Exercising the right to protest, COVID-19

“Government won’t do squat.”*

That’s the slogan I imagine for the open up protesters in Clearwater, Florida exercising VIDEO: Protesters calling for gyms to reopen do squats, push-ups ...their right to protest against the closure of their gyms. Frustrated that they can’t get to the weight stack or the cardio machines, a couple of dozen took an elliptical route to the streets, where they protested by engaging in the collective action of calisthenics.

Local television news was on the story with helicopters right away; the responses on social media were merciless: protesters, who demonstrate they can exercise without a gym, demand access to the gym. They can’t weight to get to the gym. Call it a dead lift.

Puyallup gym protests stay-home order, invites members to work out ...

Exercise machines lay fallow

But the aerobic workout looked pretty sloppy. It’s hard to do a push-up while trying to keep the flag or sign you’re holding in one hand from touching the ground. Still, they may be making progress. Florida governor Ron DeSantis who, since Spring Break, has been determined to open as much of the state as quickly as possible.

The gyms are tough. Owners maintain expensive equipment and depend upon members (who may or may not come to work out) paying monthly dues. It’s hard to charge and unappealing to pay when attendance becomes really impossible–rather than just inconvenient. More than that, exercise is good. It helps you stay healthy, think clearly, and aspire to sanity.

The protesters NEED to get to the gym.

In Puyallup, Washington, a gym owner resisted the state-imposed shutdown by declaring the gym workout to be a free speech event.  A sign on the door welcomed participants: “Protest Here. Enter at Own Risk. Our freedoms and our livelihood are essential.” The owner asked attendees to sign a waiver, freeing him of any liability from injuries or illness.

It’s the same liberty problem as with all the open up protests. You may have the right to risk your own health, but not to become a vector infecting others.

Here in California, I miss the gym, the pool, the locker room, and showers. I miss pushing to raise my heart rate and break a good sweat, breathing deeply in the air conditioned room where other people are doing the same thing.

The experience of a bubbly feeling of connection with others and with the world  is the  closest I’ve come to the “collective effervescence” Emile Durkheim described.

It’s also likely the closest I’ve ever come to living in a petri dish.

Maybe things will just work out.

*h/t to my older daughter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We NEED a New Deal; make it Green!

The normalcy we reach after getting through the #coronacrisis won’t be the same as the one the ended in February. Now is the time to push for policiesPublic health workers, doctors and nurses protest over lack of sick pay and personal protective equipment (PPE) outside a hospital in the borough of the Bronx on April 17, 2020 in New York, NY. that shape the new normal we want. (It should certainly include sufficient protective gear for health care workers!)

Even in a fanciful world where COVID-19 disappears tomorrow, much of the economic, social, and political damage done will remain. Some of the retail stores and sectors that struggled before the shutdown will not return. Businesses will have discovered that some of the travel they supported wasn’t needed, and some people will discover that they can happily function with a little less attention to hair and new clothes. People uncertain about their prospects of returning to their old jobs will be less likely to go out to eat, to movies, or to the barber quite so often. A thinner service sector will take care of people who, through new personal austerity and/or newly discovered competencies (cooking, gardening), need something different. Older displaced workers will look for places to plug into the working world–for money and meaning. Youth who graduated from high school or college without ceremony will look for jobs to build their own lives.

This economy can’t save itself without losing a generation….at least.

If, as top Republicans promise, the Federal government refuses to backfill mProtesters Lay Body Bags outside Trump Hotel to Condemn COVID-19 Response (+Video)assive state budget deficits, they will be entering–or reentering–a world where the biggest spenders on health care, public safety, and education are executing severe cutbacks. Fewer nurses, public school teachers, or firefighters won’t make life better for anyone. Really, it could be the American carnage that Trump imagined in the scariest inaugural speech in American history.

People patiently fiddling with their phones while waiting for markets to right themselves and the larger community in the process will be disappointed–although it takes a long long time to dissuade a religious zealot with fact.

We haven’t been here before, but we have been somewhere close. In 1932, President Herbert Hoover ran for reelection on the promise of letting Refer to Captioncapitalism recover on its own, without government interference–or help. fiscal responsibility and was resoundingly rejected.

Franklin Roosevelt presided over an eclectic series of efforts to ameliorate the pain Americans suffered, and to build toward a future. Through cascades of redundantly titled agencies, the federal government supported construction, banks, parks, artists, senior citizens, and young workers–and more.

The New Deal was never enough, but it helped heal and rebuild America. Its legacies are everywhere, from great public works providing rural electricity to the artsy mural in a post office in New York to the monthly check retirees count on.

What we should have learned from the New Deal–and from the rescue effort from the Great Recession–is the danger of thinking small and finding false economies. I’ll bet that virtually all professional economists and all but the most ideologically blinkered politicians got the message: go big. It’s stupid, counterproductive, even sinful, to allow America’s extraordinary resources and people to go to waste.

Congress has already appropriated massive sums to prop up existing businesses, throwing life preservers to those in danger of going under (and others!), without anything resembling a plan that extends far enough to get to shore–a new normal. It’s going to take much more, at least (!) the biggest reconstruction of American life since the New Deal.

It’s time for vision: the Green New Deal has never been more relevant.

But the bucket of aspirations gallantly promoted by the Sunrise Movement Sunrise Movement activists protesting for a Green New Deal.and others offers suggestions, and not yet concrete plans.

Read it! It calls for good jobs, family farms, universal health care, high speed rail, investments in education and much much more in a scant 14 pages. Now it’s time for blueprints as well as visions.

Think of the alternatives: the austerity posture national Republicans embrace will mean cuts in education and health care when we’ve never needed growth more. The emergency rescue program that we’re seeing so far would prop up troubled industries, like coal and cruises, based on preserving jobs or protecting the already connected.

We can do so much more.

Why not a national service program more ambitious and bolder than any we’ve ever seen, putting youth to work tutoring, contact tracing, cleaning surfaces, preparing and serving meals, or redesigning cities? (Conservative columnist David Brooks recognizes the wisdom here.) Every new graduate should have access to a worthwhile job. Put a teacher’s assistant in every classroom, and everyone benefits immediately and for the long haul.

Why not a comprehensive infrastructure program which supports not only routine painting of bridges, but also the full spectrum of needs in a modern economy: scientific research, inexpensive high quality internet access, and outstanding and affordable childcare, for starters?

Why not comprehensive programs to promote democracy, including readyCapitol Hill. access to the ballot, civic education, and professional reporting on local and national news?

We will see massive government spending and deficits over the next few months, and maybe years. Now is the time for engaged activists to force attention to glaring problems and promote solutions that are more than band-aids. Their success will rescue not only a generation, but a nation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are the Open-Up protests winning? What does winning mean? COVID-19

Dramatic, often confrontational, protests by small groups to “open up” seem to be working.

The protests certainly haven’t enjoyed the support of most Americans. A substantial majority of Americans oppose a quick lifting of restrictions on public life and are far more worried about the health consequences of COVID-19 than of the economic damage caused by the shutdown.

But most states have begun with at least a partial reopening of public spaces and businesses. Some, like Georgia, have commenced opening before coming close to meeting any of the standards laid out by the White House (e.g., declining rate of infections). Actually, no states Protesters in Chicago on Friday.are close to meeting those White House standards right now, and the Trump administration has vigorously rejected the guidance for reopening America that it had requested from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (Icebergs be damned, full steam ahead!)

Even the states that implemented the strongest restrictions on public life, like California and Ohio, have begun public discussions of how to reopen.

Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, the target of disgruntled protesters, the Republican state legislature, and the president of the United States, announced that she would not be swayed by racist-inflected protests outside her office (swastikas, nooses, and Confederate battle flags!), and that she would continue to heed the advice of public health experts and epidemiologists. But, even as she extended her stay-at-home orders, she also announced relaxing some restrictions and the reopening of manufacturing plants in the state.

In Wisconsin, another Democratic governor facing a Republican legislature is facing not only hostile protesters, but also a state supreme court that seems decidedly unsympathetic to his claims about protecting public health.

No politician will admit that she changed course on policy in response to determined and disruptive protests (as with all movements), but policy is certainly moving toward an opening up.

Is this what victory looks like?

The real story is more complicated, of course, and is still developing, but here’s a chance to look at the way protest campaigns, even unpopular ones, can influence policy.

A few qualifications:

First, no one wants stay-at-home orders to last forever. From the moment they issued such orders, politicians and public health officials began planning for ways to end them safely. There was always going to be a balancing of competing priorities. Maybe, this is what would have happened anyway?!

Second, the protesters were hardly alone in calling for a restart for public life. Chambers of Commerce, Donald Trump, and conservative pundits have pushed the idea that protecting the economy had to take priority over strict public health measures. And campaigners for relaxed restrictions did more than just protest: they lobbied legislators, broke laws, called and wrote officials, filed lawsuits, and made their case in mainstream and social media.

[More than that, protesters assaulted state houses with many goals. At least some of the Michiganders were worked up about gun rights; lots of the Californians were angry about vaccines.]

(Note: This is always the case for successful social movements in America; protest doesn’t work by itself.)

Third, lifting formal restrictions on public activity is a long step away from resurrecting the social and economic life of just a few months ago. It’s not just hand-washing and masks wearing practices that will change: who wants to go to a movie, get a massage, or ride a crowded city bus? (Someone will, but not near enough people will take the risks to keep most businesses viable.)

Fourth,the costs and consequences of restrictions, relaxed or not, play out differently in different parts of the economy and regions of the country. People Smithfield foods in Crete, Nebraska: Meat workers are threatening that they won't return to work despite President Donald Trump's demand that plants stay openwho have found ways to work safely at home will surely continue to do so….at least a lot of the time. But those who feel unsafe in their workplaces–either because of work conditions (meatpacking plants?) or personal vulnerabilities (age, health, e.g.) will face inexcusable pressures.

There has already been resistance to new rules from all sides. Pressures to work in unsafe conditions will provoke resistance, leading to sick-outs, no shows, and union organizing.  Disgruntled citizens have also chafed at public health restrictions imposed by stores and restaurants; we’ve already seen alarming violence in reaction to required masks.

Fifth, the battles over public health and public life will play out against the consequences of a global pandemic sweeping across American states. people will listen to stories from friends, relatives, and (of course) strangers online; newspapers and academic institutions will continue to post numbers of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Those numbers and those stories will matter, particularly if they increase as virtually public health expert predicts. And they’ll matter more if those economic improvements disappoint, as virtually every economist predicts.

While celebrities and some politicians seeking to comfort remind us that we’re all in this together, the emerging battles seem to suggest otherwise. We are still distressingly early in what will be a long and painful political struggle.

(Note: thanks to Fernando Tormos-Aponte for provoking this piece.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gavin Newsom, Jonah, protest, and the preparation paradox, COVID-19

Gavin Newsom, governor of California–where I live–has done a pretty good job in managing the awful coronacrisis. He’s acted quickly and decisively, taken strong measures informed by science and data, and has explained his decisions.

It’s been a hassle: after the governor prohibited large gatherings, spectators (including me) were banned from my daughter’s first high school swim meet of the season–the last meet of the season. Then public school went online in response to his directives, and my university went online at about the same time. Almost all business shut down and toilet paper vanished from the supermarket shelves.

But California, where the very first COVID-19 cases in the United States appeared, has had relatively low rates of infection and an even lower rate of fatalities from the virus. (You can find data on many sites, including Johns Hopkins University, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for starters.) Hospitals have managed better than elsewhere, and as frustrated as it is to be stuck at home, I think we’ve been pretty well protected.

I’m not sure that every Newsom decision was exactly right, and there are certainly lots of frustrations, but I’m convinced that the governor made informed decisions in consultation with people who knew more than me. The data tell a story.

Note: Although Newsom was first, he was not the only data-driven decisive governor: Jay Inslee (D-Washington) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) were among the chief executives paying attention to experts early and taking the political risk of saving lives.

But saving lives through prevention doesn’t present as clearly as pulling someone out of a burning building. It’s easy to ignore the infections that we don’t get, particularly when the infectious agent isn’t banging up against the front door. Because we have to work to see what these strict stay at home orders are protecting us from, resentment can grow easily.

A vigorous, if so far limited, opposition to Governor Newsom has staged an escalating series of protests to open up California: the beaches, the beauty shops, the businesses. Newsom has been the face of the state and the target of opposition.

Partly, it’s the paradox of preparation, and it evokes one of my favorite Bible stories, Jonah. Here’s the summary:

God tells Jonah to tell the people of Nineveh that He is going to destroy them because of their evil ways. Jonah doesn’t want to do it, because he thinks the Ninevehans (?) will repent, God will relent, and he (the prophet) will look like a jerk. After an interlude with a great fish, Jonah comes to his senses and delivers the news to Nineveh. The residents repent, God relents, and nothing is destroyed. Jonah, angry and disappointed at the lack of follow-through, is then taught a lesson on compassion.

Point: there is every reason to believe that Jonah saved a city. And Newsom saved many lives. But their efforts left Nineveh–or California–worse off than before the warning. Californians are stuck in their houses with work drying up and massive state budget cuts on the horizon; the Ninevehites (?) are mourning, fasting, covered in ashes and sackcloth, with rented (torn) clothes. It doesn’t feel like a win.

And people are angry about the pain. This is why, by the way, it’s so easy to ignore the routine maintenance of our personal and public life: vaccines, painting bridges, updating software, building maintenance, colonoscopies….

Flossing!

The vigorous protests against Newsom, directed to “opening up” California, make for powerful images: unmasked demonstrators pushing up against police; flags and invocations of the Constitution; and frustrated surfers holding boards aloft. If Newsom and the experts are right, they’re also dangerous.

We hope that no one in Sacramento or Huntington Beach, committed to the Constitution and liberty, is carrying the virus that might be spread to an ally or to a police officer at work–and then a family or a workplace and beyond. But the relatively limited disease and damage numbers that reflect Newsom’s proactive–and provocative–decisions could quickly disappear.

There will be no one clamoring to the cameras to claim credit for driving up the infection and fatality rates in California. The rates will prove to protesters that Newsom’s restrictions were ineffective and pointless at best.

Effective politics demands a coherent story, ideally informed with fact, linking together a series of events, and measured against the possible. Telling the truth about bad news is hard under the best of circumstances, and it’s harder when you know that some portion of your audience won’t listen and has easy access to an alternate explanation unencumbered by fact.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kent State shootings, anniversary (repost)

(This is a repost of a report on the Kent State shootings, on occasion of the 50th anniversary. It’s almost hard to remember a moment when students were present on college campuses, much less assembled together in groups. At the end, I’ve added a bit on Neil Young’s emblematic song, which helped keep the memory alive.)

It’s the anniversary of the killing of four college students at Kent State University.  Young National Guardsmen opened fire on students protesting the war on May 4, discharging more than 60 rounds in roughly 13 seconds.  They killed four students: Allison Krause, 19, and Jeffrey Miller, 20, were part of a nonviolent protest that university authorities promised to ban; Sandy Scheuer, 20, and William Schroeder, 19, were walking to class.  The National Guardsmen also wounded nine other students, some severely.

The protests at Kent State were part of a wave of protests that swept across American college campuses on May 1, a Friday, the day after President Richard Nixon announced that he had already ordered American air forces to expand their bombing to Cambodia.  (Roughly a week earlier, after operations had already commenced, Secretary of State William P. Rogers testified before Congress, explicitly denying any intention of expanding the war to Cambodia.)

In Kent, protest and disruption spread into the town that night, with bonfires set in the streets and altercations with police.  The mayor declared a state of emergency, ordered the bars closed, and asked the governor for help in getting everything back under control; the National Guard arrived at the University on Saturday. Students planned a demonstration for Monday to protest the presence of the Guard on campus.  University officials tried to cancel the demonstration, but students assembled anyway. The Guardsmen ordered the students to disperse, then used tear gas before opening fire.

It was terrible, and there is still a great deal we don’t know about: why the National Guard was on campus in the first place?  why the order to fire on unarmed students hundreds of feet away?  Who gave the order?  or was an order even given?  There’s a lot of writing, and a lot of controversy, still.  A good start is a summary, including an annotated bibliography, by two emeritus professors at Kent State, Jerry M. Lewis and Thomas R. Hensley, of Sociology and Political Science, respectively.

The shooting of unarmed students on a public college campus fostered a sense that the country was coming apart.  It was followed by a police shooting of student protesters at Jackson State in Mississippi, where Philip Gibbs, 21, and James Green, 17, were killed, and 12 other students were wounded.

President Nixon established a commission, chaired by William Scranton (formerly governor of Pennsylvania), to report on campus unrest. Published in September, the Scranton Commission answered few of the pressing questions about Kent State or Jackson State, but observed that campus unrest seemed to decline when the war in Vietnam seemed like it was winding down, and escalated after the bombing in Cambodia started.

The war and the demonstrations continued for a while, tapering off when the draft ended the next year.  Authorities developed ways to control dissent, on campus and elsewhere, without using live ammunition against protesters involved in large demonstrations.  Demonstrations generally became less threatening, less disruptive, and less dangerous.

The Kent State and Jackson State killings remain tragic exceptions to more routine protest politics.  It’s a good sign that they stand out in our memories.

One reason the memory remains is a powerful and idiosyncratic protest song, recorded within just a few weeks of the event. Days after the Kent State shootings, Neil Young wrote, “Ohio,” a song mourning the deaths. Apparently, he was shocked by photos published in Life magazine. Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young released the song, which called out President Nixon and ended with the repeated line, “Four dead in Ohio”  (lyrics). The song reached the top 20 in the United States and Canada, and appeared on several albums by Young and by the group; they often performed the song in their occasional reunion tours over the past half-century.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

It’s the guns, COVID-19

A protester screams in a cops faceGuns aren’t the only way to threaten public safety, as open up protesters screaming into the faces of masked police officers surely know.

The police are wearing masks to avoid the possibility of infecting other people. Those medical masks are much less effective in protecting the wearer from the saturated screams of a protester who may be spewing virus as well as venom.

A protest of several hundred people who wanted to end Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s strict stay at home orders assembled outside the capitol building in Lansing, Michigan, and a contingent spilled in to try to enter the legislative chamber in deliberations.

That’s illegal.

Openly carrying loaded weapons is not.

Inside and outside the capitol, some of the protesters carried guns, includingView image on Twitter assault rifles. As gun rights groups have done some of the organizing, it’s not all that surprising that activists would link issues.

The accessory was a way to emphasize their commitment, as well as their willingness and capacity to do more than march. Commitment and capacity to escalate is an important component of protest politics, particularly for a minority. Presently, polls show that large majorities of Americans and Michiganders support the lockdown.

The images evoked memories of a similar, legal, armed protest at the California capitol in 1967. Armed members of the Black Panther Party descended on Sacramento to protest against proposed restrictions on firearms. The Panthers depended on armaments, they said, to protect their community from the police, and made a practice of following police patrols in Oakland while carrying weapons. Huey P. Newton, a co-founder of the Black Panthers and their Minister of Defense called the practice, “armed love.”

The armed protest backfired. In short order, the legislature passed the Mulford Act, which prohibited open carry of loaded weapons. Sponsored by a Republican legislator, it was signed and supported by then-Governor Ronald Reagan. The National Rifle Association supported the bill as well.

Different protesters, different NRA.

Protest is a critical element in American politics, and is Constitutionally protected. The first amendment to the constitution enshrines the right of the people “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But protest doesn’t work by itself, only in conjunction with other political efforts. A demonstration is a signal of commitment and always at least an implicit threat to do more: to vote, to contribute to candidates, to disobey the law, and to keep protesting.

Resort to physical violence, even the threat of political violence, is a high risk strategy in the United States. Once “peaceably” is no longer operative, government is likely to crack down rather than open up.

The Panthers lost on the gun rights issue; more significantly, they suffered surveillance, infiltration, and brutal repression from the federal government. (So did the Ku Klux Klan.)

While electoral intimidation can be a very effective political strategy in the United States, physical intimidation isn’t likely to work so well.

Back in Lansing, at least one state senator explained that she viewed the arms as a threat, and reported that some of her colleagues were wearing bullet-proof vests. The images circulated across the nation.

A majority of the Republican-led legislature voted to end the lockdown, but Gov. Whitmer extended the state of emergency anyway; legislative leaders promised to take the issue to the courts. Trump, characteristically unhelpful, tweeted that the protesters were “very good people,” and urged Whitmer to meet with them and “make a deal.”

This is, by the way, terrible advice. Politically, Whitmer now enjoys majority support in Michigan. More importantly, she should execute policies that are most effective at protecting Michiganders, popular or not. She should certainly work to explain those policies to people who don’t like them, and be prepared for her opponents not to listen.

But public safety in the advent of a global pandemic is not amenable to split the difference deal-making. If 6 feet, for example, makes for safe social distance, but opponents want no distance, 3 feet doesn’t help anyone. Whitmer’s job is to protect the people in her state, listen to people who know more about public health than she or the protesters do, and be prepared to face the health and political consequences of her decisions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protest is contagious; where we are….

The first picture is of a open up protest at the Wisconsin state capitol in Madison, on August 24, featuring a turnout estimated at a couple of thousand people, certainly one of People protested Gov. Tony Evers’s extended stay-at-home order at the Capitol in Madison, Wis., on Friday.the largest turnouts at these protests so far. The protesters are challenging a Democratic governor ordering policies they despise.

Below are other images of protest in Madison, taken from large demonstrations directed against a Republican governor implementing policies activists found abhorrent.

Frustration, desperation, anger, and optimism sometimes lead people to take to the streets in protest.

Saints and psychopaths will turn out to protest without apparent prospects for influence, but most of us won’t. Most of us will engage in protest action only when we think it might work, and we take up tactics that seem familiar enough, safe enough, and potentially effective.

Angry public workers, facing cuts, crowded into the Capitol on Wednesday in Madison, Wis.We don’t make any of these decisions in a vacuum, and the efforts of others matter. When people with grievances learn that others with a cause have staged drive-by protests in the COVID moment, they can pick up the approach and apply it to other causes. Open up protesters grabbed a tactic used by immigration rights activists. The tactic isn’t limited to a particular cause.

When people who are frustrated by the quarantines imposed across most of the nation see others standing up against those quarantines by marching on state capitols, they can find both encouragement and a model. When people see others who are similarly situated take action, they can find inspiration.

And when health care workers see nurses and doctors standing up to bear witness against the open up protests, they can pick up the tactic and the cause. Their shared identity makes it easier to sign onto the cause.

The story of a protest event makes for a demonstration (!) effect that a cause is important and urgent enough and/or that a tactic might work.

The flow of ideas and tactics doesn’t take place on a level field. Sometimes, the news spreads along the lines of mainstream media networks. In ancient times, activists tried to get their events and sometimes even their ideas into the newspaper or on broadcast television. Support from a visible politician with ready access to audiences can amplify those efforts.

But you can’t depend upon news outlets or politicians to carry your message your way loudly enough.

Organizers work to amplify and interpret activist efforts in one place to broader audiences. By publicizing events that have taken place, and announcing planned events in advance to receptive audiences, well-established conservative groups have encourage frustrated people to take to their cars–or to the streets. Publicizing images of protesters with guns and without masks suggests a model, and abundant social media networks promote alternative interpretations and alternative facts about the causes of the pandemic, its severity, and appropriate remedies. Organizers try to use the protests to promote their own version of important grievances and their proposed solutions, changing public opinion and broad notions of what’s possible.

So, protests about opening up the economy also became protests about gun rights and support for the Trump presidency. The broader agenda likely turns off many people who might agree on the initial issues, but it intensifies the commitment of those engaged, and increases the space between them and a larger public.

At the moment, we really don’t know how far any of this will spread.

The 2011 protests in Madison were much larger than this week’s protest, so far, and they extended over weeks. But demonstrators were risking the cold, not a deadly virus. Those 2011 protests didn’t stop the anti-labor legislation Governor Scott Walker championed. They were, however, an early blast in a much larger  that generated Occupy later in the year. The protests helped focus public attention on growing inequality, and it mattered.

It’s unclear whether the movements of the moment will do the same.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Counterprotests for health make strong images

Intensive care nurse Lauren Leander got a respectful hearing on CNN Thursday night, as she explained to Chris Cuomo why she decided to spend her day off staring down open up Banner University Medical Center ICU nurse Lauren Leander stands in counter-protest as people march toward the Arizona State Capitol in protest of Gov. Doug Ducey's stay-at-home order to combat the coronavirus April 20, 2020.protesters in Phoenix.

A few nurses dressed in clean scrubs, donned masks, and stood silently as they suffered ridicule and abuse from a few of the reported 1,000 protesters violating the stay at home orders of Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey.

Leander explained, “my message being a nurse is just to speak for the people who can’t speak for themselves and to speak for the people in our hospital that are suffering in ways that the general public cannot see….I know those people would be urging the general public to continue to stay home for them.”

Asked about the unmasked protesters who reject government restrictions on their movement or commerce, Leander responded, “You know, I would just love to be able to take them into the hospital with me and to, you know, put them in a pair of scrubs and to get them to see just the suffering that’s going on in the hospital with these covid patients that are isolated from their families and that are dying alone.”

Effective protest politics plays with symbols and creates images. Open up protesters in Phoenix carried placards about liberty, waved flags, wore Trump t-shirts, and carried weapons. They clearly meant to send a message that they were patriotic, powerful, and political. In addition to the shouts, there was an implicit threat that they were willing to break more than a quarantine.

Leander and her colleagues countered with professionalism. They were few and they were silent and still. Images of the confrontation spread around the web, and surely, anyone can see what they wish in the picture. But in telling her story, and essentially welcoming all the backlash that will follow online and beyond, the nurse explained that she saw the consequences of a global pandemic in her patients, while the marchers saw only the costs of the quarantine that was a response.

I don’t know where the nurses’ courage and commitment came from.

But Lauren Leander explained where they got the idea for uniformed silent protest. She explained that they were inspired by others who had already confronted open up protesters:

You know, we were really inspired by the other viral photos from the health care workers in Denver, you know, that were going around the internet, and we just were so impressed by their action and just the power in their silence and what they did. And we said yes, like, that’s the kind of action that we can take for something like this. That’s what we can do.

View image on TwitterThe few protesters who blocked the traffic of a drive-in protest in Denver’s downtown didn’t release their names or tell their stories, but the powerful photos by freelancer Alyson McClaran, circulated everywhere.

The images appeared on Twitter and Facebook well before they were taken up in more conventional media. The debates on social media were at least as heated and partisan as what took place in the streets.

Videos of confrontations where passengers leaned out of car windows to scream at those Health care workers stand in the street in counter-protest to hundreds of people who gathered at the State Capitol to demand the stay-at-home order be lifted in Denver, Colorado, on April 19, 2020.blocking traffic, demonstrating the volume of their commitment circulated too. One passenger screamed that the man blocking traffic loved communism and should go to China.

The dueling protests make conflicting claims about expertise, status, and information. Health care workers, who normally enjoy public esteem, and now are ritually cheered in communities around the country each evening, are deploying their status and their experience to serve as a counterweight to the passions of people who proclaim they want to make their own decisions about work and risk and community.

And the conflict won’t get resolved in front of Arizona’s state capitol or the streets of Denver. The debate about ending a public health lockdown has become even more heated and partisan in the streets. More important is how the images from those protests carry to a larger audience. The rest of us are invited from a distance to take sides.

In a different political moment, leaders would encourage us to remember that everyone wants to protect public health AND resurrect as much of the life we had before as possible as soon as possible. The politics could be about figuring out how to do so, gathering information and managing risks.

That’s not the moment we’re in.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Generational Divides, Student Activism, and the Youth Vote

Moblizing Ideas, a blog that Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Social Movements maintains, commissioned a series on youth activism–way before most of us were tuned into the way the #coronacrisis would take over our politics and lives.

I’ve posted my entry below, but please read the thoughtful entries by Nicolás M. Somma and Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur.

Emma Gonzalez tweeted out a picture of herself after she voted in Florida’s primary election. Along with 1.5 million other followers, I saw Emma smiling, displaying the “I voted” sticker that came with her first in-person vote. Emma started on Twitter when she and some of her classmates organized March for Our Lives in response to the horrific mass shooting at their high school. The Parkland kids brought a new energy and visibility to a growing movement for gun safety regulation, running through a full range of social movement tactics: a local demonstration where Emma gave a stirring “We Call BS” speech; a bus trip to lobby Florida legislators in Tallahassee; a national demonstration in Washington, DC, that drew more than one million people — and featured no speaker over the age of 19; a coordinated series of school walk-outs across the country; and a speaking tour in the summer of 2018 to encourage young people to vote.

I was fortunate to catch the Parkland kids when they visited Irvine, California in November 2018, for a rally on the campus where I teach about social movements. They distributed stickers and t-shirts, gave brief speeches, provided a platform for local young activists and candidates for office, and then ran a bus to City Hall where residents could register to vote. Activist actors Chelsea Handler and Natalie Morales were there as well; Chandler spoke. But the young people were the stars. After the event, they stayed for more than an hour, talking with students and others, and posing for pictures with anyone willing to wait. I still wear the t-shirt I got, which features a QR code that links to a voter registration site. Since then, some of the Parkland kids have endorsed particular Democratic candidates, but even when they differed, all have encouraged other young people to vote.

The Parkland kids were great: smart, committed, and disciplined, but hardly unique. Every Tuesday and Thursday morning, I saw other young people equally committed in my social movements course. Before class, almost every session, one student or another would ask for a minute to announce an organizing event: on guns or climate change or unionization or tuition. There were meetings, canvassing sessions, speakers, and demonstrations. Every student, even those who just needed credits offered at this time of the day, was invited to attend a new set of events, and sometimes conversations extended beyond the classroom to the walk out or a snack at the student center. A few students were visibly exhausted on the Thursday after the election. But their efforts paid off. Orange County, political home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — to say nothing of the local airport’s namesake, John Wayne, saw record high voter turnout for a midterm election, and flipped every House of Representatives seat to the Democratic Party for the first time since the Pleistocene era. (My very clever attempt at a hashtag, #Orangeisthenewblue, almost caught on, I think.)

So, does the dramatic social movement activism of young people in the Trump era affect American elections and more conventional political participation? Sure. In lots of ways, activism promotes activism. Commanding public attention for yourself and your issues encourages others with concerns to try to enter into public life as well — even on different issues. Greta Thunberg, who started a weekly climate strike outside the Swedish parliament, cited the Parkland kids, who she had never met, as inspiration.

But it’s more than this demonstration effect as well. Organizers and activists set examples, to be sure, but they also set up communication channels for wholesale dissemination of information about issues and activities. In ancient times there were leaflets, then telephone trees, but social media allow a much faster, and largely unmediated, spread of information than ever before. Occupy media teams livestreamed meetings, working on laptops, sometimes with portable generators. Shortly after Trump’s election, Indivisible posted a manual for action quickly downloaded thousands of times (Brooker 2018). The Parkland kids sat on a living room floor, working on a range of platforms through their phones. It’s easier than ever for someone with an interest to find support and encouragement online, as well as directions for next steps to social and political engagement.

Social movement activism promotes politicized education. Young people who engage in activism come into contact, online and in person, with other committed people, and they talk about the things they care about. A tentative interest can deepen into a set of political commitments (Munson 2009).

Importantly, those intellectual and political commitments are solidified through personal commitment. Activism creates social ties that help young people develop a sense of self that those around them reinforce. The resulting solidarity makes it a little bit easier for someone to find out about an issue or event, and to find a way to engage with others. Over time, young activists develop broader social networks that afford them access to a widening range of issues to care about, and tactics for promoting influence. Connections create nearby opportunities for activism, ranging from working for a candidate to showing up at a demonstration.

Contemporary democracies are structured to promote and channel political engagement in ways that stabilize, rather than undermine, the political system. This makes for a familiar story in American politics, where social movements, sometimes in short order, move from activism at the grassroots and in the streets, to creating caucuses in state legislatures and in the Congress. These days, however, protest and politics operate in concert, not opposition or strict sequence. Demonstrators show up at the polls, and people who vote are far more likely to do more than those who don’t.

For young people today, who share concerns about their future and that of the earth, there is an ongoing search for ways to protect themselves and their interests. First steps may be at a demonstration or a climate change protest or at the polls, but it’s quite likely that the path will go through many forms of participation and a range of issues. Even in these moments of desperation, these are the signs of hope for the future.

References

Brooker, Megan E. 2018. “Indivisible: Invigorating and Redirecting the Grassroots.” Pp. 162-184 in The Resistance: The Dawn of the Anti-Trump Opposition Movement, edited by David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow. Oxford University Press.

Munson, Ziad. 2009. The Making of Pro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Organizing or Astroturf?

Protesters demonstrate at the state Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., Monday, April 20, 2020, demanding that Gov. Tom Wolf reopen Pennsylvania's economy even as new social-distancing mandates took effect at stores and other commercial buildings. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)Critics of the scattered “Open Up” protests were quick to circulate a fine article from the Washington Post describing how three brothers committed to gun rights had launched Facebook accounts to promote the protests.

The story, told by Isaac Stanley-Becker and Tony Romm, highlights the efforts of Ben, Christopher, and Aaron Dorr, who “manage a slew of pro-gun groups” across the country. The Dorrs are critics of the National Rifle Association for taking too accommodating a stance toward mainstream politics and the majority of Americans who support some restrictions on firearms.

As the backlash to state-based restrictions on social and economic activity across the states first appeared, the Dorr boys quickly started “<State Residents> Against Excessive Quarantine Groups.” Creating virtual groups for Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York must have taken minutes of work.

Critics jumped on the Dorrs’ gun politics and financial interests in organizing to dismiss the protests as “Astroturf,” that is, fake grassroots, and noted other conservative groups in more or less direct support of the protests, charges that appear inaccurate and unfair.

We like to think the movements we like are true expressions of the grassroots, while we want to dismiss those of our opponents are inauthentic fronts for nefarious interests. [Think for a second of how supporters of racial segregation attacked the committed white college students descending upon Mississippi to organize as outside agitators.]

In real life, America is big and diverse enough to support substantial numbers of people willing to employ movement tactics for an exceptionally broad range of causes.

Organizers, sometimes professional and sometimes funded, work to mobilize people on behalf of the causes they care about. They plan events, set dates, sketch out plans, make placards, and sometimes arrange permits, speakers, publicity, and sound systems.

In ancient times, mobilization entailed talking to people–in churches and kitchens, in front of supermarkets and factory entrances. It meant using the phone, showing up a meetings, and knocking on doors.

These days, social media promise a quicker path to an interested audience. Starting a Facebook group is really the least you can do. There is ample evidence that a host of conservative groups publicized the open up demonstrations; indeed, some groups have clamored for credit.

But for any kind of movement, people still have to show up. Real people feeling real grievances. Of course, real doesn’t mean right.

Protesters demanding Florida businesses and government reopen, march in downtown Orlando, Fla., Friday, April 17, 2020. Small-government groups, supporters of President Donald Trump, anti-vaccine advocates, gun rights backers and supporters of right-wing causes have united behind a deep suspicion of efforts to shut down daily life to slow the spread of the coronavirus. (AP Photo/John Raoux)The impulse to dismiss the protests as inauthentic explicitly echoes the recurrent denigrating descriptions of the Tea Party movement as a front of conservative interests, most notably, the Koch brothers. But for a while, thousands of people showed up at town hall meetings and anti-tax demonstrations, organizing their own meetings around kitchen tables. Many of them voted as well.

Effective politics means taking these movements, even if so far small and unpopular, seriously.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments