+ lies while in office, I believe Trump when he says he won’t cede power peacefully (at least not voluntarily). He flouts conventions and precedents constantly, has done what he can to turn the presidency into both an authoritarian dictatorship and a personal wealth spigot for him, his family, his businesses, and his cronies, and has no idea how to look beyond his own narrow self-interest to nurture the good of the country.

But here’s the thing about bullies: they crumble when they face serious organized opposition. Even Trump, for all his bluster, has about-faced many times when his crazy anti-democratic stuff met resistance.

We have hundreds of already-organized groups in this country with combined membership well into the tens of millions (including 21 listed below). If they join together to create massive public opposition and concerted action, they will be unstoppable and the Trump attempt to stay in power after he loses will fail.

What would that look like? We’ll revisit that before we’re done. But first, some context:

 

Nonviolent Resistance Can Stop Coups and Bring Down Governments

Trump doesn’t study history and doesn’t read his briefings—so he doesn’t realize that resistance can go a whole lot deeper than he has ever experienced. Concerted nonviolent action has brought down some pretty repressive governments—including the Communist governments of Eastern Europe and military dictatorships in Latin America, as well as the dictators of Egypt and Tunisia during the Arab Spring a few years ago. And it has reversed many coup attempts—including Germany, in 1920. And even the Nazis frequently scaled back the repression in the face of concerted nonviolent resistance.

The late Gene Sharp documented 198 separate methods of nonviolent resistance—and that was before the Internet added many more and COVID forced new creativity as it became unsafe to gather in large crowds.

Another researcher, Erica Chenoweth, discovered that when just 3.5 percent of the population actively participate in nonviolent resistance, that’s enough of a tipping point to bring down governments. She also found that more than twice as many nonviolent campaigns as violent campaigns led to political change (53% of the time, versus 26% for violent protests.

Trump has shown us who he is, over and over again.[1] Trump seems to think no laws apply to the president and has been rewarded by a Senate unwilling to set limits or consequences.

Worse yet, Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have hijacked the judiciary—creating a massive long-term threat not just to environmental and human rights initiatives, but to the freedom of activists in every movement. We’ve seen protestors isolated far from the action, new laws that turn certain kinds of political action into felonies, and court decisions that reverse crucial civil rights legislation while opening the floodgates of the 2010 Citizens United decision even wider, in 2018, to “dark money” corruption of politics.

McConnell has made it very clear that his refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland had nothing to do with letting the American people choose and everything to do with stacking the court. And they’ve stacked the entire judiciary by refusing to confirm many Obama nominees while ramming through 218 Trump appointees to lifetime appointments on federal District, Appellate, and Supreme Court courts who will threaten our freedom for generations.

This is why they are rushing through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court; Trump feels that a Court with three of his Justices is more likely to confirm his self-coronation, while McConnell understands that he is sentencing the country to decades more under a conservative Court that has been repealing so much of the progress we’ve made—a court far out of step with the majority of Americans. On October 5, Justices Thomas and Alito even floated the idea of reversing the right to same-sex marriage.

And Trump may be right. With three Trump picks and three long-serving conservatives out of nine Justices, the court could find a way to allow him to serve another term even after losing. It was a less conservative court in 2000 that ordered (5 to 4) a halt to the Florida recount and made George W. Bush our first unelected full-term president since Rutherford B. Hayes took office in 1877.

And that’s why doing our best to block this nomination is one of two strategies to prevent an authoritarian coup (the other happens after the election).

 

Step 1: Raising a Ruckus about the Supreme Court Seat

Let’s face facts: if the Republicans really want to ram this nomination through, they can (and if history tells us anything, they probably will). But if we make the costs high enough, they may choose not to—or they may shove her onto the court only to find to consequences they hadn’t planned on.

For instance, if the Republicans see that ignoring their own 2016 precedent and getting Barrett on the court will mean they drop five Senate seats, several of the 22 Republican Senators up for re-election could defect—especially if they’re among the nine Senators that Indivisible’s Payback Project has targeted to vote out of office. If getting Barrett on the Court angers enough people, it could even create an emboldened new Democratic Senate supermajority.

If the three Trump appointees are forced by massive public pressure to recuse themselves from any decisions involving the 2020 election, Senators may wonder if it’s worth the risk of a Democratic Congress raising the number of Justices to 15, giving President Joe Biden six Supreme Court seats to counterbalance this ethics travesty that started with the Garland refusal and continued with the disgraceful confirmation of Kavanaugh.

And if the inevitable suits and countersuits (or a bunch of Senators unable to work because of COVID) hold up any swearing-in until after the inauguration, Barrett (who has less than three years’ experience as a judge) won’t have a chance to repay Trump’s favor by finding a way to keep him in office.

In any case, it’s our duty to protect our increasingly fragile republic by doing what we can.

We have at least two arguments to build opposition:

  1. The process is blatantly unfair and completely opposite McConnell’s own precedent, and there isn’t time to conduct thorough hearings before the election; and
  2. The more we learn about this nominee the more we see that she is not qualified and out of the mainstream of American judicial thought.

 

The Process

As a constitutional lawyer, Obama should never have allowed the McConnell tactic to succeed; he could have said, “if, by X date, you haven’t held a hearing, I will take that as consent.” But he failed to stand up to this power play, and that’s now the precedent.

And this precedent gives us moral leverage to oppose this nominee named far closer to the election, as long as we maintain nonviolent discipline. Use their own words from 2016 to hold them to a higher standard—do it publicly, on their social media pages, and privately, with emails, phone calls, and postal mail. You can find those quotes at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nnuQNpD4vPB4hjcpGDf_h-dYd0iVgR41DzJUs1frEQQ/edit .

 

The Nominee

Barrett has less than three years’ experience as a judge. And eight months of that time, the courts have been closed. She has no experience as a trial lawyer, either. That she is a popular law school professor doesn’t qualify her for this seat.

More concerning, we’re beginning to learn about her extremism. She has been a paid speaker at least twice for the Alliance Defending Freedom, labeled by southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. She is not just a member but a “handmaid” of the fringe group (1800 members) People of Praise, which claims women must be subservient to their husbands in all things. She served on the board of one of its schools and lived in one of their group houses for a while. She did not disclose this membership in the paperwork for either her current Court of Appeals seat or for the Supreme Court, and the group scrubbed her name off its website. An AP article describes the group as “hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned.”

Another thing she failed to disclose: she and her husband signed a newspaper ad in 2006 newspaper advertisement seeking to end “the barbaric legacy of Roe vs Wade” and claiming that many abortions were done “for social reasons.” According to Forbes, the organization behind the ad calls for criminalizing discarding of unused frozen embryos when attempting in vitro fertilization.

Remember, even Richard Nixon had to abandon two of his hard-right choices. We really need to make some noise about these extreme positions.

 

Time to Take Action!

Already, 150 civic groups have spoken out against this nomination, as have 41 faith groups. Even a Catholic group came out against the nomination in a strongly-worded statement that says,

Years of decisions by Judge Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals prove that she does not hold all life to be sacred, as we are instructed to do by Catholic Social Teaching and Pope Francis.

The next Justice who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg must advocate for the equally sacred issues that Pope Francis calls all people of good faith to defend: the vulnerable, those in poverty, and immigrants. Until an appointee is presented who can meet this call, as Justice Ginsburg did, the Senate must not consider filling the vacancy.

To move forward with the nomination of Judge Barrett weeks before a Presidential election is an assault on our democratic system. The people and their next chosen President must decide on the next Supreme Court Justice. Catholic voters will not accept a partisan power grab by President Trump, Senator McConnell, and his Republican colleagues.

But none of that is not enough; it’s time go out into the streets with massive peaceful protest. Let’s form an activist coalition of many groups, including large national organizations like MoveOn, The Movement for Black Lives/Black Lives Matter, National Organization for Women, NAACP, Feminist Majority, CAIR (a Muslim rights organization), JStreet (a progressive Jewish organization), Natural Resources Defense Council (environmental), Sierra Club, ACLU, democracy activism groups like Common Cause, People For the American Way, Indivisible, Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution, Represent Us, Extinction Rebellion, 350.org, Code Pink, and the many others who signed that opposition letter—and of course including the Democratic Party, Progressive Democrats of America, etc.: a mix of center-left and openly progressive organizations.

That coalition should have a public presence outside the in-state and DC homes and offices of every Republican Senator who said in 2016 that it was too close to the election and the seat should be held for the winner. And that presence needs to be especially strong and vocal for those whose seats are up this year (including Graham, McConnell, and Collins, among others). With social distancing making small numbers spread over more space, a handful of people at a time is enough to have impact.

That coalition needs to actively lobby every Senator, getting the Democrats to resist and making the political consequences clear to Republicans (with stats on the combined organizational membership in their state). To reach out to the media daily. And to deluge the Republican Senators up for re-election with hundreds of phone calls (to their Washington offices and to every district office), emails, social media tweets, and in-person meeting requests to let them know that they cannot play fast and loose with our democracy, and that there will be consequences if they try. If their tax status permits, to publicly donate large sums of money to the Democratic opponents.

None of us can do this alone. But if these organizations recruited volunteers in a coordinated effort, they’d have plenty. It’s also a visibility opportunity for the participating groups.

More importantly, this coalition will be in place and functioning when we get to Step Two, Safeugarding Democracy. So if you are a member or financial supporter of any of these organizations or any that signed those condemnations of the nomination, tell their CEOs and boards to get moving with a massive coalition to protect America’s democracy.

 

Step 2: How We Can Safeguard Democracy After the Election

Trump has many ways to try to steal the election. In broad categories, they include 1) excluding or intimidating likely Democratic voters (like the 94,000 prevented from voting in Florida in 2000 and 16.7 million at risk this year, according to election fraud expert Greg Palast), 2) judicial and legislative intervention after-the-fact, and 3) simply refusing to give up power, figuring that the armed thugs willing to defend him will be enough.

I’m not that worried about the third category. After insulting them over and over again, Trump probably can’t rely on the military to maintain his power—and the militia groups, while scary, probably can’t do it by themselves. They would need tens of thousands of highly organized and disciplined troops willing to attack their fellow citizens, subvert the constitution, and put their own lives and liberty at risk.

Thousands of government employees charged with carrying out the day-today tasks of governance, many of whom have been resisting him internally since 2017, would withdraw cooperation.  If Biden establishes a shadow government, he can run the country from some other building than the White House. We’ve learned a lot these past few months about how to work remotely.

Biden has also noted last July that “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”­­

It’s the other two categories that concern me. Denying likely-Democratic voters the chance to vote, or invalidating their ballots, has been a Republican tactic since at least 2000, and was used to swing Florida that year and Ohio four years later, resulting in the eight-year unelected presidency of George W. Bush. And arcane laws exist that could hand Trump another four years even if Biden wins. For example, Republican legislators might try to appoint Electoral College electors who don’t represent the party that won their state (although, as the article points out, that strategy isn’t likely to work).

Here’s how resistance might play out, led and coordinated by that same coalition of activist groups we discussed in Part 1:

  1. Those protests in front of Republican lawmakers’ homes and offices expanded to every collaborating member of Congress, judge, or Justice, every state legislator or governor who tries to subvert the election.
  2. The organizations call for a complete and comprehensive withdrawal of consent to this government’s legitimacy. Enough bureaucrats, government building security screeners, custodial staff, and air traffic controllers stop working, enough people (and their businesses) stop paying federal taxes, and enough members of the armed forces leave their posts that the federal government comes to a screeching halt. The same can be done at the state level for states that are enabling the coup. And withdrawal of cooperation is especially delightful because it’s hard to combat with reprisals, and thus appealing to non-activists who don’t want to risk their safety or their freedom.
  3. Those organizations schedule the less risk-averse to mobilize in the streets, to shut down DC’s grand boulevards, to surround the White House perimeter fence with an ongoing presence—and to replace any who are arrested with another wave. Just as in the Civil Rights movement, filling the jails helps immobilize the government, and eventually, they will have no place left to put the new detainees.
  4. They call on the UN to delegitimize the rogue government internationally. Trump doesn’t get to meet with foreign dignitaries, who seek out meetings with Biden instead. The US temporarily loses its votes at the UN until democracy is restored, as Peter Beinart suggested in a New York Times Op-Ed. Overtures by US diplomats are ignored. International troops arrive to keep the peace.
  5. Biden and Harris find a Supreme Court Justice to administer the Oath of Office in a televised public ceremony and begin setting up the shadow Cabinet and taking control of the bureaucracy (there is no Constitutional requirement that the Chief Justice is the one who administers it). Trump is marginalized until he can be arrested for treason (and tax fraud, emoluments violations, and all the rest of it).

In the few months remaining before all this might boil over, it’s time for each of us to get ready—starting with the easy and obvious steps that any of us can take:

  • Sign this petition calling on all those pro-democracy groups to organize a coalition to block the Barrett nomination and protect democracy after the election
  • Personally contact any organizations you belong to or donate to and ask them to join the coalition. Write letters, make phone calls, send Tweets
  • Contact your own two Senators and Representative in Congress. Ask for meetings with them and bring a delegation that includes two or three very knowledgeable people as well as supporters who can get loud if that becomes necessary. Ideally, this group should have members from different organized communities and ethnic or subculture groups within the district.
    If your Senators are Democrats or independents, ask that they do whatever they can to block a vote on the Barrett nomination until after January 20. If they are Republicans, tell them you demand the same courtesy to the American people that they demanded in 2016, and make it clear that if they vote to confirm, you will not only vote against them but urge others to do so.

And think about whether you’re prepared for deeper steps that could have personal consequences, such as jail, physical injury, seizure of your property:

The most important thing is mindset. People will tell you there’s nothing you can do to stop fascism—but they’re wrong. For millennia, people have organized successfully for justice, for peace, for the environment, for the space to be themselves. I personally started the movement that saved a mountain while the “experts” moaned, “there’s nothing we can do!” Those who believe they can win increase their chances of winning.

 

A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com

 

[1] Trump has actively sabotaged hundreds of progressive or liberal policies implemented over the past several decades (Trump’s environmental record alone would be reason to get him out of office). He is increasingly open in his racism, his attacks on women, people with disabilities, Muslims, Arabs, veterans, and so many others (even his own former Cabinet members). He is brazen in his financial corruption, his ignorance of his office, and his rudeness to our allies while cozying up to brutal dictators around the world.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, language, Politics, Psychology, Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

Noah Webster dictionary frontispiece and title page, 1828
Noah Webster dictionary frontispiece and title page, 1828

Now that more than half a year since Merriam-Webster (as in Webster’s dictionary) released this list of its most searched words for 2019, I thought it might be fun to revisit it. I wrote most of this in response to a reporter query last December on what this list says about our society. The parts in italics are written in July, 2020, with the benefit of hindsight.

THEY: The Word of the Year is enormous recognition for the rapidly growing nonbinary community. I too have a child who now uses they/them/their, and so do many of their friends. This is a choice I might have made for myself in my 20s (and might still make in the future). A friend remarked to me recently that our generation (I’m turning 63 next week)(that was in December; next December will be my “Paul McCartney birthday”) worked to eliminate gender roles, while Millennials work to eliminate the concept of gender itself.

QUID PRO QUO: Asking for a favor in return for another favor. The search popularity of this phrase indicates that people want to understand what’s really true. For a public figure to be caught flat-out asking the president of another country, using the language, “a favor,” and then claiming there is no quid pro quo makes people wonder what this public figure has to gain from such an obvious lie–and what does it mean for a president to call on a foreign power to investigate his likely opponent. It also brings up questions about why foreign policy is being weaponized for personal political gain, threatening to deny already-approved aid an ally that is under attack by a neighboring superpower. We have an administration that tries to weaponize just about anything, refuses to work with Democrats in any meaningful way, and has spent the entire first half of 2020 sewing division and stupidity in everything from how to contain a virus pandemic to how to treat immigrants and refugees.

IMPEACH: Since this [impeachment of a president] was only used three times previously since the founding of the Republic, voters–especially those age 35 and under who probably don’t remember the last time–want to know exactly what it means, when it may be invoked, what the consequences are, and perhaps what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it into the Constitution. The high level of interest shows that we are not nearly as apathetic and apolitical as the media would portray us. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, as was the current president; Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment. What we’ve proven in 2020 is that there is, unfortunately, no requirement that the Senate discharge its duties properly. With minds already made up for acquittal, Senate Republicans other than Mitt Romney refused to hear evidence or call willing witnesses and ignored the copious violations of law, ethics, and the Constitution by the most corrupt and least qualified person ever to hold the office. I hope many of these Senators are defeated in November.

CRAWDAD is a bit of an outlier in that it has nothing to do with politics. It does show that even in our device-oriented world, a book can still make an impact on the way we talk, and that English is such a rich language in part because it borrows so liberally from other tongues.

EGREGIOUS: Although the Merriam-Webster (M-W) example cited is about the Boeing 737 Max scandal, a lot of this word’s popularity also has to do with the political situation. Searching “egregious trump” brings up  2,470,000  hits on Google, while “egregious boeing max” returns only 178,000.

CLEMENCY: Essentially a form of pardon. This year’s use of the word is particularly interesting because the Tennessee case cited on M-W’s page of a woman who murdered her abuser being granted clemency contrasts so sharply with the recent Kentucky governor’s grant of clemency for more than 400 felons on his last day in office, including one convicted of child rape and another whose murder victim was beheaded and stuffed into an oil drum–and another whose family held a campaign fundraiser for that governor.

THE is an example that craziness can gain entry to the list. Adding the word “the” to an official university name is just a marketing stunt that should have been ignored. But it does revisit many interesting issues about rebranding, going back at least as far as 1972, when Standard Oil’s US division gave up the warm and cuddly Esso for the cold, corporate Exxon, but the Canadian branch kept Esso.

SNITTY is an apt description for much of what passes for public discourse these days, including on social media. While I’m not personally a fan of Barr, I enjoyed his use of this term as cited on M-W’s page.

TERGIVERSATION is new to me. George Will actually apologized for using such an obscure word in describing the hypocrisy of Senator Lindsey Graham, once a strong critic of Trump and now one of his staunchest defenders. It has been fascinating to see George Will, an apologist for Republican presidents back to the Nixon-Ford era, become ever-more-clear that this one is not fit for office. Even Fox News gave huge play to Will’s late-May call to remove not just Trump but his “congressional enablers.”

CAMP: Ahh, a relief from politics that might hearken back to they/them/their as nonbinary pronouns. This has been around in the gay subculture for decades; I encountered it in the early 1970s. As conservatives try to double down on “traditional” family structures, expressions of camp creep ever-more-frequently into the wider culture, and society as a whole is a lot more accepting of male fashionistas (as an example). If you want a wonderful example of how gay male camp can take a court-jester role and use humor to attack the current administration, watch a few Randy Rainbow videos. They’re great fun.  A recent one, “Bunker Boy”, is one of my favorites, and also one of the recent ones. You can find many of them at this search results page.

EXCULPATE: Now we’re back to the heart of the matter: the question several of these words and phrase raise about corruption in the conduct of senior government officials. Mueller said the report did not exculpate, and the quid pro quo demand makes it clear that the behavior hasn’t changed, either. Of course people will want to know whether their president was exculpated, and what that means.

Taken as a totality, these words show a keen interest in the legal challenges to the Trump administration. When we note that justice and feminism were the top words of the administration’s first two years, and we look at the enormous growth in protest movements immediately following the 2016 election (engaging millions of people who had not been active before, or had not been active in decades) 2018 and 2019 elections as well as the surge in popularity of presidential candidates who would have been considered fringe-left not that long ago, we see that these lookup spikes tell an important story about a growing and powerful movement for deep social change. We see that despite a rightward, authoritarian trend in governments around the world, there’s a strong undercurrent for social justice, and that includes bringing a cruel and corrupt president to justice. And while the centrist Biden came away the winner in the Dems’ nomination process, he has shown himself far more willing than I would have expected to embrace many elements of the progressive agenda, and to build real coalitions with progressive leaders including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, Gratitude, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, People Helping People, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
A recent Black Lives Matter protest in Portland, OR, June 4, 2020

Happy Juneteenth. As you probably know by now, June 19th is a Black American holiday celebrating the day the last slaves in a Confederate state finally got the news that slavery had been overturned 2-1/2 years earlier (four Union states still permitted slavery for a few more months, until the 13th Amendment became law).

A recent Black Lives Matter protest in Portland, OR, June 4, 2020
A recent Black Lives Matter protest in Portland, OR, June 4, 2020

You also probably know that the guy in the White House planned to have his first live indoor rally in months today–and rubbing salt in the wounds, it was going to be in Tulsa, site of the worst violence against a black community in the history of the US (in 1921). And of course, you know that the US has been rocked by racial justice protests for weeks, following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.

The public outcry was so fierce that even a group as tone-deaf as his campaign staff (who apparently knew about both of these events ahead of setting the date), and as deliberately inflammatory and reluctant to admit wrong as the man himself, had to walk it back. The rally will still be in Tulsa, but tomorrow.

Both Bruce Dart, head of Tulsa’s health department, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the face of the federal response to coronavirus, are very unhappy about this, BTW, as COVID-19 cases have been climbing rapidly there.

Which brings home the point that nonviolent citizen action is effective even against a thuggish, narcissistic, pathological liar and would-be lifetime dictator like this one. Here are five particularly famous examples, among thousands. I have personally participated in dozens of nonviolent events or sustained campaigns that had significant impact, most spectacularly the Seabrook Occupation of 1977 and the year-long Save the Mountain campaign I founded in 1999.

Not coincidentally, black organizers of Tulsa’s annual Juneteenth celebration, who had canceled the event over the virus, uncanceled it and are now expecting 30,000 people (11,000 more than will be at the re-election rally).

How I Will Mark Juneteenth

I’m attending two Juneteenth events today: first, a virtual celebration featuring two black Jewish rabbis who are both musicians at 5 pm ET/2 pm PT, and second, a live candlelight vigil, with distancing and masks, at the site of the Sojourner Truth statue in Florence, Massachusetts, a 20-minute drive from my home.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail