LGBT rights and the arts embargo

I’d been waiting for James Taylor to announce that he would not be going to Carolina…even in his mind–but Bruce Springsteen beat him to it. On April 8, Springsteen announced on his website that he was canceling his concert scheduled for last weekend:

As you, my fans, know I’m scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the “bathroom” law. HB2 — known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act — dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments. Taking all of this into account, I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters. As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th. Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

Springsteen’s artistic boycott must be disappointing to Tar Heel fans of classic rock, but it’s also an economic blow against all those who would earn some money at the concert: sellers of tickets, snacks, t-shirts, drugs…. And Springsteen isn’t completely alone.  Bryan Adams canceled a show in Mississippi, which just passed a similar, but harsher, law. Ringo Starr also canceled a show in North Carolina. Springsteen, Adams, Starr–and everyone on their tours–are losing some money now–and may lose some more in negotiating exits from their contracts, but that’s not all. Disappointing your fans and generally dissing an area of the country is risky for any entertainer. The Dixie Chicks never quite recovered from coming out against George W. Bush years ago. There’s also an argument that engaging with people who disagree with you, by making a statement and or donating some money, is more powerful Students on the campus of Appalachian State held an anti-HB2 rally on Thursday afternoon. Photos by Ken Ketchie unless noted otherwisethan publicly opting out.

Not all the Tar Heels are happy about this. At least one Republican legislator in North Carolina called Springsteen a bully, and others have noted that the sites for these artists concerts, particularly internationally, don’t always live up to their standards. This may be a weak argument: To say: you played in Egypt, for example, and it’s even more oppressive than we are–concedes too much. Everyone makes political decisions based on what’s possible and promising at any moment.

The boycott is coercive, as Springsteen acknowledges. If not bullying, it’s at least Boss-y. The rock star is probably less consequential for now than the many businesses like PayPal, that promise to move as much of their operations as possible elsewhere. It was such direct economic pressure from big business that led Georgia Governor Nathan Deal to veto a similar bill, and Indiana to reform and weaken a religious freedom (to discriminate) bill last year.

But social and cultural pressure can matter as well. The artists who won’t work in states that allow discrimination are trying to highlight a strong moral conviction that many in ringo_starr_gty_1160.jpgtheir audiences may already share. This highlight signals allies in North Carolina to do more, maybe even that it’s not okay to do less. It also pressures other entertainers who cultivate similar audiences to consider joining in.

Three senior rockers opting out of parts of their Southern tours doesn’t mark for real cultural isolation and stigma, but that’s how such an isolation would start. The artistic boycott of South Africa in the 1980s, in conjunction with a sports embargo and economic pressure, all added up to a severe isolation that  helped end apartheid.Bryan Adams

Now, Southerners don’t have to get visas to travel elsewhere in the United States, and commerce generally continues, but the signals matter.

Most significantly, Republican governors like Pat McCrory and Phil Bryant have to work much harder to navigate the increasingly strained alliance between economic conservatives–who generally support business–and social conservatives–who want the state to express their values. Other conservatives in office will watch how they walk these tightropes, and mostly try to stay on the ground.

In the short haul, with gerrymandered America, most legislators are likely to be playing to the people who brought them into office.

But over the long haul, bet on business. The arc of the economic universe bends toward trade.

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

Protest, violence, and the Trump campaign

Selling himself as a man of action, not bound by law, conventional standards, or “political correctness”–whatever that is, Donald Trump is determined to keep control of his events, even if that includes letting his supporters or staff lose control. Trump has commissioned a large and aggressive force to maintain order.

Maybe it’s generic paranoia, or a megalomanical sense of the threat he represents, or Anti-Trump rally in Phoenix.maybe a realistic evaluation of how much he angers people, but Trump has determined that the Secret Service agents provided him (and other candidates for the presidency) aren’t enough. To be sure, other candidates–if they can afford it–supplement local police and Secret Service, but at least this year, none been able to generate the violence that has become endemic at Trump rallies. Then again, maybe no one else is trying.

At PoliticoKenneth P. Vogel and Brianna Gurciullo detail the development of harsh private policing at events intended to project an impression of power and unity. The story details armed security forces destroying signs, provoking confrontations, and forcibly removing people from events if they think might be critical of Trump, including journalists. Often, the security forces can tell by age, color, clothing, and gender. (Elsewhere, this is called profiling.)

A fight between supporters and protesters at Donald Trump's aborted rally in Chicago.

The threat of violence keeps the media presence at Trump events large, and also helps keep the crowds coming. Anything can happen. Paradoxically, this threat of violence also keeps the protesters coming. At Vox, Dara Lind says the tendency to overreact makes the Trump rallies a more attractive site for activists. Confrontation with professional security–or even the volunteers caught up in the moment, makes for dramatic images that could go viral, giving the demonstrators a chance to reach a broader audience. It’s not about inviting discussion about immigration policy or civility, as Lind notes, but creating a ruckus large and visible enough to engage bystanders–even those watching on a screen hundreds of miles away.

And provocation provokes provocation. Last week, in advance of today’s Wisconsin primary, Trump scheduled a rally in Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s home town. (Ryan has, timidly in my view, criticized the tenor of Trump’s candidacy, the violence, and the lack of civility. Trump took it right back to the Speaker. And Trump opponents showed up as well, vigorously criticizing the candidate’s racism.

Shouting and swarming led to screaming and pushing and a (volunteer) Trump supporter at right pepper spraying a teenage girl. (You might not have known that you wanted to bring pepper spray to a political rally–just in case.)

Confrontation like this is polarizing, inviting spectators to take sides. Everyone involved has bigger concerns than Donald Trump–except, of course, for Trump himself.

 

 

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

Fighting religious freedom (to discriminate)

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee announced that he was ordering all City departments to suspend paying for travel to North Carolina unless it is essential to the City. The problem is the new religious freedom (to discriminate) law that North Carolina’s Governor Pat McCrory just signed. You see, the City of Charlotte had expanded its non-discrimination ordinance to include LGBT people, and the state’s legislature quickly worked to invalidate the protections Charlotte offered–and then some.

It is, of course, bizarre that an elected official on one coast gets involved with the allocation of bathroom stalls 3,000 miles away, but such is the way of civil rights and American politics.

Despite vigorous opposition, this “religious freedom” bill won overwhelming support in both houses of North Carolina’s legislature; Democrats walked out of the state senate session, claiming they were shut out of the discussion anyway. The short story is that the losers in the debate in Charlotte found support from a majority elsewhere. Now, the losers in North Carolina find even broader support as they expand the scope of the conflict. (This, by the way, is what protest politics is all about.)  And the battle is playing out across several states already.

Playing politics on a bigger field is only an advantage for LGBT advocates in North Carolina these days. Powerful business allies have weighed in strongly. Disney, Biogen, Intel, Bank of America, the NFL, NBA, and NCAA, PayPal, and the Motion Picture Association of America have all weighed in with their opposition to the bill, offering more or less explicit threats to limit the business they do in North Carolina while this law is in place. The threatened economic consequences are far greater than the few trips canceled by Mayor Lee’s edict. Although it’s more than possible that some of the corporate leaders have personal commitments to decent treatment of LGBT people, the more powerful explanation is that they are looking out for their business interests. Public support for gay rights is now strong, particularly among younger people, and that means potential customers and employees. Discrimination is bad business.

Nathan Deal, governor of Georgia, got the message from local and national businesses, and just vetoed his legislature’s religious freedom (to discriminate) bill, because the state of Georgia wants to project a welcome to everMarch 23, 2015 Atlanta: Emma Stitt, from left, Megan Harrison, Jessica Reznicek and Lorraine Fontana stand in Sen. Josh McKoon's, R-Columbus, office in the Coverdell Legislative Office Building in protest of the "religious liberty" bill that McKoon is sponsoring. The four were arrested after they were asked to wait in the hallway, but they refused to leave. The protest was part of Moral Monday Georgia. Ben Gray / bgray@ajc.comyone.  Dell, Marvel, Microsoft, Virgin, and Unilever had all weighed in on the debate over recent days.

But please note that activist efforts to stop Georgia and North Carolina from limiting health care, education, and voting rights have received no comparable corporate support. (Track the moral Mondays.)

One interesting wrinkle: Nearly fifty years ago, antiwar activists on American college campuses called for their schools to divest their holdings in Dow Chemical, which made some of the napalm that American planes dropped on Vietnam. Like Mayor Lee’s announcement, it was a statement of moral principle, and an effort to exert some economic pressure. Dow got out of the napalm business in 1969. This week, it was one of the companies urging North Carolina not to pass this bill, and promising to work for its repeal.

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

Cesar Chavez Day, 2016

I hadn’t realized that today was Cesar Chavez Day until I arrived at a campus mostly empty and locked.  In fact, it’s not Cesar Chavez Day in California or the United States–that’s next week–but just on campus, so it doesn’t interfere with any other school business.  Some holiday commemoration.   This is a repost for the holiday. 

On my campus, we commemorated Cesar Chavez Day early, yesterday, rather than March 31 (his birthday), by closing.  The state established the holiday in 2000, and six other states have followed suit.  In California, the legislature calls upon public schools to develop appropriate curricula to teach about the farm labor movement in the United States, and particularly Chavez’s role in it.

A campaign to establish a national holiday has stalled so far (The Cesar Chavez National holiday website seems to have last been updated in 2008), but last year President Obama issued a proclamation announcing a day of commemoration, and calling upon all Americans “to observe this day with appropriate service, community, and education programs to honor Cesar Chavez’s enduring legacy.”

Political figures have many reasons for creating holidays, including remembering the past; identifying heroic models for the future; recognizing and cultivating a political constituency; and providing an occasion to appreciate a set of values.  Regardless of the original meaning, the holidays take on new meanings over time.  Columbus Day, for example, is celebrated as an occasion for pride in Italian Americans (e.g.), and commemorated and mourned as a symbol of genocide  and empire (e.g.).

Cesar Chavez’s life and work is well worth remembering and considering, particularly now.  His career as a crusader was far longer than that of Martin Luther King discussed (here and here) and he was far more of an organizer than Fred Korematsu (discussed here).  Chavez’s Medal of Freedom was awarded shortly after his death in 1993, by President Clinton, but many of his accomplishments were apparent well before then.

Dolores Huerta, 2009

As a young man, Chavez was an agricultural worker; by his mid-twenties, he became a civil rights organizer, working for the Community Service Organization in California.  With Dolores Huerta, in 1962 Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.  Focusing on poor, mostly Mexican-American workers, Chavez’s vision for activism was right at the cornerstone of racial and economic justice.  Establishing an organization, however, is a long way from winning recognition and bargaining rights as a union.

Chavez was a tactician, a public figure, a charismatic, and something of a mystic.  Modeling his efforts after Gandhi’s successful campaigns, Chavez was an emphatic practitioner of active nonviolence.  He employed boycotts, strikes, long fasts, demonstrations, long marches, and religious rhetoric in the service of his cause.  He also registered voters, lobbied, and worked in political campaigns.  He was a tireless and very effective organizer for most of his life.

But holidays are best celebrated with an eye to the future, rather than the past.

On Cesar Chavez Day this year, we can think about the large and growing Latino community in the United States.  The 2010 Census reports that Latinos now comprise roughly 1/6 of the American population, and more than 1/3 of the population in California. This is the youngest and fastest-growing population in America today, and they are severely underrepresented in the top levels of politics, education, and the economy.   The civil rights map is at least as complicated as at any time in American history, but not less important or urgent.  (The struggle about the DREAM Act is reminiscent of the debate about Voting Rights 45 years ago.)  The future of American Latinos is very much the future of America.

And Chavez saw the civil rights struggle as a labor campaign.  When Chavez and Huerta started their campaign, nearly one third of Americans were represented by unions.  The percentage now is now just about 10 percent, and less in the private sector.

And public sector workers, even if represented by unions aren’t doing so well.  The ongoing conflict in Wisconsin is all about weakening unions that are already making very large concessions on wages and pensions.  The campaign in Wisconsin is part of a larger national effort, which is playing out in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere.  Even in states where anti-union forces are weaker, state employees face lay-offs, wage cuts, and increased health and pension costs.  Importantly, we need to remember that you can’t attack teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters without hurting the people they serve: us.

Note: things have gotten worse for organized labor since I first wrote this. Wisconsin has become a right-to-work state, and organized campaigns to follow suit are everywhere. 

Or should I say, US?

Cesar Chavez’s birthday is an opportune time for thinking about Latinos, civil rights, and American labor, and not just the start of Spring. A few California teachers are fronting an effort to end the closed shop/agency fee model here–and across the United States–in a case the Supreme Court heard in January, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Justice Scalia’s death provides a clear reminder that we may have yet one more turning point on the horizon for organized labor.

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

Trumpism and the threat of violence

Although supporters, opponents, bloggers and observers of all sorts throw the word “movement” around to describe Donald Trump’s candidacy, so far it’s been about nothing more than a dyed and bloated real estate magnate. https://i0.wp.com/www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/160223_POL_Trump-rally-feb-22.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpgAt least once, local toughs cited Trump when they beat a homeless man in Boston, but mostly actual violence has been confined to the candidate’s events–at least so far. And, at least so far, it all works for Trump.

A candidate’s event is  a great place for activists to organize to advance their claims. Someone else has already gathered a local audience and the press, and the possibilities for drama and even discussion abound. An activist might be able to ask a question, drawing attention to favored issues, maybe even eliciting a position from a candidate. If not, activists may elicit an unforced error that affects the campaign.  See, for example, Occupy Charleston’s hijacking of a Michele Bachmann event in 2012.

Flustered, Rep. Bachmann left the premises. Senator Bernie Sanders did a little better last year: when Black Lives Matter activists seized the podium at a rally in Seattle, Sanders left the stage and worked the crowd. He then worked over the next months, with some success, to incorporate the movement’s concerns into his message.

The point is that there’s nothing new, unusual, or unAmerican about protests at a political event. A successful candidate, particularly one who claims to want to unify the American people, needs to find ways to deal with dissent at the grassroots. Typically, this involves some combination of policing, keeping protesters far from the stage, and engagement, taking questions and holding meetings with political opponents.

From the start, Donald Trump promised something different. He tagged Sanders’s response to protesters as a sign of the senator’s weakness, promising that he–or “his people”–would dispense with opponents more quickly and vigorously. This is one promise the candidate has kept. Egged on by Trump, both paid security and vigorous attendees at his rallies, have attacked protesters, and Trump’s staff has confined, ridiculed, and attacked (not only verbally) members of the press. Even at the beginning of his campaign, Trump required those who might attend his events to pledge allegiance–to the candidate, not the flag. He himself has pledged that, if elected, to make it harder for the press to criticize people (him) unfairly (not defined). Thin skin has never previously been a prerequisite for the presidency.

But the violence. Much more than specific promises about matters of policy, Trump is selling himself as a man of action. The solution to America’s problems, he promises, starts with a gold T. Both he and his few identifiable advisers have tried to allay voters’ fears by emphasizing that the candidate isn’t committed to anything he now commits to in the heat of the campaign–even populist racist xenophobia. So it’s all his persona and action.

Social scientists know about a campaign based on the promise of exceptional personal characteristics and action; Max Weber called it “charismatic authority” ( for more, you can watch an academic lecture or read Wikipedia). Importantly, social scientists see charisma as contextual, rather than as something that comes from individual characteristics. Charismatic authority is inherently unstable and thrives during turbulent times. The charismatic leader rules only as long as he delivers on the aspirations of those who support him. For this reason, Trump has been stalwart in emphasizing how awful everything is and how dangerous the world is and how stupid everyone else is. Partly, he’s better on the attack than in outlining alternatives or preferred policies. But even more than that, it’s clear that few people would be willing throw in with someone who obviously lacks all of the qualities for the job he seeks unless times were truly desperate. Stoking the threat of terror and enemies without and within all helps candidate Trump.

Violence, and even more the threat of violence, supports this vision of the now. Trump rallies are fun, the candidate promises, because anything can happen. Identifying the enemy nearby, a protester brave enough to hold a sign or scream, or a pen of reporters who claim to care about telling the truth, generates the tension that he needs to offer an appeal. Some supporters attend thinking that they might get a chance to haul off and smack the enemy, but even more come just to see what might happen.

Now the challenge is whether Republicans who claim to value civility and democracy and recognize the threat Trump represents are willing and able to do something about it. But soon the responsibility is likely to shift to more of us. In the meantime, the people who take protest about this candidate to his rallies are on the front lines.

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

How movements win: Seaworld

The new president and Chief Executive Officer of SeaWorld, Joel Manby, announced that the chain of theme parks would no longer breed orcas, and that the parks would stop their performing their signature Shamu shows. Manby also announced a new partnership with the Humane Society of the United States, formerly a SeaWorld nemesis, to develop educational programs and take care of the animals still at the park.

This is a clear win for animal rights activists, but not necessarily because its protests convinced Manby or SeaWorld’s shareholders of the justice of their claims. Rather, SeaWorld made a business decision. The parks’ image had taken a beating over the past few years from protests at the site, the death of a trainer, a powerful documentary (Blackfish), and local government. Attendance, revenue, and share prices had all faltered as a result. The corporate rebooting of SeaWorld (more rides? more education? different snacks?) is an effort to respond to opponents successfully and salvage the business.

Importantly, SeaWorld gave in only after all the other strategies it came up with failed. Remember, SeaWorld had launched a public relations campaign to dispute the charges made in Blackfish, planted paid provocateurs within the animal rights protests, announced reforms in the handling and husbandry of its orcas, and just months ago filed a lawsuit to challenge the California Coastal Commission’s decision to ban captive whale breeding in San Diego. (We’ve covered the SeaWorld campaign before, here and here.) The protests continued, as did the decline in park visitors. The corporation replaced its leadership team, and the new CEO responded to the real facts on the ground, facts that animal rights activists had helped create.

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

Guns and government: standing down in Oregon

The Occupation at Malheur Wildlife Refuge is falling apart as federal law enforcement picks away at it. On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI and Oregon state police arrested seven Occupiers, and killed another one, LaVoy Finicum, under circumstances that are unclear at this point.

The confrontation took place on Highway 395, some distance from the Occupation, as Occupiers were traveling to a community meeting. I assume they were trying to build outside support for their efforts, an ongoing public relations battle that had, for them, gone quite badly. While the Occupiers hoped that local residents would rally around their efforts to get the Federal government to cede land and control to locals, few of the neighbors were ready to do so–even as they shared some of the Occupiers’ concerns. At town meetings, residents called on the Occupiers to leave.

Counterprotesters had been appearing outside the Wildlife Refuge to demand public access, chanting “Bundys, go home.” Members of the Burns Paiute Tribe announced that the people who were first on the land were Native Americans anyway.

But the Occupiers, fronted by Ammon Bundy, were publicly resolute in their commitment to stay in the fight for local control for the long haul. Finicum, who was accessible and friendly to the press, had announced the cause worth dying for–although it’s hard to think he thought he would have to. (You can see his video blog, One Cowboy’s Stand for Freedom.)

There may have been hundreds of Occupiers at Malheur, but after the arrests, the commitments eroded as demonstrators reassessed the situation. Although the Occupiers expressed confidence in their arms and their preparations to resist the federal government with force, the first crack in their defenses broke their resolve.

Meanwhile, Ammon Bundy, the most visible spokesman, now in custody and speaking through his attorney, urged the Occupiers to leave the Refuge, go home, and hug their families. The fight, he said, had now moved to the courts.

Certainly, Bundy’s fight has now gone indoors, and he’ll be spending most of his time trying to avoid conviction on federal conspiracy charges. I have no doubt that he’ll be able to raise money from supporters for his criminal defense, but an ongoing Occupation is of no help now. Perhaps he is also concerned with the safety of his colleagues, realizing that the first arrests and Finicum’s death, make them all the more vulnerable. Surely, his attorney has let him know that ending the Occupation can only help Bundy demonstrate contrition–or at least rational calculation–in court many months hence.

So, whatever guns and armaments the Occupiers had been able to stockpile in the Refuge were not enough to protect them from the Federal government. I’ve always thought that this argument for gun rights, protecting citizens against government tyranny, was particularly weak–just because the the Feds can always mobilize more and more deadly armaments against any opposition group. In this case, the guns may have made the Feds both more cautious and more committed to end the Occupation.

The arrests punctured an activist fantasy about how change takes place in America.

…..Then again, it was the Feds who stood down in the previous confrontation with Cliven Bundy, who still hasn’t paid the money he owes for grazing fees…..

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

God and democracy

The Occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge continues at this writing, and Image result for oregon standoffwhatever local authorities and the FBI are doing to end the moment isn’t obvious or clear to those of us watching from afar. If there’s a plan, I don’t know what it is.

The Occupiers, however, have a plan, and it apparently comes from God.

At least some of them are operating on His direction.

Like the urban occupations in the fall of 2011 (Occupy Wall Street), the dramatic action has sucked into its wake all sorts of people with all sorts of claims. The New York Times reports finding individuals on site strongly opposed to Jews and/or Islam and/or gays, participants in nativist campaigns, anti-environmentalists, Patriot Militia, and gun rights fundamentalists. (The Anti-Defamation League has published a report detailing the political biographies of the known participants at Malheur, and it’s not a pretty picture: pretty much, it’s the full spectrum of the paranoid right, with a strong cadre of veterans from the Cliven Bundy stand-off last year.)

They don’t necessarily agree with each other on much more than antagonism toward the Federal government, nor is it clear that they trust each other much–just more than the government. Visible and apparently successful collective action is a magnet for people who want to be visible and apparently successful activists.

God may not be supporting all of them.

Although there is much talk from Ammon Bundy about securing the rights of the people to use their land, and to stand up for the Constitution, there’s not much clarity about just what these Occupiers want, what people they mean to represent, and how they make their own decisions. There has not been strong support locally, from conservative political leaders, or from other believers.

Unlike the hyper-democrats of Occupy Wall Street, the Malheurites haven’t developed a cumbersome, transparent, and largely ineffective way of making decisions. Divine guidance means that you don’t need–and shouldn’t trust–democracy. The lack of visible outside support just means that others don’t get it–or Him.

At Home of the Brave, Scott Carrier has posted a long interview with Brand Thornton, an Occupier who is forthcoming about how he and his colleagues are taking direction from a deity. People who are open to the Spirit recognize when it moves within others, and readily accede to someone who carries God’s word. Thornton reports that the Occupiers have a militarized surveillance and defense system worked out–and, understandably, won’t share many details. He offers somewhat more explanation of the textual support for their campaign on behalf of the people. Their efforts are based in the Constitution (divinely inspired) and scripture from the Doctrines and Covenants of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Please note that the leadership of the Mormon Church has forcefully and consistently condemned the Occupation. I would NOT call the Occupation an instance of Mormon terrorism, btw.

But opposition from the Church, local residents, or more vigorous readers of the Constitution really doesn’t matter if you feel–if you know–God is with you. With God, democracy isn’t a problem.

But religion and God’s will motivates many activists for all sorts of causes, from Dorothy Day refusing to participate in a civil defense drill in New York City to Eleanor McMullen turning up outside a women’s health clinic to counsel women who might consider abortions–vigorously.

How are we to know who God really supports?

Here’s a clue: since yesterday was Martin Luther King Day, we might recall that King himself was divinely inspired. His check on that inspiration was a steadfast commitment to nonviolence. He was willing to suffer–and die–for his beliefs, but not to kill or threaten others.

At the moment, the Occupiers at Malheur, weapons handy, are demonstrating a little less confidence in the Divine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Martin Luther King Day, 2016 (repost)

(This is a repost of the MLKing Day holiday note.)

Martin Luther King died young enough and dramatically enough to be turned into an American hero, but it was neither his youth nor his death that made him heroic.

In his rather brief public life, beginning in Montgomery at 26, and ending with his assassination at 39, King consistently displayed rhetorical brilliance (on the podium and the page), strategic acumen, and moral and physical courage.

The effort to honor Martin Luther King with a holiday commemorating his birthday started at the King Center, in Atlanta, in the year after his assassination.  States began to follow suit, and by 1983, more than half celebrated King’s life with a day.  In that year, Ronald Reagan signed a bill making Martin Luther King day a national holiday expressing ambivalence, acknowledging that it was costly, and that King may have been a Communist.

The King holiday was about Martin Luther King, to be sure, but it was meant to represent far more than the man.  King stands in for the civil rights movement and for African-American history more generally.  I often wonder if the eloquence of the 1963 “I have a dream” speech winds up obscuring not only a man with broader goals, but a much more contested–and ambitious–movement.

The man and the movement are ossified into an iconic image, like a statue, which locks King and the movement into the politics of 1963-1965.  We accept King’s dream, that little children will play together, and that people will be judged by “the content of their character” (a favorite phrase on the right).

The image, like a statue, is available for appropriation to advocates of all political stripes, and the establishment of the holiday itself represents an achievement of the civil rights movement, winning the holiday if not broader economic and social equality.

Before the transformation of the man into an icon, King transformed himself from a pastor into an activist, a peripatetic crusader for justice.

But the pastor didn’t disappear; rather this role grew into something larger, as King himself transformed himself from a minister into a an Old Testament prophet, one whose primary concern was always the people on the margins, the widows and orphans, the poor and hungry.  In standing with those on the margins, King courageously used–and risked–the advantages of his privilege, pedigree, and education.  He also knew that he risked his safety and his life.

In his writing, King used his education and his vocation to support his political goals.  In the critically important “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he cited both the Constitution and the Bible in support of Federal intervention in local politics to support desegregation and human rights.  (We know that other activists now use the same sources to justify pushing the Federal government out of local politics.)

King explained that he was in jail in Birmingham, Alabama, because he had nonviolently defied local authorities in the service of higher laws, the Constitution and the Gospel.  This was not like making a provocative statement on one’s own [profitable] radio or television show.  There were real costs and severe risks.

King was never less than controversial during his life, under FBI surveillance during his political career, and vigorously criticized by opponents (for demanding too much and too strongly) and allies (for not demanding more, more vigorously).

When he was assassinated outside a Memphis motel in 1968, he was standing with sanitation workers on strike, straying from a simpler civil rights agenda.  He had also alienated some civil rights supporters by coming out, strongly, against the war in Vietnam.  And Black Power activists saw their own efforts as overtaking King’s politics and rhetoric.  By the time he was killed, Martin Luther King’s popular support had been waning for some time.

Posterity has rescued an image of Martin Luther King, at the expense of the man’s own broader political vision.

Ironically, in elevating an insurgent to a position in America’s pantheon of historic heroes, we risk editing out the insurgency.

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

Keystone XL: what victory looks like

With ice and glaciers melting across the Arctic, at least this one polar bear found a

comfortable place to rest on Pennsylvania Avenue. (Not really, that’s an activist in costume….)

Last November, President Obama (finally) announced a decision on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have connected Tar Sands in Alberta to refineries in the United States.  It was no, and it was a long time in coming.  The pipeline, first proposed roughly a decade ago, had been opposed by activists almost immediately.

Advocates on both sides inflated the importance of the issue, and environmental activists made stopping Keystone the keystone of a political strategy.  Climate change activists focused on Keystone, arguing that the health of the earth was best served by keeping a particularly dirty crude oil in the ground, and moving more quickly to different sources of energy. But most analysts said the practical impact of the pipeline on the production of greenhouse gases would be small. Activists along the route protested about the environmental fallout and disruption of largescale construction.

Refiners and producers supported the pipeline, which would speed the transport of energy to the United States. It would, they said, create thousands–even tens of thousands–of jobs. After construction, other analysts said, 50 might be a better estimate.

But the focus on Keystone was good for climate change activists, and writer and organizer Bill McKibben and 350.org realized this early on. While global climate change, international treaties, and long and complicated environmental processes are hard for most of us to get a handle on, new construction is tangible and seemingly tractable. Keystone became the non-negotiable demand around which all kinds of activists and Image result for Keystone protesters arrestedcampaign could unite. Activists lobbied on Capitol Hill and campuses, and protested along the proposed route and outside the White House. Leaders of environmental groups and celebrity activists got arrested, protesting Keystone, and scientist James Hansen made it a central point in his own campaigning.

Because the pipeline crossed national boundaries, the US State Department had the responsibility of weighing in, and it took years to complete a review. President Obama repeatedly delayed making a decision, trying to keep Keystone from becoming an election issue in 2012, and his opponents kept returning to it, using the delay as an opportunity to make their case, that the president’s environmental concerns were damaging the economy.

While Obama stalled, the world changed. Oil got cheaper, as did solar panels, the environmental movement got stronger. He waited to decide whether to take an umbrella to work until the rain had slowed to a trickle.

I don’t know if anyone thought Obama could delay a decision all the way up to 2015, after the price of oil had fallen, and after demand for the Tar Sands oils had cratered, but he did. The economics of the new pipeline were so unfavorable by November 2015, that approval would probably not have spurred drilling and construction anyway. The company behind the pipeline, Transcanada, appealed for a delay, when its circumstances and its markets might be more favorable–and someone else might be president.

When President Obama finally announced his decision, he emphasized that Keystone itself was not that important–to the economy or the environment–except as a symbol. Rejecting Keystone, he said, was a way for the United States to demonstrate international leadership on the issue.

Activists claimed victory, even acknowledging that some circumstances beyond their control, like the effect of increased fracking on bringing down energy costs, helped their case on the pipeline. They also emphasized how much more there was to do. (See McKibben’s comment on the victory in The New Yorker.)

At this point, it’s clear that keying on the pipeline was smart politics for the movement. It made the issue of climate change concrete. It was stoppable, a clear focus, and with obvious targets for influence and protest, and the prospects of political accountability. There may have been many projects that would have had a great environmental impact, but it’s hard to find a sharper focal point for organizing.

Today, TransCanada filed a claim against the United States for $15 billion in damages that it suffered by losing the pipeline. Maybe this will resurrect the Alberta Tar Sands as a business prospect or Keystone as an electoral issue–but maybe not.

Victories are always partial and usually contested. Keystone XL provides a clear and unambiguous example of what a win looks like.

 

 

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