Random Blogging – Page 4

Getting Hortatory

My friend and occasional co-author Morton Marcus recently sent me the following:

Hortatory: Definition: giving exhortation or advice; encouraging someone to take a particular course of action
Origin: from the Latin word “hortatorius” meaning “encouraging”
Example: The coach gave a hortatory speech to the team, urging them to give their all in the upcoming game.

Giving exhortation or advice is at the core of what “hortatory” means. It involves motivating or inspiring someone to take action towards a certain goal or objective. This can be done through words of encouragement, counsel or advice. A hortatory speech can be given in different settings, such as in a business meeting, a classroom or a sports team huddle. It is a way to inspire people to aim higher and achieve their desired outcomes. Effective hortatory speeches are often filled with passion, conviction and sincerity, and can be a powerful tool for inspiring others to take positive action.

I’m not sure what this bit of wisdom was intended to convey–whether it was in response to a post, or someone’s comment– but it got me thinking about what I’ve been calling “the resistance.”

A number of people who’ve been advising/considering the options for those of us opposed to the coming full-scale assault on American governance have downplayed the effects of public demonstrations–protests, marches and the like. The central point is that these expressions of anger or disapproval don’t really accomplish anything–that We the People need to apply our energies to more substantive efforts. I don’t disagree with the observation that public dissent by itself is insufficient, but I think it is nevertheless important.

Look at that definition of “hortatory.”

Widespread expressions of disapproval, whether delivered via letters to elected officials, mass demonstrations, letters to the editor, blog posts, op-eds or other means have important impacts we shouldn’t dismiss: they send a message, and not just to the MAGA folks and Trumpers, many of whom are unaware and dismissive of the extent of public disapproval. Examples of public exhortation help forge community among the people who are participating in other, more scattered acts of resistance. They reassure resistors that they are not alone, that many other people share their belief in American values–especially the rule of law and transparent, competent and ethical governance.

In 2022, the Brookings Institution considered the effects of mass protests. In a study titled “Protest Matters” the focus was on the effects of protests on economic redistribution. Researchers studied whether citizen-led protests were able to nudge governments to increase redistributive efforts of fiscal resources, using evidence from Nigeria. The results were mixed– but overall the results showed that protests did influence fiscal redistribution.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has also looked into the effects of demonstrations. Among other findings, that study found that such protests have been increasing globally.

Mass protests increased annually by an average of 11.5 percent from 2009 to 2019 across all regions of the world, with the largest concentration of activity in the Middle East and North Africa and the fastest rate of growth in sub-Saharan Africa.

Analysis of the underlying drivers of this growth suggests the trend will continue, meaning the number and intensity of global protests is likely to increase.

Protests have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, ranging from regime change and political accommodation to protracted political violence with many casualties.

The study also identified what it called “catalyzing factors” responsible for the trend: (1) the use of technology by protestors and governments alike, (2) the tension between shifting democratic and authoritarian government types, and (3) the need for improved understanding and responsiveness between governments and their citizens.

Some protests have greater impact than others–it turns out that the “how” of a protest is important. A study, titled “Protests: How Effective Are They?” found that three factors were most significant in predicting the success of such mass efforts: Nonviolent tactics, a favorable sociopolitical context, and a large number of participants. (A “favorable sociopolitical context” includes the existence of pre-existing, favorable public opinion, supportive elites, a favorable media environment– and luck.)

There’s a fairly robust academic literature considering the role of mass protests in promoting change, and while most studies don’t use the term “hortatory,” the hortatory element of successful protests was obvious. Those of us who are determined to resist the corruption, incompetence and sheer anti-Americanism of a Trump administration need to include public protest in our arsenal of weapons.

It’s not enough, but we shouldn’t dismiss it. It will be an important aspect of the resistance.

Comments

Context Matters

How many times have you told someone you would attend gathering A, or accomodate request B, then been unable to follow through? Perhaps it was due to an illness or family emergency or simply because you’d forgotten about a pre-existing obligation. It’s not uncommon–compliance with previous promises is, unfortunately, contingent upon the continued reasonableness/ability to perform.

When the news broke about President Biden’s pardon of his son, despite earlier statements that no such pardon would be forthcoming, I didn’t realize that the context had changed–dramatically. And even then, to be honest, it didn’t bother me; anyone familiar with the laws governing Hunter Biden’s prosecution can attest to the fact that he faced penalties far more severe than those sought against others in the same circumstances– only because his name was Biden. (As former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance made clear in her Civil Discourse, Hunter Biden wouldn’t even have been criminally charged if he had been anyone other than the president’s son). The relentless effort to use him politically to hurt his father was obvious and unfair. So–while a pardon did violate the President’s prior promise not to issue one– I really thought it was appropriate.

And that was before I realized how dramatically the context had changed. As Heather Cox Richardson has explained,

The pardon’s sweeping scope offers an explanation for why Biden issued it after saying he would not.

Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch notes that Biden’s pardon came after Trump’s announcement that he wants to place conspiracy theorist Kash Patel at the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Filipkowski studies right-wing media and points out that Patel’s many appearances there suggest he is obsessed with Hunter Biden, especially the story of his laptop, which Patel insists shows that Hunter and Joe Biden engaged in crimes with Ukraine and China.

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) spent two years investigating these allegations and turned up nothing—although Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia used the opportunity to display pictures of Hunter Biden naked on national media—yet Patel insists that the Department of Justice should focus on Hunter Biden as soon as a Trump loyalist is back in charge.

Notably, Trump’s people, including former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his ally Lev Parnas, spent more than a year trying to promote false testimony against Hunter Biden by their Ukrainian allies. Earlier this year, in the documentary From Russia with Lev, produced by Rachel Maddow, Parnas publicly apologized to Hunter Biden for his role in the scheme.

The victory of Donald Trump and his subsequent unqualified and inappropriate choices for important government positions raised the very real prospect that the FBI and Justice Department might literally fabricate evidence, or collaborate with a foreign government to ‘find’ evidence of a ‘crime,’ with zero accountability–that going forward, those agencies would be used as political weapons rather than legitimate law enforcement mechanisms, and would focus on Hunter Biden, among others.

Richardson pointed out that most media outlets had failed to tell the full story–to provide the context within which a prior promise could not–should not–be kept. Several pundits have asserted that Biden has given Trump license to pardon anyone he wants, evidently forgetting that in his first term, “Trump pardoned his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax evasion, campaign finance offenses, and witness tampering and whom Trump has now tapped to become the U.S. ambassador to France.”

Trump also pardoned for various crimes men who were associated with the ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian operatives working to elect Trump. Those included his former national security advisor Michael Flynn, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and former allies Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. Those pardons, which suggested Trump was rewarding henchmen, received a fraction of the attention lavished on Biden’s pardon of his son.

In today’s news coverage, the exercise of the presidential pardon—which traditionally gets very little attention—has entirely outweighed the dangerous nominations of an incoming president, which will have profound influence on the American people. This imbalance reflects a longstanding and classic power dynamic in which Republicans set the terms of public debate, excusing their own objectionable behavior while constantly attacking Democrats in a fiery display that attracts media attention but distorts reality.

As Richardson notes, this lack of balance and context do not bode well for journalism during the upcoming administration. The likelihood is that the media will continue to leave the public badly informed–or completely uninformed– about matters that are important for truly understanding modern politics.

Matters like context.

Comments

Happy Thanksgiving Anyway

Just a short post for turkey day.

One of my huge regrets about the state of America’s governance is that the very real problems I post about here are at significant variance with the blessings of my own life. I’m one of those privileged Americans with a (very nice) roof over my head, plenty to eat (frequently too much) and enough disposable income to be comfortable.

Knowing that other people have far less, that many will suffer under Trump, and that America is no longer small-d democratic dims my ability to enjoy my own blessings, but I am immensely grateful for them.

The most important thing for which I am thankful is a wonderful family–great kids and step-kids and in-laws–and brilliant, perfect grandchildren (okay, perhaps I’m an overly fond grandma) who care deeply about the world they inhabit and take seriously their civic and human obligations. Unlike many who comment here, we are fortunate that there will be no Trumpers at our Thanksgiving table, not even among our extended family.

And speaking of that table, this year the kids have imposed a rule: no political discussions on Thanksgiving, on pain of fines to be assessed on a sliding scale. Five dollars for the first breach of the rule, ten for the next, and so on. All funds collected will be sent to the ACLU. We will use today’s meal as a time to remind ourselves of all the things for which we are grateful –first and foremost, each other.

I commend this approach.

I would be remiss if I didn’t add that I am very thankful for all of you who read my daily rants–the thoughtful folks whose comments and references constantly educate me, and the “lurkers”–those who sometimes email me and those I encounter when I’m out and about. In my retirement (dotage??), your participation keeps me engaged–and hopeful.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. Share a loving table. Hug and kiss those you love. I’ll be back with doom and gloom (and occasional hopefulness) tomorrow.

Comments

Resisting

I have often opined that there is one question that dominates times like these. That question is: what do we do?

It’s one thing to understand the importance of resistance to Trump and his clear intention to implement the proposals in Project 2025–it’s another to figure out how, to answer the question: what can an individual do? I’ve wrestled with that question in previous posts, but it is obvious that a true resistance will require the emergence of a movement, the creation of a variety of organizations cooperating to restrain, delay and when possible, reverse the damage.

An article from the website “Waging Nonviolence” addressed that issue.

No analysis will change the fact that the election delivered a serious blow to America’s most vulnerable communities, and promises to deliver a devastating setback for economic and social justice. It’s understandable that many of us are taking this moment to grieve for what we have lost–very much including (at least in my case) a belief in the essential good sense of the American public.

But even amidst our feelings of sorrow or hopelessness, we can recognize that political conditions are not static. As we step out of our grieving and look ahead, there are reasons to believe that a new social movement cycle to confront Trumpism can emerge. And in making this happen, we can draw on lessons from what has worked in the past and what we know can be effective in confronting autocrats. Our job will be to take advantage of the moments of opportunity that arise in coming months to hold the line against Trump’s authoritarianism — and also link them to a vision for creating the transformative change we need in our world.

The article went on to explain why we can expect resistance movements to emerge, especially the fact that the election was in all probability a “trigger event,” defined as a moment when

issues of social and economic injustice are thrown into the spotlight by a dramatic or expected public event: A shocking scandal, a natural disaster, a geopolitical conflict or an investigative report revealing gross misconduct stokes widespread outrage and sends people into the streets.

In 2016, Trump’s election itself served as a trigger event. A wide range of groups, from the liberal ACLU to the more radical Democratic Socialists of America, saw membership and donations surge as concerned progressives braced for what was expected to come from his administration. New groups also emerged, such as Indivisible, which began as a viral Google Doc about how to confront elected officials and compel them to resist the Trump administration. It then quickly grew into an organization with more than 4,000 affiliated local groups by 2021.

The article noted that two days after the election, a call that had been organized by a coalition of 200 groups — including the Working Families Party, MoveOn, United We Dream and Movement for Black Lives Action — drew well in excess of 100,000 people, and that thousands more signed up for follow-up gatherings.

There is a tendency by the “Chattering classes” (people like David Brooks of the New York Times) to minimize the importance and effects of mass protests. The author of the article conceded that marches and other mass protests cannot effect change merely by occuring. However, as he pointed out, they can and do motivate change and activate other efforts.

And they send the message that We the People have not abandoned hope and resolve.

If ever there was a time to allow ourselves a space for mourning as we contemplate the fate of our country, it is now. But ultimately, only we can save ourselves from despair. David Brooks intended to be dismissive in characterizing collective protest as “mass therapy,” but in one respect he is onto something: There is no better antidote to hopelessness than action in community.

Our past experience tells us that coming months and years will offer moments that trigger public revulsion. Social movements provide a unique mechanism for responding, creating common identity and purpose between strangers and allowing genuine, collective participation in building a better democracy. If we are to make it together through Trump’s second presidency and emerge in its aftermath to create the world we need, this may be our greatest hope. Indeed, it may be our only one.

Our choices are stark. We can either abandon ship, or join our like-minded friends and neighbors in efforts to make the one we’re in seaworthy.

Comments

Meanwhile…

One of Stephen Colbert’s recurring “shticks” on the Late Show is a bit he calls “Meanwhile.” He begins by explaining that X is happening, but meanwhile…there’s Y and Z, factoids that are hardly earth-shattering, but intriguing (and usually very funny).

A lot of us–especially those who participate in discussions here–obsessively follow government and politics, and are currently mourning America’s suicidal plunge back into the unresolved hatreds and fantasies of the past. I’m certainly not going to advise “checking out”–although many of us are currently taking a vacation from the avalanche of depressing news–but I am going to counsel a detour into “meanwhile.”

Did far too many Americans vote affirmatively for ugly and hateful? Did too many consider the explicit threats to “others”–people with identities different from their own–irrelevant? Did far too many Americans ignore their most basic civic responsibility, which was to cast an informed ballot? Are we currently being inundated with after-the-fact “analyses” by self-important and un-self-aware pundits convinced that if Democrats had just done it their way, the result would be different?

Yes, yes and yes. All of it.

But meanwhile, in hundreds of communities, good people are continuing to do good things. Friends are volunteering at homeless shelters. Congregations that take seriously the moral teachings of their churches, synagogues and mosques are sponsoring food banks and offering sanctuary. Professional organizations are continuing to provide legal and medical assistance to folks in poor communities. The list goes on, and these efforts will be even more important as the assault on various types of federal assistance takes hold.

There are literally millions of efforts constantly underway to lend assistance to one group or another, or to bring a bit of joy to people who have less, or who who face adversity of one sort or another.

One example: on my desk at this moment is a flyer given to me by a friend who is (over)involved in such efforts, who has asked me to assist his nonprofit by helping sell tickets to “A Broadway Christmas,” featuring Anthony Nunziata. (Nunziata is described on the flyer as “A Carnegie Hall Headliner dubbed America’s New Singing Sensation.”) According to. my friend, Nunziata is donating his performance, because the entire event is intended to support an organization called “Kids Dance Outreach.” It’s a nonprofit that serves disabled children, ages 2-14, in school and after-school dance programs.

The organization’s webpage describes its mission as “To positively impact the lives of all children through joyful dance programs that inspire excellence, instill confidence, encourage teamwork, and applaud persistence.” It also says its free programs have served over twenty-two thousand children thus far.

With a commitment to providing high-quality dance education to all children, all KDO programs are inclusive for children with physical, cognitive, and developmental disabilities. The Dancers with Disabilities Programs offer further opportunities specifically designed for children with disabilities to learn and grow in a safe and joyful environment.

(The program my friend is promoting will be held at 7:00 pm at Broadway United Methodist Church on December 14th. Anyone in Indianapolis interested in attending can purchase tickets on the website.)

Efforts like this one may seem irrelevant–or at least, small potatoes– to those of us consumed with worry over Trump’s ability to deliver imminent, widespread harm . Dancing children? Fiddling while Rome burns, thanks to our own American Nero? But efforts like this one–and there are literally millions of similar, seemingly irrelevant programs across this country–programs that testify to the presence of millions of good people working with others to brighten the lives of those who are less fortunate or who face challenges the rest of us have been spared.

There’s a recent cartoon (I think from the New Yorker) that struck me. I’m paraphrasing, but in the single panel, one woman is telling another that–upon consideration following the election– her mistake was believing in the goodness of a majority of Americans. It’s tempting to take that lesson from the undeniable fact that millions of Americans cast votes for a vicious, mentally-ill criminal with a clearly-articulated desire to destroy America’s constitutional democracy.

But that would be the wrong lesson.

Yes, a sizable portion–probably a majority– of Trump’s vote came from the out-and-out bigots: racists, anti-Semites and misogynists he intentionally courted. But many others voted from ignorance fostered by dependence on right-wing propaganda. And all of those votes together did not reach 50% of the total cast.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans were volunteering or otherwise supporting the multitude of not-for-profit and voluntary organizations which exist only to help others. True, it isn’t enough. We have significant systemic issues we need to resolve.

But at times like these, it’s worth remembering.

Comments