Category Archives: Random Blogging

Courage And Concession

How many of us remember Charles Sumner from our American history courses? (Assuming those courses included information about Sumner and his principled opposition to slavery…)

The author of “Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation,” Zaakir Tameez, wrote a recent essay in the Washington Post, reminding us that the violent opposition Sumner faced is still with us.

On May 13, a man who made death threats against Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) for her foreign policy views was sentenced to nearly four years in prison. Last month, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she was “afraid” of using her voice to speak about political controversies. A month before that, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) released audio recordings of death threats he received while he was considering how to vote on Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defense secretary.

At least one senator made light of the threats. In April, Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) joked on X about “bringing back caning to settle political disputes.” It was a reference to the caning of Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, 169 years ago.

Tameez recounted the attack for readers unaware of that bit of American history.

Sumner had taken two days — May 19 and May 20 in 1856 — to deliver a passionate anti-slavery speech on the Senate floor. Among other things, he accused Southern leaders of undermining democracy. That set off Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who wielded his gold-tipped cane to beat Sumner so badly that the cane shattered. Sumner barely survived.

News of the assault reinvigorated the antislavery movement. Tameez tells us that voters recognized a “parallel between Sumner’s beating and the beatings that those enslaved in the South experienced daily” and In the next election, outraged Northerners elected scores of anti-slavery politicians.

Today, as threats of political violence rise, Tameez counsels us to revisit the caning and to learn “three lessons that most history textbooks overlook.”

Lesson number one: many pro-slavery politicians rejected America’s founding texts. John Pettit of Indiana belittled the immortal words that Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence: the phrase “all men are created equal.” A committed White supremacist, Pettit scorned the Jeffersonian ideal of human equality as “a self-evident lie.” (Unfortunately, Pettit’s ideological descendants still populate Red Indiana.)

Brooks, Sumner’s assailant, faced few consequences; he became a celebrity at proslavery rallies across the South, and once declared that “the Constitution of the United States should be torn to fragments.”

Tameez’ second lesson is that such anti-constitutional rhetoric can prompt political violence–not to mention actual election “rigging.”

Only weeks before the caning, David Rice Atchison of Missouri — the former president pro tempore of the Senate — led an armed gang into the territory of Kansas. With bowie knives and guns, Atchison’s men seized polling locations, intimidated voters and stuffed thousands of fraudulent ballots into the voting boxes. Their goal was to ensure that Kansas voted to become a slavery state, even if it required violence and election fraud to make it happen. “If we win,” Atchison told his thugs, “we can carry slavery to the Pacific Ocean.”

Some states simply ignored the constitution. Maryland and Tennessee banned abolitionist newspapers, and Virginia made it a crime to criticize slavery. North Carolina imposed the death penalty on anyone found to have encouraged enslaved people to revolt. In 1860, Southern states outraged by Lincoln’s modestly anti-slavery platform refused to put his name on the ballot.

Nevertheless,

Through grassroots programs, tens of thousands of people gathered in “indignation meetings” to lament Sumner’s assault and strategize political responses. The Republican Party — founded on the idea that slavery should be abolished in federal territories — passed out as many as 3 million copies of the speech that led to the caning. Sumner’s near-martyrdom energized the Northern public so much that it probably contributed to Lincoln’s epic victory in the 1860 presidential election.

Lesson number three is one that fearful senators today would do well to consider. “To galvanize a public that had been asleep to democratic slippage, Sumner believed that politicians like him needed to be brave. If they had to risk their physical safety to speak their conscience, so be it.”

Personal courage is necessary in order to resist assaults on constitutional democracy. Sumner knew that courage, not concession, was the key to defeating autocracy–while stumping for Lincoln, he even quoted Jonathan Swift, who wrote “And know that to be brave is to be wise.”

The GOP cowards who control Congress today are neither brave nor wise, leaving it up to an awakened grassroots to once again save the American Idea.

Comments

Those Election Results

Each morning when I get up, my husband’s first question is: any news? (That comes right after his opening observation that “growing old is not for sissies.”) Yesterday, boy was there news! And for the first time in what seems like forever, that news was ALL good.

As usual, Heather Cox Richardson said it best:

Tonight the results came in. American voters have spoken.

Democrat Abigail Spanberger won the governorship of Virginia by 15 points, becoming Virginia’s first female governor. Every single county in Virginia moved toward the Democrats, who appear to have picked up at least 12 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates. Democrat Mikie Sherrill won the governorship of New Jersey by more than ten points (the vote counts are still coming in as I write this).

Pennsylvania voted to retain three state supreme court justices, preserving a 5–2 liberal majority on the court. Democrats in Georgia flipped two statewide seats for public service commissioners by double digits. Mississippi broke the Republican supermajority in the state senate.

Maine voters rejected an attempt to restrict mail-in voting; Colorado voters chose to raise taxes on households with incomes over $300,000 to pay for meals for public school students.

California voters approved Proposition 50 by a margin of about 2 to 1, making it hard for Trump to maintain the vote was illegitimate.

And in New York City, voters elected Zohran Mamdani mayor.

Tonight, legal scholar John Pfaff wrote: “Every race. It’s basically been every race. Governors. Mayors. Long-held [Republican] dog-catchers. School boards. Water boards. Flipped a dungeon master in a rural Iowa D&D club. State senators. State reps. A janitor in Duluth. State justices. Three [Republican] Uber drivers. Just everything.”

Those of us who care deeply about this country–whose patriotism is rooted in allegiance to the philosophy of the Declaration and fidelity to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, those of us who work to achieve a society reflective of what I’ve called “the American Idea”– turned out in force.

If yesterday’s elections proved anything, they proved that real Americans can do this. We outnumber the haters–the racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and misogynists who are the face (and base) of today’s Republican Party. More importantly, yesterday demonstrated that We the real American People will come out to defend the real America.

Obviously, gratifying as Tuesday’s election turnout and results were, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. Now is the time to redouble our efforts to return this country to the path laid out by its founders–both the original founders and those responsible for the post-Civil War “second founding“–a nation committed to both individual liberty and civic equality.

The enormous turnout for No Kings Day was an indication that Americans were up to the task; yesterday’s blowout victories confirmed it. We aren’t out of the woods by any means, but we are on the way.

There’s an old TV ad that has one person asking another “How do you spell relief?” The answer isn’t “rolaids,” as in the ad. It’s the growing, impressive evidence that resistance is–forgive the Borg reference– anything but futile.

Comments

Civil Resistance

In a recent Substack, Paul Krugman shared a transcript of his interview/conversation with Erica Chenoweth, author of Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know. During Trump’s second term, Chenowith, a Harvard professor, has become well-known for her studies of resistance to autocracies across the globe–especially her conclusion that peaceful civil protest by 3.5% of a country’s population is usually effective in overcoming an autocratic regime.

Krugman’s first question is one most of us would ask: do protests like No Kings really matter? As Chenoweth noted, that question is slightly different from the question whether civil resistance matters.

On the protest side, just immediately speaking, there are a lot of papers about this. There are papers in my discipline (political science and sociology and econ) even about trying to understand the impacts of even a single day of protest and widespread participation, and a single day of protest on things like shifts in public opinion, changes in policy, shifts in election turnout for particular parties, the tendency for people to run for office, all kinds of reforms.

I think the general answer is that, on a number of dimensions, even a single day of protests with very widespread participation can often lead to shifts and those different outcomes, even if there’s sometimes modest shifts in places like the United States where a modest shift in voter turnout can actually be quite decisive because of the nature of our voting rules. “First past the post,” that means elections can be completely changed by small margins. So it’s easy to overstate the impact that a single day of protest can have. But it’s also easy to underestimate it, given where the scholarship is on this topic.

Chenoweth then turned to the “slightly different” question of civic resistance, which she explained is a broader phenomenon than protest, involving more sustained levels of nonviolent mobilization and organization. It extends beyond protests to other methods of non-cooperation like strikes and boycotts.

Chenoweth noted that, in the 20th century,  these tactics initiated democratic breakthroughs in Poland, the Philippines,  Serbia, Brazil, and Argentina, and prompted the Arab awakenings of the early 2010.

Krugman and Chenoweth returned to the impact of the recent No Kings protests; Krugman observed that those events weren’t simply peaceful–they were joyful, and the festive atmosphere arguably attracted more participants, while the act of participating encouraged a belief in the possibility of change.

Chenoweth agreed, citing studies on the impact of participation in the civil rights movement on those who participated. Engagement in those protests gave rise to a belief that the situation could be changed–not only that each individual should do something to effectuate that change, but more importantly, that individuals could do something to change it. Once that recognition dawns, “there’s no going back to the previous status quo where it felt like the situation was permanent, only going to get worse, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

The No Kings mass resistance also accompanied other defections: Chenoweth cited incidents of prominent people resigning– or refusing to resign and forcing the administration to fire them; the archbishop of Chicago releasing a statement calling the  administration’s policy toward immigrants intolerable;  the Chamber of Commerce suing the Trump administration over its H-1b policy (on the basis of it being unconstitutional, not just on the basis of it being harmful for their industries); the multiple airports refusing to run Kristi Noem’s TSA commercial. These are all examples of non-cooperation. Krugman added the example of universities refusing to sign the administration’s “compact.”

The preparation that went into the No Kings protests–preparation that worked to ensure that they would be non-violent–was important. As Chenoweth put it,

The more representative the crowd is of the general population, the more likely it is to have non-escalatory impacts with police or with bystanders or anything else. Part of that is just because it’s very clear to all who are observing it, that these are folks from every walk of life, regardless of what the GOP wants to say about these people, they’re plainly peaceful protesters, some of them engaging for the first time in a political protest in their life…That’s the needle that civil resistance campaigns thread, which is to say they’re able to convey a political threat without threatening people and property around them.

Chenoweth says we are experiencing something new to the U.S.–authoritarianism has captured federal power. We the People must strengthen the civil society response, uphold the institutions that need upholding, and “renew and improve the institutions that need renewal and improvement without bloodshed. I truly believe that we have the capacity to do that.”

I hope she’s right.

Comments

Political Attention Deficit Disorder

The problem isn’t the message. It’s getting people to hear the message.

While pundits and strategists wring their hands and insist that the Democrats have “a messaging problem,” that diagnosis misstates the real problem. Chris Hayes recently–and accurately–wrote an essay for the New York Times (which, to ironically emphasize his point, MAGA folks are highly unlikely to read), in which he quite accurately described our information environment, where the problem isn’t the message, it’s getting people to hear the message.

Take the national election in 2024. Hayes (again, in my view, quite accurately) asserts that the Harris-Walz campaign’s message was fine. The campaign not only spent ample money on advertising, it concentrated that effort in the swing states–and as a result, swing state voters were less likely to defect to Trump than in non-swing states. “And the message of those ads was in line with a lot of what many critics have suggested — focused on core economic issues and framed in populist terms, with Kamala Harris portrayed as an ally of the working class.”

In other words, even though she lost, her core problem was not her message, however imperfect it might have been. It was an inability to get enough people to hear it, in spite of record-breaking advertising spending. If Mr. Trump had not run a single paid advertisement in the race, he almost surely would have dominated the single most important resource of our age: attention. Democrats need to win the attention contest in 2026 and beyond if they want to win back the country.

And winning attention is a lot harder than it used to be.

For one thing, as Hayes notes, ever since Teddy Roosevelt coined the term “bully pulpit,” the political party that doesn’t control the White House has struggled to match the agenda-setting power of the presidency. And as he also points out, today’s asymmetry is more daunting and profound than ever, because Trump has a “feral, almost pathological genius for getting people to talk about him, and to a degree that his supporters find thrilling and his opponents find suffocating, he dominates the nation’s and the world’s attention.”

As I have often argued on this blog and elsewhere, the fragmentation of our information environment frustrates efforts to communicate with a broad and diverse public. Not only have we lost the community newspapers that were widely trusted, and that accurately if scantily reported national news along with the results of the last City Council vote, not only do we have national mass media news that is little more than propaganda (think Fox and Sinclair); people use the Internet to confirm their biases rather than to access sources of vetted journalism.

Add to that–as one of the commenters to this blog regularly reminds us– the national penchant for entertainment. Given a choice between a football game and a news program–or a choice between a concert and a lecture–millions of Americans will happily choose the game or the concert. Hayes’ advice to Democrats is to “go everywhere”–to appear in forums that are untraditional. Podcasts, television shows, places where candidates talk “off-script” and  with “lots of different kinds of interlocutors.”

And in our social media age, he emphasizes the need to post. Constantly.

It’s not just how you campaign and which outlets you talk to, though. Successful campaigns must prioritize producing content. One thing successful content creators will tell you about excelling in the world of digital attention is that there’s no penalty for quantity. No one checks your percentages — only your total numbers. You need to always be posting if you want a better chance of things going viral or at least ending up in the algorithmic slipstream that shoots it out to millions of eyeballs. So Democratic campaigns and candidates should be thinking about how their campaigns are going to produce a lot of attention-grabbing short-form videos to meet the most disengaged and youngest voters where they are.

He points to candidates who have effectively used social media–Mamdani in New York, AOC, a North Carolina candidate. Hayes also counsels candidates not to be risk-averse, not to worry about negative attention. (The proof of that recommendation has to be Donald Trump, who–despite his demonstrable lack of mental acuity–was evidently born knowing that any and all publicity is good publicity.)

As Hayes argues, the public has become distracted and distractible, and gaffes, controversial and even offensive statements  no longer matter the way they did. When people are distracted, they rarely recall anything but the name.

And we’re all distracted all the time now.

Comments

No News Is Definitely NOT Good News

A friend recently sent me a link to Northwestern University’s “State of Local News.” It was incredibly depressing. It also provides an answer to the question so many of us repeatedly pose: how can people believe X or Y? The answer, it turns out, is simple: they have no access to contrary information–or, for that matter, any contemporary news coverage that can credibly be labeled journalism.

Here is the first paragraph of the report’s Executive Summary: the emphases are mine.

Our first State of Local News report, published in 2016, examined the local news landscape across America over the previous 10 years, taking data from 2005 as its starting point. Now, in the project’s 10th year, we are able to look back through the past two decades and see dramatic transformations in the ecosystem of local news. Almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, leaving 50 million Americans with limited or no access to a reliable source of local news. This trend continues to impact the media industry and audiences nationwide. Newspapers are disappearing at the same rate as in 2024; more than 130 papers shut down in the past year alone. Newspaper employment is sliding steadily downward. And although there has been some growth in stand-alone and network digital sites, these startups remain heavily centralized in urban areas, and they have not been appearing fast enough to offset the losses elsewhere. As a result, news deserts – areas with extremely limited access to local news – continue to grow. In 2005, just over 150 counties lacked a source of local news; today, there are more than 210. Meanwhile, the journalism industry faces new and intensified challenges including: shrinking circulation and steep losses of revenue from changes to search and the adoption of AI technologies, while political attacks against public broadcasters threaten to leave large swaths of rural America without local news.

There are many reasons for the urban/rural divide, and access to reliable information is one of them.

According to the report, there has been a steady increase in the number of counties that are “news deserts” – defined as areas that lack consistent local reporting. The project found that 213 U.S. counties lack any local news source, an increase from the 206 such counties it found last year. And you have to wonder just how much “news” is delivered In the 1,524 counties having only a weekly newspaper. As the project reports, that leaves some 50 million Americans who have limited or no access to local journalism.

It isn’t just the rural areas of the country, although the problem is most severe in rural America. The disappearance of local news sources has been especially pronounced in the suburbs of large cities where, the report tells us, “hundreds of papers have merged together. The papers that remain look profoundly different than just a few decades ago, with significantly consolidated ownership and reduced print frequencies.”

One result of rural Americans’ diminished access to information has been an increased dependence on public broadcasting. So in July, Congress rescinded more than $1 billion that a previous Congress had allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

As a direct result, all federal funding to local NPR and PBS member stations vanished. This leaves hundreds of public media stations at risk of having to reduce or suspend operations – at a time when their services are increasingly vital to Americans with limited alternatives for local news, especially in rural areas. In this report, we track 342 public media stations across the country. Collectively, the signals from these stations reach into more than 90% of all U.S. counties, including 82% of news deserts, making them a crucial piece of information infrastructure within the local news ecosystem.

The effort to kill public broadcasting is quite clearly part of MAGA’s effort to control the information environment–to deprive those living in news deserts of access to information inconsistent with GOP propaganda.

There’s much more at the link, but the quoted material goes to the heart of the information problem central to America’s polarization: the consolidation of ownership– of both print news and broadcast–means that the overwhelming majority of news delivery is now in the hands of the billionaires who are part of our governing kakistocracy. Meanwhile, the lack of traditional, reliable local news sources means that millions of Americans no longer have access to credible, vetted journalism.

What’s left is the Wild West of the Internet–filled with sites that provide “news” curated to confirm the bias of the person doing “research.”

No wonder we Americans occupy alternate realities.

Comments