truthout--2020-10-31--Founded on Inequality, Can the US Ever Be Truly Democratic and Inclusive?

Our contemporary problem in the U.S. is not monolithic .
It resides at the intersections of race , class , gender , hegemonic policing and failed leadership .
The inclusive term “ syndemic ” is what captures more accurately our lived zeitgeist .
It is through the framework of this synergistic aggregation of problems that I engage in a generative discussion with distinguished scholar T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting , who is the Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Distinguished Professor of African American and Diaspora Studies and French at Vanderbilt University , where she directs the Callie House Research Center for the Study of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairs the Department of African American Studies .
She is author/editor of 15 scholarly books and three novels , including the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism , Bricktop ’ s Paris : African American Women Expatriates in Jazz-Age Paris and Pimps Up , Ho ’ s Down : Hip Hop ’ s Hold on Young Black Women .
In this interview , Sharpley-Whiting , articulating part of her way of understanding contemporary race relations through the lens of race realism , does not hesitate to encourage our collective need to do our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yancy : I mourned the death of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor , who was shot eight times as white Louisville police officers served a no-knock warrant .
As Black Americans , we continue to mourn Black death .
How do you envision a post-mourning for Black America ?
There are times when it seems as if Black life will never matter in white America .
So , in what ways would you say we are trapped in a world where our humanity is a permanent site of precarity , where our humanity will never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would argue that our humanity matters very much — to us and our allies .
I don ’ t view Black life as a site of precarity but as a sometimes casualty of white inhumanity .
What we ’ ve been struggling for is not necessarily for whites to value Black life , accept Black humanity or love Black people .
Black people , for the most part , value Black life… .
Self-interest is a primary lever in changing behavior — with the anomaly being poor and working-class whites continue to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they enjoy being white more than they abhor poverty and wage theft .
With respect to policing , if you dispensed with qualified immunity — and here is where I oddly agree with Justice Clarence Thomas — law enforcement [ might ] act in ways that are more consonant with their public safety charge .
But as long as taxpayers are on the hook , their economic self-interests don ’ t compel them to act differently .
In what way does “ a sometimes casualty of white inhumanity ” square with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic and pervasive reality throughout the body politic ?
Does the use of “ sometimes ” let the magnitude and everyday acts of racist aggressions off the hook , even as I know that you are not saying this ?
I used “ sometimes ” as a qualifier .
As a scholar of Diaspora Studies , I think of policing in its global formations .
For instance , in Brazil , a country I research with respect to sex trafficking/tourism and Black/mixed-race women and girls , policing is brutal and oftentimes lethal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground are largely Black .
Sen. Kamala Harris is on the Democratic ticket as vice president .
This is historic .
Any thoughts on what this means symbolically or otherwise going forward for Black Americans , and Black women in particular ?
It is historic ; and symbols , I ’ d argue , are extremely important as markers of how far we ’ ve come , as guideposts and roadmaps for others to follow .
They are inspirational and aspirational .
With Harris ’ s ascendancy , one simply can not overstate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black colleges and universities ] as well as Black sororities in uplift and resilience narratives .
With that said , as powerful as symbols are , racecraft embedded in the processes of statecraft will continue to act as a serious counterbalance to racial/gender progress .
In real terms , Obama ’ s presidency was important as a symbol but it did not translate into greater wealth and opportunity for Black Americans writ large as a matter of policy .
In the past , Trump has tweeted that Rep. Maxine Waters is “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ characterized reporter April Ryan as “ nasty ” and a “ loser.
” Most recently , he called Harris “ this monster.
” Your work has centered on Black women , within the context of hip-hop , as progenitors of the Negritude movement , and as dehumanized through the European imaginary , as in the case of the so-called “ Hottentot Venus.
” Given this , can you speak to the historical , gendered and racial logics of Trump ’ s depictions ?
Though Trump is drawing upon a well of anti-Black misogyny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully grasps the historical waters he ’ s wading in .
He lacks that sort of intellectual breadth and is dog whistling — if , in fact , he ’ s even aware he ’ s doing that — at very low frequency .
Indeed , I would argue that his characterizations are actually projections .
He landed at the University of Pennsylvania through cheating and his father ’ s influence and deep pockets — much like his son-in-law at Harvard .
Most agree he ’ s nasty and a loser who cheats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ golf , and in his ascent with an assist from Russia to the highest office in the land .
Ironically , in 2016 , when I appeared with some colleagues in political science on a Vanderbilt series about the election , they were certain that he ’ d turned off women voters with his infamous remarks .
I argued that historical data showed that white women voted Republican in higher percentages than reported — they did so when Obama ran both times .
They preferred [ Sarah ] Palin ( ! )
and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency .
I called Trump a “ monster.
” He ’ s been depicted as monstrous countless times , so his name-calling signals to me his deep and abiding understanding of his flaws and failings .
COVID-19 has revealed how Black people are disproportionately vulnerable to this horrific pandemic .
Rather than critically understanding how health concerns are linked to poverty ( think here of food deserts ) , there seems to be an anti-Black narrative that sees Black people as somehow responsible for their own vulnerability .
What are your thoughts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , of blaming the victim ?
This is how anti-Black racism at the intersection of class operates .
It allows others to absolve themselves of responsibility for their fellow citizens or even understand their silence , comfort , innocence as complicity .
Yes .
So , how do we encourage the self-reflection needed for others to take responsibility for their fellow citizens or begin to understand the ways in which they are not innocent ?
Admittedly , Black folks and others have been doing the heavy lifting of trying to educate our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and complicity , in particular , for a good long while .
Certainly , Aimé Césaire did so with Discourse on Colonialism , [ W.E.B . ]
Du Bois with The Souls of Black Folks and The Philadelphia Negro , Ida B .
Wells in her anti-lynching and anti-rape crusades , Frederick Douglass with his multiple narratives of his life in bondage , Harriet Jacobs with her pleadings to white women about enslaved Black women , and James Baldwin ’ s The Fire Next Time was a 20th-century clarion call .
And still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I have only nicked the surface with respect to the litany of works on the subject and activism on these questions by writers and activists of every stripe and color .
The point then is we have been and are already doing the work — writing , protesting , participating in the political process , etc .
I consider myself nonetheless a realist about racial progress in this country .
I owe this line of thinking to Derrick Bell and his Faces at the Bottom of the Well .
To that end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , founded on gross inequalities — gendered , racial , class-clotted — will ever be fully democratic and inclusive .
With that said , we should continue to move that project along , to as close to the finish line as possible .
We have always had to drag our more recalcitrant white citizens along the road to progress kicking and screaming .
This last question is related to the first .
Broadly , what is needed for an America that is leading in COVID-19 deaths and has unabashedly shifted to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the land ?
Where do we go from here ?
We are in the midst of a syndemic — as seen with COVID-19 and anti-Black racism in the form of police brutality , mass incarceration and poverty ; we are also looking at threats to a woman ’ s right to decide what to do with her body and a health care crisis of unparalleled proportions .
We need to educate voters about participation in the political process during midterm , special and presidential elections .
This interview has been lightly edited for @ @

Our contemporary problem in the U.S. is not monolithic. It resides at the intersections of race, class, gender, hegemonic policing and failed leadership. The inclusive term “syndemic” is what captures more accurately our lived zeitgeist. It is through the framework of this synergistic aggregation of problems that I engage in a generative discussion with distinguished scholar T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, who is the Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Distinguished Professor of African American and Diaspora Studies and French at Vanderbilt University, where she directs the Callie House Research Center for the Study of Global Black Cultures and Politics, and chairs the Department of African American Studies. She is author/editor of 15 scholarly books and three novels, including the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, Bricktop’s Paris: African American Women Expatriates in Jazz-Age Paris and Pimps Up, Ho’s Down: Hip Hop’s Hold on Young Black Women. In this interview, Sharpley-Whiting, articulating part of her way of understanding contemporary race relations through the lens of race realism, does not hesitate to encourage our collective need to do our part in maximizing democratic ideals.
George Yancy: I mourned the death of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor, who was shot eight times as white Louisville police officers served a no-knock warrant. As Black Americans, we continue to mourn Black death. How do you envision a post-mourning for Black America? There are times when it seems as if Black life will never matter in white America. So, in what ways would you say we are trapped in a world where our humanity is a permanent site of precarity, where our humanity will never matter?
Tracy Denean Sharpley-Whiting: I would argue that our humanity matters very much — to us and our allies. I don’t view Black life as a site of precarity but as a sometimes casualty of white inhumanity. What we’ve been struggling for is not necessarily for whites to value Black life, accept Black humanity or love Black people. Black people, for the most part, value Black life…. Self-interest is a primary lever in changing behavior — with the anomaly being poor and working-class whites continue to vote against their economic self-interest because of racism; they enjoy being white more than they abhor poverty and wage theft. With respect to policing, if you dispensed with qualified immunity — and here is where I oddly agree with Justice Clarence Thomas — law enforcement [might] act in ways that are more consonant with their public safety charge. But as long as taxpayers are on the hook, their economic self-interests don’t compel them to act differently.
In what way does “a sometimes casualty of white inhumanity” square with the idea that anti-Black racism is a constant systemic and pervasive reality throughout the body politic? Does the use of “sometimes” let the magnitude and everyday acts of racist aggressions off the hook, even as I know that you are not saying this?
I used “sometimes” as a qualifier. As a scholar of Diaspora Studies, I think of policing in its global formations. For instance, in Brazil, a country I research with respect to sex trafficking/tourism and Black/mixed-race women and girls, policing is brutal and oftentimes lethal with no recourse. The police on the ground are largely Black.
Sen. Kamala Harris is on the Democratic ticket as vice president. This is historic. Any thoughts on what this means symbolically or otherwise going forward for Black Americans, and Black women in particular?
It is historic; and symbols, I’d argue, are extremely important as markers of how far we’ve come, as guideposts and roadmaps for others to follow. They are inspirational and aspirational. With Harris’s ascendancy, one simply cannot overstate as well the importance of [historically Black colleges and universities] as well as Black sororities in uplift and resilience narratives.
We have always had to drag our more recalcitrant white citizens along the road to progress kicking and screaming.
With that said, as powerful as symbols are, racecraft embedded in the processes of statecraft will continue to act as a serious counterbalance to racial/gender progress. In real terms, Obama’s presidency was important as a symbol but it did not translate into greater wealth and opportunity for Black Americans writ large as a matter of policy.
In the past, Trump has tweeted that Rep. Maxine Waters is “an extraordinary low IQ person.” He has characterized reporter April Ryan as “nasty” and a “loser.” Most recently, he called Harris “this monster.” Your work has centered on Black women, within the context of hip-hop, as progenitors of the Negritude movement, and as dehumanized through the European imaginary, as in the case of the so-called “Hottentot Venus.” Given this, can you speak to the historical, gendered and racial logics of Trump’s depictions?
Though Trump is drawing upon a well of anti-Black misogyny, I don’t think he fully grasps the historical waters he’s wading in. He lacks that sort of intellectual breadth and is dog whistling — if, in fact, he’s even aware he’s doing that — at very low frequency. Indeed, I would argue that his characterizations are actually projections. He landed at the University of Pennsylvania through cheating and his father’s influence and deep pockets — much like his son-in-law at Harvard. Most agree he’s nasty and a loser who cheats on taxes, in business, at golf, and in his ascent with an assist from Russia to the highest office in the land. Ironically, in 2016, when I appeared with some colleagues in political science on a Vanderbilt series about the election, they were certain that he’d turned off women voters with his infamous remarks. I argued that historical data showed that white women voted Republican in higher percentages than reported — they did so when Obama ran both times. They preferred [Sarah] Palin (!) and [John McCain] to an Obama presidency. I called Trump a “monster.” He’s been depicted as monstrous countless times, so his name-calling signals to me his deep and abiding understanding of his flaws and failings.
COVID-19 has revealed how Black people are disproportionately vulnerable to this horrific pandemic. Rather than critically understanding how health concerns are linked to poverty (think here of food deserts), there seems to be an anti-Black narrative that sees Black people as somehow responsible for their own vulnerability. What are your thoughts on the operating ideology, especially regarding Black people, of blaming the victim?
This is how anti-Black racism at the intersection of class operates. It allows others to absolve themselves of responsibility for their fellow citizens or even understand their silence, comfort, innocence as complicity.
Yes. So, how do we encourage the self-reflection needed for others to take responsibility for their fellow citizens or begin to understand the ways in which they are not innocent?
Admittedly, Black folks and others have been doing the heavy lifting of trying to educate our compatriots on the question of white innocence and complicity, in particular, for a good long while. Certainly, Aimé Césaire did so with Discourse on Colonialism, [W.E.B.] Du Bois with The Souls of Black Folks and The Philadelphia Negro, Ida B. Wells in her anti-lynching and anti-rape crusades, Frederick Douglass with his multiple narratives of his life in bondage, Harriet Jacobs with her pleadings to white women about enslaved Black women, and James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time was a 20th-century clarion call. And still, with this brief, critical list, I have only nicked the surface with respect to the litany of works on the subject and activism on these questions by writers and activists of every stripe and color. The point then is we have been and are already doing the work — writing, protesting, participating in the political process, etc. I consider myself nonetheless a realist about racial progress in this country. I owe this line of thinking to Derrick Bell and his Faces at the Bottom of the Well. To that end, I don’t believe American democracy, founded on gross inequalities — gendered, racial, class-clotted — will ever be fully democratic and inclusive. With that said, we should continue to move that project along, to as close to the finish line as possible. We have always had to drag our more recalcitrant white citizens along the road to progress kicking and screaming.
This last question is related to the first. Broadly, what is needed for an America that is leading in COVID-19 deaths and has unabashedly shifted to a white supremacism at the highest offices in the land? Where do we go from here?
We are in the midst of a syndemic — as seen with COVID-19 and anti-Black racism in the form of police brutality, mass incarceration and poverty; we are also looking at threats to a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body and a health care crisis of unparalleled proportions. We need to educate voters about participation in the political process during midterm, special and presidential elections.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-31--Youth Activists Are Transforming the Election by Leading Protesters to the Polls

For the past decade , ever since students at 100 universities staged protests in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street demonstrations , youth activism in the United States has been on the rise .
Youth organizers involved in the Movement for Black Lives have played a key role in ongoing protests against the police killings of Black people and other people of color , which The New York Times suggests may be the largest social movement in U.S. history .
Inspired by the student-led movement against gun violence that formed in the aftermath of shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition to construction of the Keystone XL pipeline , the youth-led global climate strike protest movement brought what The Guardian calls the largest-ever climate mobilization to the streets in 2019 .
But political analysts such as Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell have posed perennial doubts about whether young people will vote with the same conviction with which they have joined strikes and demonstrations .
“ In addition to being ( obviously ) the laziest , most narcissistic and most entitled generation ever , ” Rampell wrote in 2015 , “ millennials have claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least likely to vote.
” Now , however , election research by Tufts University ’ s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement ( CIRCLE ) suggests that millennials , along with Gen Z — which together make up 37 percent of the electorate — are translating protest turnout to the polls .
Early voting by 18- to 29-year-olds is up in every state CIRCLE is tracking , as compared to votes cast by the same date in 2016 .
In Florida , North Carolina and Michigan — three major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast a combined 607,907 early votes , where the same age and geographic group only cast 76,829 ballots at the same point in 2016 : an almost 700 percent increase .
In 2016 , Donald Trump won Michigan by a mere 10,704 votes .
Pre-election polling , also from Tufts University , shows the top issue for youth across racial and ethnic groups is the environment or climate change , followed closely by racism , and health care access and affordability .
For the youngest voters , climate is just one of multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ window to address it .
Penn State University professor and eminent climate scientist Michael Mann told The Guardian that a second Trump administration would be “ game over ” for the climate .
“ Another four years of what we ’ ve seen under Trump , which is to outsource environmental and energy policy to the polluters and dismantle protections put in place by the previous administration … would make [ halving emissions in 10 years to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius ] essentially impossible , ” he said of the emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a baseline for curbing the worst effects of climate breakdown .
Youth climate activists outside of the U.S. have also rallied around the November 3 election , including Vanessa Nakate of Uganda , who has called on voters in the United States to consider the impact the U.S. — the world ’ s most significant historic emitter of carbon dioxide — has on countries like hers , where historic flooding this summer captured minimal global media attention .
The August floods in Uganda displaced over 8,000 people .
On the first day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 24 , hundreds of young voters marched to the polls after rallies in Brooklyn , Manhattan and the Bronx .
“ We are out here fighting for climate justice and for racial justice , ” organizer Saad Amer told marchers on a megaphone .
“ And the way we fight is we take it from the streets to the polls.
” Activists who showed up to Amer ’ s # MarchToThePolls event represented groups focused on various issues including climate action , like Extinction Rebellion and the Sierra Club ; and policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Women ’ s March and Freedom March NYC .
Social media campaigns , such as Prom At the Polls , have also been a force behind early youth voting turnout .
The campaign is a youth-led initiative urging social media users to treat voting as they might prom , to pick a date , to dress up and to document their day on social media .
Younger activists with Oakland-based climate activist group Youth vs. Apocalypse have launched the # ThisIsTheTime campaign across social media platforms , aimed at holding voting-age adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coalition has a bus that ’ s been bringing socially distanced “ Get Out The Vote ” parades and pop-up drag shows from Houston , Texas , to Canton , Ohio .
Numerous youth-led letter-writing campaigns are targeting voters in swing states .
Groups such as the Sunrise Movement have been working the phones , deploying what is known as “ distributed organizing ” tactics the Bernie Sanders campaign developed in 2016 to pull in volunteers and immediately engage them in recruiting friends and hosting events .
“ What Sunrise does best is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and proving that you can win on the Green New Deal , ” Sunrise Movement Electoral Organizing Coordinator Michele Weindling said on an October 21 mass call , during which 1,400 people dialed in .
Democratic nominee for New York ’ s 16th congressional district , Jamaal Bowman , was on the call .
Bowman said that he “ would not be here if it were not for the Sunrise Movement , ” which helped fuel his successful campaign against 16-term incumbent Eliot Engel in the primaries .
Sunrise Creative Director Alex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates Sunrise has endorsed have won elections this year .
Sunrise organizers have identified four priority swing states : Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
Organizers in these states have been holding turnout parties , during which they spend a few hours on Zoom , calling friends and acquaintances , collecting voting pledges and leading socially distanced protests for a Green New Deal .
They have also led early morning “ wake up ” protests , including the much-publicized protest outside of Sen. Lindsey Graham ’ s house , urging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the election to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court .
For people living outside of swing states , Weindling says Sunrise has organized a “ Get Out The Vote Force ” to make calls on behalf of down-ballot candidates in the few remaining days of the election season .
Organizers with Sunrise are asking volunteers to choose one of three regions and focus on getting voting commitments for specific candidates , like Beth Doglio in Washington , Jon Hoadley in Michigan and Marquita Bradshaw in Tennessee , and other progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to social justice that are committed to passing a Green New Deal .
“ If the election goes our way , we can start the fight for a Green New Deal on day one of the Biden administration , ” Weindling said .
“ And if it doesn ’ t , we have fighters in our corner across the country no matter what.
” Last-minute voter mobilization efforts , like what Sunrise is doing , could be particularly impactful in this election , founder of the Environmental Voter Project , Nathaniel Stinnett , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voting are a little more delicate than they ever have been before , ” he said .
“ So , simply holding people ’ s hands and walking them through where their drop boxes are , why they need to put their ballot in the mail earlier than they have in previous years , and things like that are enormously important.
” Stinnett says reading the “ tea leaves ” based on early voting turnout numbers could be misleading .
“ We don ’ t really know what to read into because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said , noting that while Biden is hovering around a double-digit lead in the polls , Republicans still have plenty of time to turn out .
And not all youth climate activist groups are progressive .
The American Conservation Coalition ( ACC ) is a group of student activists formed in 2017 to “ give conservatives a voice on the environment , ” funded by grants from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Audubon Society .
As ACC Communications Director Karly Matthews told Truthout , ACC and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TCC ) , promote market-based energy technologies and public-private partnerships in the face of climate change .
The group is urging conservative climate-conscious voters to the polls and has endorsed a list of 37 Republican candidates running in congressional races , highlighting those who have expressed a commitment to participating in bipartisan efforts to move the U.S. toward global net zero emissions by 2050 .
But the ACC has not endorsed a presidential candidate , so it is currently unclear how its get-out-the-vote efforts will affect the presidential race .
“ At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced by Trump or Biden , ” Matthews said .
Meanwhile , progressive youth organizers are busy not only drumming up enthusiasm around the election but also educating themselves on how to combat voter suppression .
They ’ re showing up at the polls and urging voters to call friends or family and get them to show up before they leave , offering water bottles and other types of support to voters as they wait in long lines .
Progressive activists are aware that even a landslide turnout for Biden might not guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ornstein told Truthout over email that Sunrise is not shying away from planning for a coup-like scenario .
“ If Trump suppresses protests , claims victory without counting every vote , or tries to get electors to declare victory for him without winning the popular vote , that ’ s when our movement calls for a strike , ” Ornstein said .
“ We refuse to go to school , refuse to go to work .
We ’ ve seen the power of essential workers in the past many months , and know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a grinding halt .
”

For the past decade, ever since students at 100 universities staged protests in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, youth activism in the United States has been on the rise. Youth organizers involved in the Movement for Black Lives have played a key role in ongoing protests against the police killings of Black people and other people of color, which The New York Times suggests may be the largest social movement in U.S. history.
Inspired by the student-led movement against gun violence that formed in the aftermath of shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, and civil disobedience in opposition to construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, the youth-led global climate strike protest movement brought what The Guardian calls the largest-ever climate mobilization to the streets in 2019.
But political analysts such as Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell have posed perennial doubts about whether young people will vote with the same conviction with which they have joined strikes and demonstrations. “In addition to being (obviously) the laziest, most narcissistic and most entitled generation ever,” Rampell wrote in 2015, “millennials have claimed for themselves yet another generational superlative: least likely to vote.”
Now, however, election research by Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) suggests that millennials, along with Gen Z — which together make up 37 percent of the electorate — are translating protest turnout to the polls.
Early voting by 18- to 29-year-olds is up in every state CIRCLE is tracking, as compared to votes cast by the same date in 2016. In Florida, North Carolina and Michigan — three major battleground states — voters under 29 have cast a combined 607,907 early votes, where the same age and geographic group only cast 76,829 ballots at the same point in 2016: an almost 700 percent increase. In 2016, Donald Trump won Michigan by a mere 10,704 votes.
Pre-election polling, also from Tufts University, shows the top issue for youth across racial and ethnic groups is the environment or climate change, followed closely by racism, and health care access and affordability. For the youngest voters, climate is just one of multiple existential threats, with a palpably finite window to address it.
Penn State University professor and eminent climate scientist Michael Mann told The Guardian that a second Trump administration would be “game over” for the climate. “Another four years of what we’ve seen under Trump, which is to outsource environmental and energy policy to the polluters and dismantle protections put in place by the previous administration … would make [halving emissions in 10 years to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius] essentially impossible,” he said of the emissions reductions target international climate scientists have established as a baseline for curbing the worst effects of climate breakdown.
Youth climate activists outside of the U.S. have also rallied around the November 3 election, including Vanessa Nakate of Uganda, who has called on voters in the United States to consider the impact the U.S. — the world’s most significant historic emitter of carbon dioxide — has on countries like hers, where historic flooding this summer captured minimal global media attention. The August floods in Uganda displaced over 8,000 people.
On the first day of early voting in New York on October 24, hundreds of young voters marched to the polls after rallies in Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx. “We are out here fighting for climate justice and for racial justice,” organizer Saad Amer told marchers on a megaphone. “And the way we fight is we take it from the streets to the polls.” Activists who showed up to Amer’s #MarchToThePolls event represented groups focused on various issues including climate action, like Extinction Rebellion and the Sierra Club; and policy reform around racial justice, like the Black Women’s March and Freedom March NYC.
Millennials, along with Gen Z, are translating protest turnout to the polls.
Social media campaigns, such as Prom At the Polls, have also been a force behind early youth voting turnout. The campaign is a youth-led initiative urging social media users to treat voting as they might prom, to pick a date, to dress up and to document their day on social media. Younger activists with Oakland-based climate activist group Youth vs. Apocalypse have launched the #ThisIsTheTime campaign across social media platforms, aimed at holding voting-age adults accountable.
Youth activist umbrella organization Future Coalition has a bus that’s been bringing socially distanced “Get Out The Vote” parades and pop-up drag shows from Houston, Texas, to Canton, Ohio. Numerous youth-led letter-writing campaigns are targeting voters in swing states.
Groups such as the Sunrise Movement have been working the phones, deploying what is known as “distributed organizing” tactics the Bernie Sanders campaign developed in 2016 to pull in volunteers and immediately engage them in recruiting friends and hosting events.
“What Sunrise does best is throwing down on congressional candidates across the country and proving that you can win on the Green New Deal,” Sunrise Movement Electoral Organizing Coordinator Michele Weindling said on an October 21 mass call, during which 1,400 people dialed in. Democratic nominee for New York’s 16th congressional district, Jamaal Bowman, was on the call. Bowman said that he “would not be here if it were not for the Sunrise Movement,” which helped fuel his successful campaign against 16-term incumbent Eliot Engel in the primaries. Sunrise Creative Director Alex O’Keefe claims 70 percent of candidates Sunrise has endorsed have won elections this year.
Sunrise organizers have identified four priority swing states: Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Organizers in these states have been holding turnout parties, during which they spend a few hours on Zoom, calling friends and acquaintances, collecting voting pledges and leading socially distanced protests for a Green New Deal. They have also led early morning “wake up” protests, including the much-publicized protest outside of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s house, urging him and other senators to wait until after the election to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.
For people living outside of swing states, Weindling says Sunrise has organized a “Get Out The Vote Force” to make calls on behalf of down-ballot candidates in the few remaining days of the election season. Organizers with Sunrise are asking volunteers to choose one of three regions and focus on getting voting commitments for specific candidates, like Beth Doglio in Washington, Jon Hoadley in Michigan and Marquita Bradshaw in Tennessee, and other progressive candidates with organizing experience or demonstrated commitments to social justice that are committed to passing a Green New Deal. “If the election goes our way, we can start the fight for a Green New Deal on day one of the Biden administration,” Weindling said. “And if it doesn’t, we have fighters in our corner across the country no matter what.”
Last-minute voter mobilization efforts, like what Sunrise is doing, could be particularly impactful in this election, founder of the Environmental Voter Project, Nathaniel Stinnett, told Political Climate. “The logistics of voting are a little more delicate than they ever have been before,” he said. “So, simply holding people’s hands and walking them through where their drop boxes are, why they need to put their ballot in the mail earlier than they have in previous years, and things like that are enormously important.”
Stinnett says reading the “tea leaves” based on early voting turnout numbers could be misleading. “We don’t really know what to read into because this is a completely unique electoral experience,” he said, noting that while Biden is hovering around a double-digit lead in the polls, Republicans still have plenty of time to turn out.
And not all youth climate activist groups are progressive. The American Conservation Coalition (ACC) is a group of student activists formed in 2017 to “give conservatives a voice on the environment,” funded by grants from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Audubon Society. As ACC Communications Director Karly Matthews told Truthout, ACC and its education arm, The Conservative Coalition (TCC), promote market-based energy technologies and public-private partnerships in the face of climate change.
The group is urging conservative climate-conscious voters to the polls and has endorsed a list of 37 Republican candidates running in congressional races, highlighting those who have expressed a commitment to participating in bipartisan efforts to move the U.S. toward global net zero emissions by 2050. But the ACC has not endorsed a presidential candidate, so it is currently unclear how its get-out-the-vote efforts will affect the presidential race. “At the highest level, we are not really convinced by Trump or Biden,” Matthews said.
Meanwhile, progressive youth organizers are busy not only drumming up enthusiasm around the election but also educating themselves on how to combat voter suppression. They’re showing up at the polls and urging voters to call friends or family and get them to show up before they leave, offering water bottles and other types of support to voters as they wait in long lines.
Progressive activists are aware that even a landslide turnout for Biden might not guarantee a smooth transition. Climate activist Jeremy Ornstein told Truthout over email that Sunrise is not shying away from planning for a coup-like scenario.
“If Trump suppresses protests, claims victory without counting every vote, or tries to get electors to declare victory for him without winning the popular vote, that’s when our movement calls for a strike,” Ornstein said. “We refuse to go to school, refuse to go to work. We’ve seen the power of essential workers in the past many months, and know that we could bring this nation to a grinding halt.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-31--Social Movements Can Win Even With a Hostile Supreme Court

With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett , how will the Supreme Court decide future cases ?
Most people will probably think of it as a “ 6-3 Court ” and expect decisions based on the number of justices nominated by each of the two ruling parties .
Shelby County v. Holder , which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act , was a perfect 5-4 split between the justices nominated by Democrats and Republicans at the time .
The justices , of course , disagree .
They admit the nominations are political but the justice is not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” After all , it was Trump-nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote Bostock v. Clayton County , which guaranteed the Civil Rights Act ’ s anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender workers .
Politicians generally respond to the question of how the Supreme Court decides cases with a convenient mix of both answers .
The opposing party ’ s nominees are partisan hacks , but the rest of the justices ( fine print : who we nominated ) are faithfully applying the “ written text ” and/or “ true values ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , miss a key factor : social movements .
We know that movements won our rights — from abortion to voting to joining a union — but they are forgotten when we talk about the Supreme Court .
Politicians and the justices only admit to the influence of politics in terms of partisanship , not strikes and protests by ordinary people .
The result is an incomplete and unbearable national conversation around the Supreme Court , which most recently played out in Barrett ’ s nomination hearing .
Introducing social movements to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bearable — it would make it exciting .
The stories of why the Supreme Court upheld reproductive rights , civil rights protections and workers ’ rights to organize are our stories .
By telling them , we can prepare ourselves to continue those fights inside and outside the courtroom today .
The Fight Leading Up to Roe v. Wade The women who fought for the right to choose — then and now — saw legal rulings as a potential part of their liberation , but not the whole ballgame .
As one organizer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to change the law per se , ” but to “ use the process of changing the law , which would be a good thing to do , to further the goals of the women ’ s movement overall.
” In Connecticut , the movement used law as an organizing tool to fight severe criminalization of abortion — a woman committed a felony by even asking for one .
In 1971 , the organizers of “ Women versus Connecticut ” recruited as many women as possible as plaintiffs in a lawsuit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people about ( and organized them around ) reproductive freedom .
These hundreds of women sued Connecticut and filed affidavits about their experiences with illegal abortions or being forced to carry a pregnancy to term .
At a plaintiffs ’ meeting , one of the lawyers ( all of whom were women ) argued that their lawsuit had to be about “ flesh and blood people , ” because “ after listening to more and more judges , if we present it as a matter of law , they are going to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a federal court struck down the law criminalizing abortion .
The decision recognized the “ extraordinary ramifications for a woman ” of pregnancy and childbirth , such as pressure to “ curtail or end her employment or educational opportunities.
” The feminist movement had many other victories like this on the way to Roe v. Wade in 1973 , using mass legal action , protests , and other creative tactics to shift consciousness and pressure politicians .
In 1967 , California ’ s Republican Gov .
Ronald Reagan signed a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970s , over 20 states had passed similar or stronger legislation .
The movement ’ s influence was so great that of the four justices appointed by Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court , one of them wrote Roe itself , and two of them joined the majority .
Nixon and these justices preceded the growth of the right-wing legal movement we know today and were not necessarily anti-choice stalwarts .
Nonetheless , this victory against the odds is a benchmark for us .
Today , giving non-answers about Roe is a sport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ futile questions about Roe seems to be one for Democratic senators .
Both sides fixate on the legal correctness of landmark cases like Roe , but we need to unpack the stories of how they actually came to be .
The one question that no Supreme Court nominee can duck is about Brown v. Board of Education — “ super-precedent , ” as Barrett took to calling it .
But the conversation stops there , without going on to who did the actual work of ending Jim Crow segregation .
It was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the South to implement Brown with “ all deliberate speed.
” Martin Luther King Jr. described the Court ’ s impact as “ stark tokenism.
” The actual work was done by the Little Rock Nine , the Freedom Riders , Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee , and Black protesters under siege by police and white supremacists all over the country .
The Supreme Court itself was often hostile to civil rights protesters .
During the massive campaign in 1963 to desegregate Birmingham , Alabama , when cops and dogs and fire hoses were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crow part by denying permits for civil rights marches .
The marches went forward in defiance of an Alabama court injunction , and MLK and the other organizers were charged with jail time and fines .
The Supreme Court upheld those charges .
It faulted the organizers for “ disobeying the injunction ” and the permit process rather than “ challeng [ ing ] it in the Alabama courts.
” The Court ’ s advice to MLK was that “ respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement ’ s major victories were in Congress , with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts .
The Supreme Court , which upheld them as constitutional , played a more passive role .
That ’ s not to discount the movement ’ s influence on the Court , which was nearly unanimous in acknowledging the need to “ banish the blight of racial discrimination.
” Just as the feminist movement racked up state victories on the way to the Supreme Court , the civil rights movement went through Congress first .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social movements can uphold their victories through mass upheaval and by moving against the Court ’ s own institutional power .
That ’ s what happened during the Great Depression .
Workers Fight for — and SCOTUS Upholds — the Right to Organize During Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s first term ( 1933-1937 ) , the Supreme Court routinely struck down his New Deal legislation for violating the freedom of contract and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution .
The U.S. Congress could only tinker with “ interstate commerce ” — not economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large steel and auto manufacturing plants .
But then , in 1937 , the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act ( NLRA ) , which protected workers ’ legal right to organize .
What changed ?
Employers defied the NLRA after it was passed in 1935 , expecting it to be struck down .
Indeed , every lower court which ruled on the NLRA said it could not constitutionally protect manufacturing workers because they did not participate in “ interstate commerce.
” The courts defied the clear popular mandate for the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smashing reelection victory in 1936 .
Rather than rely on the courts to protect their rights , rank-and-file workers took matters into their own hands .
In a wave of successful “ sit-down strikes , ” they fought for union recognition and halted production in manufacturing plants by occupying them with massive numbers .
In 1936 and 1937 , nearly half a million workers participated in a sit-down .
In one of the greatest labor conflicts in U.S. history , thousands of workers at the General Motors plants in Flint , Michigan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1936 .
It ended in victory two months later .
Their primary demand was that GM obey the NLRA and recognize their union .
GM at first refused to negotiate , condemning the workers for “ striking at the very heart of the right of possession of private property ” by occupying the plants .
The workers argued that the sit-down was necessary to defend their right to organize under the NLRA , refused to follow court injunctions that ignored this reality , and battled police who tried to evict them .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy , he lobbed his own controversial attack against the Supreme Court .
He threatened to “ pack the Court ” through legislation allowing him to appoint more liberal justices who would uphold his policies .
Sit-down strike wave , popular mandate , court-packing threat — this was the context of April 1937 , when the Supreme Court ruled on the NLRA .
First , it upheld the NLRA as applied to interstate transportation and communication businesses — this was squarely within the Commerce Clause .
But second , it also upheld the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even those within a single state .
The Court was clear about how the strike wave factored into its decision : “ When industries organize themselves on a national scale , making their relation to interstate commerce the dominant factor in their activities , how can it be maintained that their industrial labor relations constitute a forbidden field into which Congress may not enter when it is necessary to protect interstate commerce from the paralyzing consequences of industrial war ?
” Our Movements Can Win in Court Our predecessors won these rights through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adapt their approaches to the courts to our situation today .
Shelby County and Bostock , which respectively weakened and strengthened the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts , echo our failures and successes in living up to the civil rights movement ’ s accomplishments .
In other words , it ’ s not enough to grill Republican nominees about what they will do about Roe and abortion rights — we have to ask ourselves that same question .
Our movements generally have the right instincts when it comes to “ legal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are considering cases of police violence , we take to the streets .
We dress up as handmaids to protest anti-choice judicial nominations .
We stall the expansion of oil pipelines through civil disobedience as environmental lawsuits crawl through the courts .
But as our movements grow and aim higher , these good instincts run up against conventional wisdom about the courts and their supposed impartiality .
Rebutting that lie and staying on the course of mass action will require a deeper discussion — in the streets and our workplaces ( and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how our social movements can win in court today .
How can we defend Roe and win greater reproductive freedom ?
Do we follow the feminist movement and shift consciousness through state victories , and perhaps clinic defenses ?
How do we pressure the Supreme Court to abolish qualified immunity , which protects police from liability for civil rights violations ?
Do we go directly to the Court or through Congress first ?
In either case , mass upheaval and initiatives to reform or pack — if not abolish — the Supreme @ @ @ @ @

With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, how will the Supreme Court decide future cases? Most people will probably think of it as a “6-3 Court” and expect decisions based on the number of justices nominated by each of the two ruling parties. Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act, was a perfect 5-4 split between the justices nominated by Democrats and Republicans at the time.
The justices, of course, disagree. They admit the nominations are political but the justice is not, “once that black robe goes on.” After all, it was Trump-nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote Bostock v. Clayton County, which guaranteed the Civil Rights Act’s anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender workers.
Politicians generally respond to the question of how the Supreme Court decides cases with a convenient mix of both answers. The opposing party’s nominees are partisan hacks, but the rest of the justices (fine print: who we nominated) are faithfully applying the “written text” and/or “true values” of the Constitution!
All of these accounts, however, miss a key factor: social movements. We know that movements won our rights — from abortion to voting to joining a union — but they are forgotten when we talk about the Supreme Court. Politicians and the justices only admit to the influence of politics in terms of partisanship, not strikes and protests by ordinary people. The result is an incomplete and unbearable national conversation around the Supreme Court, which most recently played out in Barrett’s nomination hearing.
Introducing social movements to the conversation would not just make it bearable — it would make it exciting. The stories of why the Supreme Court upheld reproductive rights, civil rights protections and workers’ rights to organize are our stories. By telling them, we can prepare ourselves to continue those fights inside and outside the courtroom today.
The Fight Leading Up to Roe v. Wade
The women who fought for the right to choose — then and now — saw legal rulings as a potential part of their liberation, but not the whole ballgame. As one organizer put it, “the objective was not to change the law per se,” but to “use the process of changing the law, which would be a good thing to do, to further the goals of the women’s movement overall.”
The stories of why the Supreme Court upheld reproductive rights, civil rights protections and workers’ rights to organize are our stories.
In Connecticut, the movement used law as an organizing tool to fight severe criminalization of abortion — a woman committed a felony by even asking for one. In 1971, the organizers of “Women versus Connecticut” recruited as many women as possible as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, and in the process, they educated people about (and organized them around) reproductive freedom. These hundreds of women sued Connecticut and filed affidavits about their experiences with illegal abortions or being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. At a plaintiffs’ meeting, one of the lawyers (all of whom were women) argued that their lawsuit had to be about “flesh and blood people,” because “after listening to more and more judges, if we present it as a matter of law, they are going to think we are daft.”
The women won, as a federal court struck down the law criminalizing abortion. The decision recognized the “extraordinary ramifications for a woman” of pregnancy and childbirth, such as pressure to “curtail or end her employment or educational opportunities.”
The feminist movement had many other victories like this on the way to Roe v. Wade in 1973, using mass legal action, protests, and other creative tactics to shift consciousness and pressure politicians. In 1967, California’s Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a state law decriminalizing abortion. By the early 1970s, over 20 states had passed similar or stronger legislation. The movement’s influence was so great that of the four justices appointed by Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court, one of them wrote Roe itself, and two of them joined the majority. Nixon and these justices preceded the growth of the right-wing legal movement we know today and were not necessarily anti-choice stalwarts. Nonetheless, this victory against the odds is a benchmark for us.
Today, giving non-answers about Roe is a sport for Republican nominees, just as asking futile questions about Roe seems to be one for Democratic senators. Both sides fixate on the legal correctness of landmark cases like Roe, but we need to unpack the stories of how they actually came to be.
The Supreme Court’s Passive Record on Civil Rights
The actual work [behind Brown v. Board of Education] was done by the Little Rock Nine, the Freedom Riders, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and Black protesters under siege all over the country.
The one question that no Supreme Court nominee can duck is about Brown v. Board of Education — “super-precedent,” as Barrett took to calling it. But the conversation stops there, without going on to who did the actual work of ending Jim Crow segregation. It was not the Supreme Court, which merely told the South to implement Brown with “all deliberate speed.” Martin Luther King Jr. described the Court’s impact as “stark tokenism.” The actual work was done by the Little Rock Nine, the Freedom Riders, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and Black protesters under siege by police and white supremacists all over the country.
The Supreme Court itself was often hostile to civil rights protesters. During the massive campaign in 1963 to desegregate Birmingham, Alabama, when cops and dogs and fire hoses were let loose, bureaucrats played their Jim Crow part by denying permits for civil rights marches. The marches went forward in defiance of an Alabama court injunction, and MLK and the other organizers were charged with jail time and fines. The Supreme Court upheld those charges. It faulted the organizers for “disobeying the injunction” and the permit process rather than “challeng[ing] it in the Alabama courts.” The Court’s advice to MLK was that “respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law.”
Instead, the movement’s major victories were in Congress, with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. The Supreme Court, which upheld them as constitutional, played a more passive role. That’s not to discount the movement’s influence on the Court, which was nearly unanimous in acknowledging the need to “banish the blight of racial discrimination.”
Just as the feminist movement racked up state victories on the way to the Supreme Court, the civil rights movement went through Congress first. Even when the Supreme Court is hostile, social movements can uphold their victories through mass upheaval and by moving against the Court’s own institutional power.
That’s what happened during the Great Depression.
Workers Fight for — and SCOTUS Upholds — the Right to Organize
Even when the Supreme Court is hostile, social movements can uphold their victories through mass upheaval and by moving against the Court’s own institutional power.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term (1933-1937), the Supreme Court routinely struck down his New Deal legislation for violating the freedom of contract and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The U.S. Congress could only tinker with “interstate commerce” — not economic activity within a single state, including large steel and auto manufacturing plants. But then, in 1937, the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protected workers’ legal right to organize. What changed?
Employers defied the NLRA after it was passed in 1935, expecting it to be struck down. Indeed, every lower court which ruled on the NLRA said it could not constitutionally protect manufacturing workers because they did not participate in “interstate commerce.” The courts defied the clear popular mandate for the New Deal, expressed in FDR’s smashing reelection victory in 1936.
Rather than rely on the courts to protect their rights, rank-and-file workers took matters into their own hands. In a wave of successful “sit-down strikes,” they fought for union recognition and halted production in manufacturing plants by occupying them with massive numbers. In 1936 and 1937, nearly half a million workers participated in a sit-down. In one of the greatest labor conflicts in U.S. history, thousands of workers at the General Motors plants in Flint, Michigan, staged a sit-down strike beginning in December 1936. It ended in victory two months later.
Their primary demand was that GM obey the NLRA and recognize their union. GM at first refused to negotiate, condemning the workers for “striking at the very heart of the right of possession of private property” by occupying the plants.
The workers argued that the sit-down was necessary to defend their right to organize under the NLRA, refused to follow court injunctions that ignored this reality, and battled police who tried to evict them.
While FDR was publicly silent on the sit-down strategy, he lobbed his own controversial attack against the Supreme Court. He threatened to “pack the Court” through legislation allowing him to appoint more liberal justices who would uphold his policies.
Sit-down strike wave, popular mandate, court-packing threat — this was the context of April 1937, when the Supreme Court ruled on the NLRA. First, it upheld the NLRA as applied to interstate transportation and communication businesses — this was squarely within the Commerce Clause.
It’s not enough to grill Republican nominees about what they will do about Roe and abortion rights — we have to ask ourselves that same question.
But second, it also upheld the NLRA as applied to manufacturing plants, even those within a single state. The Court was clear about how the strike wave factored into its decision:
“When industries organize themselves on a national scale, making their relation to interstate commerce the dominant factor in their activities, how can it be maintained that their industrial labor relations constitute a forbidden field into which Congress may not enter when it is necessary to protect interstate commerce from the paralyzing consequences of industrial war?”
Our Movements Can Win in Court
Our predecessors won these rights through social movements, and we need to adapt their approaches to the courts to our situation today. Shelby County and Bostock, which respectively weakened and strengthened the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, echo our failures and successes in living up to the civil rights movement’s accomplishments. In other words, it’s not enough to grill Republican nominees about what they will do about Roe and abortion rights — we have to ask ourselves that same question.
Our movements generally have the right instincts when it comes to “legal” issues. When grand juries and courts are considering cases of police violence, we take to the streets. We dress up as handmaids to protest anti-choice judicial nominations. We stall the expansion of oil pipelines through civil disobedience as environmental lawsuits crawl through the courts. But as our movements grow and aim higher, these good instincts run up against conventional wisdom about the courts and their supposed impartiality. Rebutting that lie and staying on the course of mass action will require a deeper discussion — in the streets and our workplaces (and, of course, our homes) — about how our social movements can win in court today.
How can we defend Roe and win greater reproductive freedom? Do we follow the feminist movement and shift consciousness through state victories, and perhaps clinic defenses? How do we pressure the Supreme Court to abolish qualified immunity, which protects police from liability for civil rights violations? Do we go directly to the Court or through Congress first? In either case, mass upheaval and initiatives to reform or pack — if not abolish — the Supreme Court will be necessary.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.