Category Archives: Random Blogging

Put This On Your Calendar

October 18th. Put it on your calendar.

That’s the day that Indivisible and its partner organizations will mount a second “No Kings” day. As the email announcing that event reminded us, organizing a national day of action with millions of people takes time and resources– recruitment tools, map of events, supplies and resources for local protests and anchor events, so the advance notice is intended to allow for fundraising and the other tasks that ensure a successful turnout.

Speaking of turnout–the incredible number who participated in the first No Kings Day was the result of such careful organizing, and the goal is to build on that success–to ensure that the millions of Americans who are deeply opposed to the ongoing destruction of America’s government and our constitutional culture have a vehicle to send a powerful message, not just to the nation’s corrupt and incompetent MAGA administration, but to their cowardly enablers in the House and Senate.

In the announcement of the second No Kings Day, the email from Indivisible reported “round the clock coordination with our No Kings partners” and the intent “to make the next No Kings one of the largest days of protest in US history.”

I have posted previously about academic studies documenting peaceful protests by only 3.5% of a country’s population that have defeated other autocratic takeovers. That percentage would translate to some eleven million Americans–an enormous but doable number.

I frequently hear people minimize the effectiveness of taking to the streets in this fashion. Certainly, if nothing else is going on–if the resistance is limited to expressions of displeasure–that effectiveness will be limited. But that isn’t the case in today’s America. Literally hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the administration’s illegal and unlawful actions, and–at least at the lower court level–over 80% of them have been successful. I’ve previously noted the multiple efforts being mounted by Blue state Attorneys General and governors.

There are also the numerous, less well-organized and promoted protests that have erupted more or less spontaneously around the country. Citizens have developed on-line systems identifying ICE movements, to assist immigrants in evading capture; small (but not insignificant) groups of protestors have gathered in response to other illegal and unconstitutional incursions. Social media is filled with advice for resistors (granted, not always helpful)–not to mention reports of lesser-known activities protesting our would-be King.

The great virtue of a massive protest of the sort being planned for October 18th is the message it sends, especially but not exclusively to the Republican elected officials who have refused to hold town halls or otherwise interact with angry constituents.  But we should not minimize the extent to which participation in such events also has a number of “spin-off” merits. As someone who participated in the first No Kings protest, I can personally attest to experiencing very welcome feelings of solidarity. Interacting with so many other people who clearly shared my concerns, encountering friends I might not have expected to see at such an event, reading the multiple (often very clever) signs–acted like a shot of adrenalin.

When an individual citizen gets up each morning and is immediately assaulted by emails, newsletters and media “breaking news” items detailing the most recent horrific, bigoted and unconstitutional actions taken by the Trump administration, demoralization can–and often does–set in. Gathering with others who share one’s determination not to surrender is a powerful antidote.

In any event, put October 18th on your calendar. Buy some poster-board, and maybe a t-shirt with an appropriately aggressive slogan. Sign up with Indivisible to indicate your intent to participate, and tell your friends and family members.

Let’s see if we can get eleven million people to send a message…

Comments

Really, DeSantis?

Every day, media reports add to the already ample evidence that bigotry is the basis and glue of MAGA–racism, predominantly, but also very substantial amounts of misogyny and homophobia. If the constant, hysterical attacks on DEI and “woke-ism” weren’t sufficient to display the resentments and animus that fuel Trump’s base, a recent incident in Ron DeSantis’ Florida (or–as a cousin who lives there spells it–“FloriDUH”) provides additional confirmation of both the extent and the sheer pettiness of these Rightwing hatreds.

During his tenure in the governor’s office, DeSantis has waged war against such “woke” targets as higher education and Disney World, but now, as The Bulwark recently reported, he’s extended that war to sidewalk chalk. I kid you not.

A MAN WALKING ACROSS an intersection in Florida was arrested over the weekend.

His alleged crime? Felonious use of pink sidewalk chalk.

The man’s name is Sebastian Suarez. On Friday evening, he crossed a street in Orlando with chalk dust on his shoes, leaving pastel-covered footprints on the asphalt. Members of the Florida Highway Patrol, who had taken up a post on the corner, promptly arrested him.

The backstory to this ludicrous arrest is the 2016 massacre at the Pulse nightclub by a gunman who killed 49 people and wounded another 53–at the time, the deadliest mass shooting in America’s sorry, gun-soaked history. The street in question is in front of the Pulse, which was a gay club. That street was subsequently turned into a memorial to the victims.

As part of the tribute, local officials and LGBTQ community leaders decided to fill in the empty spaces of a crosswalk outside the site with colorful paint, so that it would evoke a Pride flag.

They got state approval, laid down the paint one year later and turned the crosswalk into a rainbow—which is how it looked until late August, when state workers removed the colored paint. That set off a series of protests by LGBTQ activists and attempts to recolor the crosswalk, which is what police and state attorneys say Suarez was attempting to do with his chalk.

They charged him with defacing a traffic device, which can be a felony, and kept him in jail overnight.

A judge released Suarez the next day, holding that there had been no probable cause for the arrest. But DeSantis isn’t modifying his expanded view of what activities constitute a threat to “law and order.”

On Sunday, police arrested three more alleged street-coloring bandits. They too have been released from jail without charges, but this time the judge found probable cause, evidently because police—perhaps having been schooled by a state attorney in what the law in question actually prohibits—are now claiming that the chalk is causing more than $1,000 in damages.

DeSantis is following the Trump administration’s efforts to obliterate any and all messages of inclusion and acceptance. A Federal Highway Administration spokesperson responded to a question about the crackdown on such communications by saying that  “Roads are for safety not political messages or artwork.” As the Bulwark article drily notes, the safety defense would be a lot more believable if there were some evidence that painted crosswalks were actually endangering drivers or pedestrians. There doesn’t appear to be any such evidence.

On the contrary—and as articles in the Washington Post and Guardian have noted —a key 2022 study using crash data and observational studies from around the country found asphalt art actually improves safety, by making crosswalks more visible to drivers. As it happens, six of the seventeen intersections in the study were in Florida, which has the nation’s fourth-highest pedestrian fatality rate.

The Pulse crosswalk was not part of the study, but last week the Orlando Sentinel published its own analysis of traffic data and reached the same conclusion—i.e., that colorful street decorations make the city safer for pedestrians….

The safety excuse would also be more credible if Duffy, in his initial tweet announcing the policy, hadn’t explicitly singled out LGBT memorials. “Taxpayers expect their dollars to fund safe streets, not rainbow crosswalks,” Duffy wrote. “Political banners have no place on public roads.”

I wonder if the culture warriors determined to stamp out evidence that gay people exist realize how stupid this is–assigning police to monitor chalk use at intersections rather than spending their time catching criminals or even speeders. The men of MAGA must be incredibly threatened by us uppity women, Brown and Black people who have the nerve to act like they’re entitled to equal civic status, and of course, the mere existence of LGBTQ+ folks.  

But really–criminalizing chalk? Pretty pathetic.

Comments

What If?

A couple of years ago–even before the new “Dark Ages” we are experiencing under the Trump Administration–I posted about a question that has obsessed me much of my adult life: what is the common good? What would a truly good society look like, and why does it matter?

I came across that post a couple of days ago, and decided that–if anything–those questions have become even more pertinent today.

As I wrote then, maybe it’s advancing age, or–even more likely– my growing concern that I may be watching human civilization disintegrate around me, but I increasingly find myself mulling over what i call the “fundamental questions.” How should humans live together? What sorts of institutional and governmental arrangements are fairest? What sort of society is most likely to facilitate human flourishing? What sort of economic system might ensure the subsistence of all members of a society without depressing innovation and productivity?

These aren’t new questions. But for those of us with grandchildren who will have to navigate this increasingly chaotic and angry world, they are critical.

Aristotle described the good society as one that encouraged and facilitated human flourishing. It’s been awhile, so I no longer recall how–or whether–he defined “flourishing,” but I can’t imagine people flourishing (however defined) under a system that ignored the requisites of what we call the common good.

I favor John Rawls’ approach to questions of the common good. Rawls–the pre-eminent political philosopher of the 20th Century–begins by insisting upon a “veil of ignorance.” The veil of ignorance is a scenario in which  individuals are placed behind a metaphorical veil that strips them of knowledge about who they will be and where they will live; they cannot know whether they’ll be rich or poor, talented or not, brilliant or mentally disabled, healthy or sickly, etc. From behind that veil of ignorance, the individual must design a society that they  would consider to be a just one no matter where they landed and no matter what their personal attributes.

The goal of the veil device, rather obviously, is to encourage respondents to think deeply about the structure of society, and to ignore to the extent possible the influence of his/her actual attributes and situation.

If Rawls is a bit too theoretical for you, several years ago my friend Morton Marcus penned a more accessible but no less important set of questions. Morton distilled the study of economics and economic systems into the question “Who Gets What?” In that essay, he pointed out that social and material goods are allocated in a more complicated fashion than most of us recognize. Depending upon the good being accessed, it might be allocated on a “first come, first served basis” or via the force/authority exerted by one’s government or family. The allocation might or might not be tied to merit–or at least, what society at a given time regards as merit.

Morton’s exposition was lengthy, but its major contribution consists of the reminder that “who gets what?” is a question that permeates our social and legal relationships and involves multiple decisions by government and the private sector.

Humans have a habit of thinking that the culture into which they’ve been socialized is “natural”–it’s “the way things are.” When “the way things are” is challenged– by technology, displacement, social change, whatever–most people will dig in, defending our world-views and beliefs about the way things should be. Typically, we believe they should be the way we think they’ve always been–the familiar cultural touchstones to which we’ve become accustomed and with which we’re comfortable.

What if we used these scary, unsettled times to consider what human flourishing entails, and to think about the kinds of systematic and social supports that would encourage individual flourishing?

What if we responded to the uncertainty and chaos in Washington, D.C. and around the globe by purposefully retreating behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance, and trying to envision the outlines of a better, more just society?

What if we didn’t respond to uncertainty and fear by clinging more tightly to what we know, to our fears and prejudices and ideas about what constitutes merit, and instead pictured different ways of allocating goods, of answering the question “Who gets what?”

What if?

Comments

The Best Thing That’s Happened To the Nazis

Last week, a friend alerted me to a Reuters article exploring the recent rise of explicitly Nazi organizations–a rise attributed to the favorable climate produced by the Trump administration. The lede really says it all:

HOCHATOWN, Oklahoma – Wearing cargo shorts, flip-flops and a baseball cap shading his eyes from the sun, Dalton Henry Stout blends in easily in rural America.

Except for the insignia on his hat. It bears the skull and crossbones of the infamous “Death’s Head” SS units that oversaw Nazi Germany’s concentration camps – and the initials “AFN,” short for Aryan Freedom Network, the neo-Nazi group Stout leads with his partner.

From a modest ranch house in Texas, the couple oversee a network they say has been turbocharged by President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. They point to Trump’s rhetoric – his attacks on diversity initiatives, his hardline stance on immigration and his invocation of “Western values” – as driving a surge in interest and recruitment.

Trump “awakened a lot of people to the issues we’ve been raising for years,” Stout told Reuters. “He’s the best thing that’s happened to us.”

As the article reports, Trump’s re-election turbo-charged the activism of America’s neo-Nazi organizations. Trump’s rhetoric, especially, has served to galvanize far-right and white supremacist activists, and encouraged growth in their numbers. That growth has been abetted by a variety of Trump’s actions: his pardons of the January 6 rioters, his use of ICE and federal law enforcement to terrorize and “disappear” immigrants of color, the virtual abandonment of federal investigations into white nationalism–and, of course, the administration’s consistent attacks on diversity and inclusion.

The Trump administration has scaled back efforts to counter domestic extremism, redirecting resources toward immigration enforcement and citing the southern border as the top security threat. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reduced staffing in its Domestic Terrorism Operations Section. The Department of Homeland Security has cut personnel in its violence prevention office.

The article also reported what most observers (especially those of us who once called ourselves Republican) have seen; Ideas that were once considered ridiculous, unAmerican and fringe, have moved into the mainstream of Republican politics.  Election denialism and rhetoric portraying immigrants as “invaders”–joined by Trump’s public support and pardons for far-right figures–have served to normalize those views with today’s Republican voters. There is no longer a bright line between “mainstream Republicanism” and the neo-fascist far right.

That shift has coincided with a surge in white nationalist activity. White extremists are committing a growing proportion of U.S. political violence, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project, a nonprofit research outfit that tracks global conflicts. In 2020, such groups were linked to 13% of all U.S. extremist-related demonstrations and acts of political violence, or 57 of the events ACLED tracked. By 2024, they accounted for nearly 80%, or 154 events.

The article reports that Stout’s beliefs, and the beliefs of many of the neo-Nazi groups, are rooted in the Christian Identity movement. That movement claims that white Europeans, not Jews, are the true Israelites of the bible and are therefore God’s chosen people. They also claim that Black Americans, under Jewish influence, are leading a Communist revolution – a fusion of racial supremacy ideology with far-right conspiracy theories.

The pseudoscientific notion of a superior white Aryan race – essentially Germanic – was a core tenet of Hitler’s Nazi regime. AFN gatherings brim with Nazi memes: Swastikas are ritually set ablaze and chants of “white power” echo through the woods. AFN’s website pays specific tribute to violent white supremacist groups of the past, including The Order, whose members killed a Jewish radio host in 1984.

The article documents the relationship of these emerging neo-Nazi groups to the KKK, and documents both their recent growth and their advocacy of race war.

When Stout was asked about why he believes these groups have been gaining momentum, he offered a chilling explanation:
“Our side won the election.”

Yes, it did.

Comments

It’s About Time!

Regular readers of this blog know that, when I address the threats posed by Christian Nationalism, I always put quotation marks around the word Christian. I do so because the movement we call Christian Nationalism seems–to this non-Christian–incredibly unChristian. I have several friends in the clergy, and they are admirable humans who follow a very different religious path from the proponents of bigotry and White Supremacy who have appropriated the title.

But because I do know wonderful people who identify as Christian, I have been frustrated by what I have seen as a tepid response by the genuinely Christian community to the usurpation of their identity. I would have expected members of the kind and thoughtful congregations that I know are “out there” to respond forcefully to those who are militarizing and distorting the tradition, but until very recently, there has been minimal pushback from people who are entitled to call themselves Christian.

It wasn’t until 2019 that Christians Against Christian Nationalism was formed, the first welcome sign of organized resistance of which I’m aware. And now, in an equally welcome response to ICE and its efforts to rid the country of Black and Brown people by categorizing them as “illegal immigrants,” a network of 5000 churches has organized to protect worshippers.

As The Bulwark has reported, a network of five thousand faith communities is now disseminating a blueprint for clergy and lay leaders who want to push back against what Trump and the agents of his newly emboldened ICE are doing to immigrants across the country.

This rapid-response action plan for churches and faith communities to protect people during ICE raids is the brainchild of evangelical pastor Doug Pagitt and his group Vote Common Good, which is not only providing these resources to the faith communities in his network, but also sending an open letter to the White House Faith Office calling for justice and compassion for immigrants, and slamming plans to open more detention centers like Florida’s Everglades detention facility. Thousands of faith leaders and congregations cosigned the letter.

The plan includes formation of rapid-response teams of volunteers willing to monitor reports of raids, verify them, and show up to raids as “moral witnesses.” They also coordinate shelter, transportation, and legal aid for vulnerable immigrants.

The activism of these congregations is largely in reaction to Trump’s over-reach: Churches are no longer safe from ICE incursions. But whatever the trigger, my reaction is “better late than never.”

The question that confronts adherents of all religions is deceptively simple: do you actively defend the core values of your faith, or do you simply wear the label? When that label is appropriated by people whose actions are diametrically opposed to the most fundamental values of your religion, what do you do? (It isn’t just American Christians who must choose a path under those circumstances; Jews in Israel who see Netanyahu’s actions as fundamentally inconsistent with Jewish values face the same decision.)

Of course, it isn’t just religious folks. When the fascists come calling, we are all obligated to choose a side. Lawyers must decide how dedicated they really are to the rule of law; university personnel must stand–or not–for intellectual freedom. These really are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls–the times that challenge us to decide where our values really lie and how willing we are to defend them.

Pagitt, the founder of Vote Common Good, has been disappointed to see the way church groups have been co-opted and bullied during Trump’s second term. He isn’t the only one.

“Much to my sadness, we’ve seen faith communities quiver and shake and be afraid like universities and law firms and so many institutions,” he said. “We want to be on the other side of that and say to skeptical people of good conscience to not play the silent hypocrite card.”

It’s encouraging to see the real Christians begin to stand up. The rest of us need to emulate them.

Comments