I'm having Random Thoughts(tm) about all of this activity.
We're doing a lot of protesting and shouting and anyone whose eyes have left foxnews for thirty seconds in the last three weeks can't help but know that there's an outraged and vocal section of the populace on the move.
I'm wondering what we'll see when the shouting stops.
What the end-game, people? What concrete results are we fighting for?
It's not enough to want X, Y, and Z out of office. At this point, there's no guarantee that their replacements will be any better. Or that we won't be right back in this position in a very few years.
It's unquestionable that the Republican Party is in full monkey-mode. They see no protesters and hear no voices and, if someone gets in their face about it, they claim it's all paid harassment by Soros (a longtime demon for the Right).
With their majority in Congress and their firm determination to implement their racist, misogynistic agenda, regardless of what the voters want, it's clearly useless for us to look for the checks & balances of our system to rein in 45 & his puppetmaster, Bannon.
Say we impeach 45, whether the Republican Senate likes it or not. That leaves us with Pence, which is not what I'd call a major change for the better.
Granted, we won't have to worry about Bannon--Pence can do all the damage he wants to do, without any help. And, believe me, he wants to do some damage. He's not as unstable as 45, so he's not going to be as easy to whip up protest against. but he's dangerous to those who care about civil liberties. And Pence isn't likely to roll back any of 45's changes. He's not going to put the KKK back on the Hate Group list or make any major public demonstration of repudiating white supremacists or reinstate the committee that has oversight of keeping voting machines unhacked or anything like that.
I don't think he's dumb enough to get himself impeached, though, which leaves us two years of maintaining watchfulness before we get a chance to change the Senate majority through the vote.
Assuming, you know, we're able to do that. Gerrymandering, you know. "Safe" districts that allow Colorado's Senator Gardner and others like him to ignore voter protests.
I say, that's where we start. By taking control of the redrawing of Congressional Districts for our states*, and by passing laws that require nonpartisan committees doing the work, in place of politicians. This move is good for everyone, Right or Left, except the politicians, so it shouldn't be too much of a battle to sell it to the voters of the 50 states. The more competitive your district, the more attention your elected official(s) have to pay to your opinion if they want to get reelected. Open competition produces responsible politicians.
After that, we need to restore the Voting Rights Act, together with all of the protections is provides for all of the voters of this country. No more mass purges to rid the voter's roll of unwanted names, no more "out of order" signs in poorer neighborhoods, etc. And no more electronic voting machines. I say we all go back to paper ballots--mail-in ballots with a one or two-week window of opportunity to get your ballot postmarked.
When everyone who can vote and wants to vote is able to vote, with confidence that their elected official will be responsive to their ongoing concerns, then I think elections will reflect a much more honest view of our population.
I was going to go on and talk about the Electoral College but we all know that song and I'm tired of listening to myself talk for one day.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* Squares or rectangles, as much as possible. No more of these free-form, snake-like wriggles to carve a "district" out of a block here and half a block there.
A lot of rambling thoughts.
Just today, I was directed to read an interesting WaPo post from Jan 24, after the Women's March but well before this stream of continued protests.
The article started several trains of thought for me.
First, Dems clearly believe we can't reelect them if they help us fight this battle. That's worrying. We need to have our agenda be theirs and vice-versa. When Schumer (and others) are splitting their focus between listening to us and protecting themselves, they can't be as effective as they could be.
This "us" & "them" divide is the result of treating politics as a business--of having some concern for your "shareholders" but being equally or more concerned for your own jobs/paychecks and the future of your "company." As distasteful as I find this corporate approach to politics, I suppose it's inevitable in this country in this time. And, to be clear, I don't blame the politicians for this. With such a large percentage of the population almost totally disengaged from the governance of this country, it's hard to see how else politicians could treat the situation.*
We-the-people can't change this, but we can certainly make use of it. We can be majority shareholders, entitled to a large say in strategy and willing to throw our weight (votes) behind the management that supports our position.
And let them know it. Schumer needs to know we are and will be behind the reelection efforts of everyone who works with us in this struggle.
Or, you know, we could each take up the responsibilities of citizenship, along with the benefits, and pay some damned attention once in a while.
Second, and aside from that reciprocal relationship, what occurred to me very strongly as I read this article was that a large part of the gap between the voters and our elected officials was we-the-people's perception of how the Federal government should work, as opposed to how it works in reality.
If #45's Administration so far has done nothing else positive in the last 2-1/2 weeks, they've certainly taught me (and others, I presume) how fragile is the system of checks and balances our Republic rests upon. The system relies largely on people of "good will" respecting it and working within its boundaries. Having installed a President who respects nothing but himself (and ratings), we're seeing cracks start to show.**
Politics is not a game. It's a shitty job, but someone has to do it. We're best off when we find and support people of "good will" to fill political offices. When we stay connected with these people and engaged on the issues, even during the peaceful times when there are no mass injustices to protest.
The Republican party leaders seems to be functioning on a level of "power for us at any price." They spent decades nurturing this tsunami of hate and bigotry, for no other reason than to get themselves into power. This is dangerous and damaging to the country.
And, you know, stupid for them. The more they courted the neo-Nazis and White Supremacists to swell their voter base, the further Right their candidates had to move, until they had not one, but two candidates pushed into the White House after having lost the "popular" vote. And the more, I don't doubt, the Party leadership itself shifted to represent these dangerous interests, until now it actually is the party of racism, intolerance, bigotry, and everything else we are supposed to be standing against.
The Republican strategy wasn't covert or hidden. We've all watched them pushing this agenda for decades.
And most of us did nothing.
Some of "us", like myself, didn't really believe there was enough fuel for this "fringe" group to become a serious political/social threat. The haters will always be with us, it's human nature and something we have to live with. Some of us were happier and more comfortable just knowing that we and our friends weren't among that number.
Third, I have to reluctantly admit that Republicans could not have coaxed this fire into existence if there hadn't been fuel for it already. The racism, misogyny, fear, and frustration that kicked #45 into office were already in our society.
As I've been digging through 20th C US social history in the last couple of months, it's been made clear to me that much of what I was taught in school was not only incomplete, it was deliberately misleading. We have never been the country that I thought we were. Massacres, atrocities, individual acts of hate and bigotry abound in the history of our last fifty years. There is and always has been an underground river of sewage tainting our so-called liberty.
In the article, Schumer mentions that he did an informal, 4-hour poll among the women in the Washington March on Jan 21. Twenty percent of the women he talked to had not voted in the recent election. Another ten percent voted, but not for Hillary. Some had voted for Trump but others had chosen other candidates.
I'm most concerned about the 20%. How do you make people care--make them understand that voting is important? Make them keep caring the day, the month, the year after the March?
Gerrymandering is responsible for a lot of voter apathy, of course. When your district is "safe" for one Party or the other, people from both sides of the aisle don't see the point in voting. Gerrymandering is not in the voter's interests. It makes politicians in those districts less responsive to our concerns.
Plus which, political parties can use prison populations to help themselves to unearned votes. Check out a description of the problem here:
In many rural county and city governments, substantial portions of individual districts consist of incarcerated people, not actual residents. In a number of places, we've found elected officials who owe a majority of their clout to prison populations.
One of those places is the small city of Anamosa Iowa, which became a national symbol of prison-based gerrymandering when the incumbent retired, no one ran for office and Danny R. Young was elected with two write-in votes.
Admittedly, this publication is 4+ years old and some places have redrawn the lines to eliminate the problem in their locations, but not all affected areas have. This can give rural or non-metro locations larger "populations" than the actual voter base should represent, adding Congressional districts and giving disproportionate weight to those voters.
This 2016 article from an LSAT prep website shows the problem has not been eliminated.
...prison-based gerrymandering has the effect of enhancing the voting power of the rural, mostly white communities where prisons are located at the expense of the urban, mostly black and brown communities where the majority of prisoners come from.
This is how a presidential candidate can win the White House without winning the majority of the actual votes.
A very thoughtful discussion of the subject, from 2015, can be found in this Alex Mayyasi Priceonomics article.
Gerrymandering happens at the state level. Paying attention to state and local politics is every bit as important as national politics. Maybe more so.
And, in closing, as I glance through the voting patterns of the last election, it seems pretty clear to me that black women are the most sensible demographic in the country. We should be electing a lot more of them.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* This isn't a perfect analogy, but it can work as a framework for how to think of your relationship to the government, if you can't take a citizen's full responsibility of being part of the government through your actions and inactions.
** It's not just elected officials, you know. Every Federal employee swears an oath to the Constitution--to uphold it and to protect it, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Dissenters aren't protesting against #45's actions because they're liberals. They're pushing back on what they see as unConstitutional actions.
Yes, I marched.
And, yes, I intended to stay active, but that's not why I gathered y'all here today.
What struck me hardest on Saturday was that we weren't having "a" march. We were having about a dozen marches, with all of the participants lumped together in one huge crowd in each city.
In Denver, we had anti-Trump marchers, Equal Pay marchers, Stay-Outta-My-Womb marchers, anti-Sexual Predator marchers, anti-White-Women-Trump-Voter marchers, anti-Russian marchers, feminist marchers, pro-LGBTQ+ marchers, environmentalist marchers, and a bunch of other groups I can't at this moment remember, including one subset of marchers who just pleaded for a general return to sanity. Overall, a very inclusive group. No one squabbled and we all shared each other's chants fairly equally.
It probably lacked the sheer energy of 100,000 people gathered for a single purpose, but those people showed up, waited patiently as we dealt with crowds three or four times larger than expected, then moved out and marched in their turn. They were committed.
Not everyone shared the same experience.
A group of Indigenous women in DC were treated with appalling insensitivity by some of the women around them. (Was this a failing of "feminism" to be educational and inclusive or just normal human stupidity on display?)
I've read that some of the WOC (Women of Color) were insulted by the pink hats since not all women have pink vulvas.
Seriously. Neon pink was not chosen because it's the color of white women's genitalia, it isn't, but because of the whole blue=boy, pink=girl thing.*
Some women were insulted by the pussy hats since not all women have vulvas.
Pussy hats were not chosen because the march was only inclusive of people with a certain configuration of genitalia. They were a response to the Chump's offensive, demeaning "grab 'em by the pussy" comment.
The intent was not racist or sexist or genitalist (if there is such a word).
The objections bothered me, though. I was--disturbed to realize that a number of groups took the hat idea (and the coloring) as a personal slight--as excluding them from the moment.
Was there a better symbol for a Women's March at that moment in time?
I honestly can't think of one.
Was there a better color to denote "women"?
Not in this society, no.
And yet, a significant subsection of the marcher population were offended by the symbolism, offering interpretations that would never have occurred to me, any more than it would have occurred to me to have objected to the neon pink because my own, personal woman-bits don't actually glow in the dark.
* I think it was a good choice. This way, the Chump's staff can't steal any of the images and reuse them to his advantage, the way they did the Obama inauguration photo. Those seas of hot pink hats are unmistakeable.
First, WaPo has pulled down their paywall through Saturday and I encourage everyone to read this sampling of responses from people invited to tell us why they voted for Trump.
Summary: Because he's more Godly than the Clintons, because of Clinton-fatigue, because the MSM (and the Democratic leadership) took it for granted that Clinton would win, because they really believed MSM stories that implied Hillary Clinton had done something criminal at some point, because they think he cares about farmers, because they think he wants to keep everyone--gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, etc.--safe and happy, and (a recurring theme) because a lot of people mistakenly think this is a country founded on capitalism and that we need a CEO, not a President.
My favorite was the guy who thinks the Supreme Court is an "unelected oligarchy rewriting the Constitution." Gotta love people who have strong opinions on subjects they are clearly unqualified to discuss.
On the same theme, Leon Weiseltier encourages us to Stay angry. As he says (I've said it before, and I'll say it again--told you so), the country is now reaping the harvest of hate that the Republican Party has spent decades cultivating. An interesting read.