From my corner of the world...

A post from still small voice, from up in North Idaho

Here, in North Idaho, an active, progressive faction of our community worked hard for many years to rid this corner of the world from white supremacists like the Aryan Nations, Ku Klux Klan, and Christian Identity adherents as well as the Militia of Montana, the Posse Comitatus and Holocaust deniers. Members of these various groups used to gather every April at the Aryan Nations compound to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, and to talk about their shared dream of an Aryan homeland.

North Idaho, eastern Washington and Western Montana were seen to be a perfect place to break ground for this movement, due to the lack of diversity. The Aryan Nations compound was razed to the ground and turned into a “Peace Park” in 2000-- after they lost a lawsuit filed against them by the local human rights organization with the help of Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty law Center.

I thought the concept of a white homeland was bulldozed over as well. Tonight however, I was driving home listening to NPR and heard an interview with Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who coined the term “Alt-Right.” Trump’s newly appointed chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, used to run the website Breitbart, which he called “the platform for the Alt-Right.”

Spencer exulted that with the election of Donald Trump the Alt-Right had entered the mainstream, where it will continue to grow. The end goal of this movement, Spencer stated, would be the formation of a “white ethno state” described as a safe place for Europeans. When Kelly McEvers of NPR asked him if he thought only white people should be citizens of the US he said that wouldn’t be something that could be changed right away but that …”European people were the indispensable central people that defined this nation socially and politically and culturally and demographically obviously. I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races.” He went on to suggest that immigration be limited mostly to Europeans--“who are going to fit in-- who are more like us.”

Chilling. But I’m wondering if this time around there will be a broader section of the community who will find this idea not only ludicrous but repulsive.

The day after the election our local human rights group received 4 calls from people wanting to become members. That’s never happened before-- not even in a week, not even in most months. They want to be able to help protect those among us who might feel the most fearful and threatened at this time.

On Tuesday I received a call from a friend I had worked with closely on the human rights task force who since has devoted himself to environmental activism. He attended the Paris summit and started a 350 Sandpoint group inspired by the work of Bill McKibben. On Monday he’d been on a conference call with Bill, as well as other social justice activists in the fields of immigration, racial and ethnic as well as LGBTQ issues. They concluded that the best thing to do at this time was to begin to work together and support each other--So he called a meeting that night of people he knew were active in our community.

There were about 20 of us-- several people had just returned from Standing Rock, helping to support the protest there-- and others represented other organizations in the community. I don’t know what will come of it, but the energy is definitely there to reach out beyond the boundaries within which we all have been working and embrace a broader mission.

One thing that was mentioned was starting a “Safety Pin Campaign.” I had to look that up-- but found that after the Brexit vote, people in the UK started wearing safety pins to show solidarity with immigrants and refugees and others likely to become victims of harassment. If a person wants to be known to others as “safe” or someone to whom they could turn if they feared for their safety, that person wears a big, visible safety pin. Sometimes we need a symbol to rally around-- and this seems to inspire those who would be allies to members of the various groups who have been marginalized by Trump during his campaign and now are fearful of their future.

I will bring it up in a meeting I’m attending tomorrow of another group that has come together to prevent teen suicide, and counter bullying and harassment in the high schools. Perhaps it might take hold in the high schools as well as in our community at large -- and increase awareness of the fact that we have the power to stand up for others.

In some ways it seems like we are moving backwards-- but perhaps we are only going back over the same ground we had only begun to plow, to break up clods, and better prepare the soil so that the seeds we sow will have a chance to grow. And it appears as though many more people are gathering to share in the work, driven by the urgency that comes from a sense of imminent disaster.

The Intense Moral Urgency of Option Two: Some Further Links

I posted a brief comment on the recent post by ambivalent_maybe, in which he outlined two possible paths forward after the disastrous election results in the USA. As I said there, I strongly believe that Option Two--building a populist and progressive coalition around shared economic and social goals--is the only realistic way to build an effective coalition to challenge Trump. We might call this the "Sanders-Warren-Ellison-Gabbard" wing of the Democratic Party.

Also in response to this post, I sent some further links (besides those reactions already posted a few days ago) that lay out some of the prospects and perils of the next few years in our politics. As I told him in my e-mail, there is a way of connecting all these commentaries together into a coherent narrative about the grave dangers of moving forward without trying to rebuild a populist progressive coalition that includes white working-class voters.

One simplified way of putting this message is Marshall Auerback's slogan: It’s Class, Stupid, Not Race. Similarly, Owen Jones, in the Guardian, has declared, in the wake of the recent election results: "The left needs a new populism fast. It’s clear what happens if we fail" In practice, this means setting up a politics in which we can peel away some of Trump's voter base, especially the white working class voters who most dramatically shifted away from the Democrats this year. Les Leopold of the Labor Institute offers an example of what this would mean in a concrete case--Carrier in Indiana--that Trump himself talked about prominently during the campaign. This also means reckoning with the social realities on the ground, as Gary Younge has narrated in a compelling, tragic portrayal of Muncie, Indiana (aka "Middletown")

A broader vision of how we can think about this election is provided by Nathan J. Robinson at Current Affairs, who has provided great contrarian commentary throughout this election cycle: What This Means, How This Happened, What To Do Now.

Nevertheless, although one of Robinson's most devastatingly compelling contrarian take-downs targets has been Vox.com, I believe we will also need some of their "explainer journalism" as part of the coalition, including their summary of the scholarly literature, pointing out that simply accusing people of racism is highly likely to be counterproductive. And although I share Robinson's discomfort with Vox's elitist, centrist liberalism--and I am much more of a populist, anti-establishment insurgent, to use the terminology of Chris Hayes's incredibly prescient book from a few years ago, Twilight of the Elites--I was moved by Ezra Klein's video (and Matthew Yglesias's plaintive textual introduction to it) on how we will need to hope with all of our hope that our American institutions can provide an effective counterweight to the unprecedented systemic corruption which will rock the very foundations of the American republic under a Trump presidency.

As much as I often find myself disagreeing with centrist liberal elite commentators like Klein and Yglesias, we are going to need their help--and, as they point out, GOP members who believe in the American system over party--even as we push very hard for a populist progressive economic coalition under which opposition to Trump can be organized.

 The most urgent shift, in my view, is to emphasize less the outrageous tweets, statements, and insults, and emphasize more about the coming economic betrayals and political corruption of the Trump administration. I realize that there are many groups which are hurting from the wave of hate and bigotry which has campaign has unleashed, and we will certainly have to take action to protect the most vulnerable. But in terms of our larger political messaging, it is clear from the election campaign that outrage at Trump's bad language and contemptible attitudes will not bring about a robust coalition to oppose him.

We must focus on matters of broad-based interests: basic kitchen table economics, shared public aversion to corporate and Wall Street power, and popular revulsion at political corruption. (And now that Hillary Clinton is gone from the scene, they can no longer fall back on the easy rebuttal that focuses on the Clintons' corruption to distract from the Trumps' far greater corruption.)

Most provocative of all--inevitably and intensely controversial--is Mark Lilla's call in the New York Times for "The End of Identity Liberalism." While I am deeply uneasy about the dangers to our coalition building that may come from Lilla's call for an end to identity-based liberalism, I do believe it is a conversation we need to have on the left, given what happened in the election. This will be a very difficult and painful conversation, but if we truly want to create a world where everyone is equally valued and respected, we simply must ask about what kind of politics will get us there.

The more we care about vulnerable groups in our society, the more it is morally urgent to ask hard questions about what kind of politics will be effective in protecting their fundamental rights. And I am increasingly in agreement with Lilla: such a politics requires a commitment to universalism and shared civic ideals, around which all groups can mobilize.

What to do next?

First, some basic points to keep in mind.

1. However much the Trumpists might pretend otherwise, this election was really close. Just one or two percentage points here and there would have turned his into a victory for Clinton. 
2. Turnout was low compared to 2012 and 2008, especially in states that Clinton won.
3. Clinton won the popular vote, and only the archaic electoral college put Trump in the White House. 

We can conclude from these points that American democracy has not failed, and that a little more democracy would have been all we needed to win. In other words, we should have faith that the basic vision of a decent and pluralistic society, where people of all genders, races, and ethnicities feel safe and are equally able to participate in the economic, cultural, and political life of the country, is a vision that most of Americans share. The next four years probably do not presage the eclipse of this vision, and a long struggle to keep what we've achieved since the 1960s in its service. Rather, this election is a bump in the road of continued progress, assuming of course that we can get our acts together for 2018 and 2020. (And nothing really terrible--like a new war--happens in our foreign relations, to which I can only say: I have my fingers crossed.)

I think we will get our acts together, and in some ways the Trump victory helps us mobilize support and clarifies the issues involved. But there are at least a couple viable ways forward from here, it seems to me, and I'm not sure yet which is best.

Option 1: Build the Anti-Trump Coalition

Option 1 for the Trump opposition is to abandon the Trump-besotted white working class and instead build a multi-racial urban coalition that can consistently defeat them. This would include Republicans disaffected by Trumpism, even as the party in general seems all to eager to get behind him now that he's won. A big tent like this would tend to mute other economic and social issues. It's more of a first-things-first strategy: Let's kick these troglodytes back to the sidelines, and after that we can argue more about economic and social policy.

Option 2: Rebuild a Progressive Democratic Party

This is more an intra-party strategy--to get rid of the dead wood in the Democratic party and revivify it as a true advocate for the working classes and poor. This would use the multi-racial urban coalition as a base, but try to broaden it--and to win back some working-class whites--by emphasizing progressive economic policies and fundamental political reforms. This would likely keep away disaffected Republicans, and would be portrayed in the media as leftist extremism to balance Trumpism. But it could also attract more young voters and further heighten the distinctions between the two parties.

As I said, I'm not sure which of these options is best at the moment. I do think that Option 1 is more likely, because it's goal is concrete and short-term, it is less threatening to corporate America, and it hews to the media's (and perhaps voters') predilection for casting events as tales of moral drama, while de-emphasizing economics.

Why Did Trump Win?

Hell if I know, if the short answer. But here, courtesy of Christian Left, is a short list of articles looking at the question.

• Thomas Frank, "Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there"
• Glenn Greenwald, "Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit"
• Dean Baker, "The High Price of the Trans-Pacific Partnership"
• Krystal Ball, "The Democratic Party Deserved To Die"
• Naomi Klein, "It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump"
• Michael Moore (back in July) "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win"

I am still gathering my thoughts, moving through stages of grief, disbelief each hour, practically. The only thing I consistently feel is a determination to keep fighting. Exactly how best to do that, though, is still unclear to me.

Perhaps We Should Ban Marriage Between Christians Instead?

On this day, when the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold a California ban against same-sex marriage--which would have a good chance of losing if it were to come up for a vote today, given shifting views on this issue--I propose an interesting thought experiment. As the opponents of gay marriage descend ever deeper into more illogical and convoluted justifications of their bigotry (is marriage really only valid if it produces children that are the naturally born genetic offspring of both parents due to heterosexual sex? really? really?) it has occurred to me that there is actually a better argument to be made for banning marriage between (most) Christians. Yes, I am serious about this--banning routine marriage between Christians, and possibly also taking away their children if they convert to Christianity later on. Now of course I am mainly bringing this up as a "shoe on the other foot" rhetorical tactic, in order to see how they feel if suddenly other people in society are talking about taking away their right to marry whom they love, on what appears to be a wholly discriminatory and unjustifiable basis. Really, the unfairness of disallowing marriage of one Christian to another may sound harsh, but it is no more unfair than disallowing gay and lesbian people to marry. Try this thought experiment, and I think you will immediately and perhaps more viscerally feel how unjust it is to single out one group for bigotry and intolerance. But beyond this, even though I don't ultimately support a ban against marriage of one Christian to another, the strange thing is that it is probably more justifiable, even if those justification do not ultimately outweigh the simple fact of equal justice under the law. Let me explain. For one thing, while gay and lesbian people do not have a sacred text of their own that would discourage marriage (as far as I know? maybe there is a secret text I have not seen because I'm not gay myself? just kidding...), the Christian sacred text--i.e. the Bible--does contain a prominent statement against marriage--presumably heterosexual marriage mainly, though the passage, like the rest of the Bible does not mention same-sex marriage one way or the other. In the Paul's first letter to the Corinthians in the New Testament (7:8-9) we find a fairly emphatic statement on this point. Here is that good ol' King James Version, for the traditionalists out there: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I [i.e. remain unmarried like Paul]. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Here is the New International Version (one of the favorite translations of present-day evangelicals): "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Now of course many Christians, self-proclaimed marriage advocates that they are, have explained this away, through various contextual readings, some of which can be persuasive. But a literal reading of the Bible in this instance would seem to suggest that Christianity's own sacred text is against marriage, except in cases of imminent "burning" or burning with passion. So perhaps we need to take those Christians at their word and refuse to grant them marriage licenses--for their own and society's good--unless they can demonstrate conclusively that they will go to hell otherwise. (A notarized statement from Satan himself would be decisive proof, I would think.) In the interim, we can do no less than to protect society's interests by banning Christians from marrying, to prevent them from harming themselves in the eyes of God. And we have other societal reasons to ban Christian marriage: the harm it causes to some children who are raised in Christian households that are excessively intolerant. Maybe we would be justified in taking away such children if their parents convert to Christianity and there is any danger that they might have such intolerant views forced on them. Societal interests would seem to suggest that the sacredness of marriage as a bond of love and commitment not be sullied by the potential for procreation in a household where harmful treatment of children might result. Are Christians really fit to be good parents? I'd say on the average, no more than gays and lesbians, and possibly less in some cases. (Of course there are many Christian households, including my own when I was growing up, where love and tolerance are taught, but we can't legislate based on the exceptions to the rule, now can we?) We would also need to consider the risk of exposing the children to close proximity to people who on the verge of burning in hell (otherwise they shouldn't be getting married, as the Bible says). I think if we were really serious about protecting children and society's interests--not to mention the adherence to the Bible itself for people who hold it sacred--we would be discussing whether to ban marriage between Christians. When that debate comes, I will argue against the ban on the grounds of tolerance and equal justice under the law, just as I do with gays and lesbians, but at least that debate would make a little more sense. Any thoughts? Are others ready to start a movement banning Christian marriage, if only to prove a point?