A second cut on circumcision, politics, and rhetoric

Posted on June 10, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Crusaders against circumcision (intactivists) face the same sorts of challenges as activists on a wide range of other causes.  They want parents to choose not to circumcise their sons AND they want the government to prohibit circumcision–and punish adults involved in circumcisions.

[This really is a recurrent movement story: Think about animal rights activists who want to promote vegetarianism as a personal choice–as well as legal restrictions on the use of animals; think about anti-abortion activists who wish to promote adoption–as a personal choice–while simultaneously limiting legal access to abortion.]

It looks like the intactivists are making progress on the first front, individual choice–or at least riding some sort of wave of history: the percentage of newborn boys circumcised in the US has declined substantially in the last few years.  All the physicians I’ve seen quoted in the run of news accounts have emphasized parents’ choice.  With parents making different choices, boys and men are far less likely to face social stigma or discrimination on the basis of foreskin status.

Promoting non-circumcision means making that choice attractive–and making a very widely accepted choice–problematic.  Here, rhetoric matters, and strategic choices about images and language are consequential in mobilizing support–and provoking opponents.

Jena Troutman, the Santa Monica activist who abandoned her referendum campaign, pushes non-circumcision as healthy, natural, and attractive.  Her website is chock full of pictures of happy baby boys–diaperclad.

Matthew Hess, the author of the Foreskin Man comic, projects more alarm–and more vitriol.  He, literally, demonizes those who perform circumcisions, thus far, a doctor and a mohel.   On the left, you’ll see his hero battling a physician who takes sadistic pleasure in performing a procedure that is, by all other accounts, quick and routine.  The rhetoric is provocative and polarizing–hardly peculiar for social movement activists–but maybe not the smartest strategy.

Most of us are not inclined to see physicians treating children as monsters who derive pleasure from a baby’s pain.  We might distrust someone who offered a portrayal at odds with our own understanding of the situation.  The portrayal of the mohel–understandably–spurred a debate about anti-Semitic imagery.  (But Hess is clear that he has nothing against Jews or Muslims–only those who circumcise.  Arrgh.)  Identifying and demonizing an enemy is likely to inspire–and mobilize–those who already agree with you.  It’s likely to be off-putting to others, and may well provoke your opposition.

I’m ill-inclined to offer psychological explanations for why someone believes what he does.  That said, Hess’s description of his analysis and his commitments is likely to stir pause among would-be supporters.  San Diego’s City Beat reports, quoting Hess:

“I was in my late 20s when I just started to notice a slow decline in sensation,” Hess says. “Year after year, it started to get a worse and worse after sex. I went to a urologist, and he didn’t have much of an answer. It struck me that my circumcision could have something to do with this. I researched online and quickly found a lot of information about what’s lost. That made me pretty angry.”

City Beat reports that Hess has been engaged in therapies to restore sensation–and, for nearly a decade, working on legislation to ban circumcision.

The extraordinarily committed are at the heart of any social movement, and opponents will look to counter a movement by disparaging its champions.  Successful movements are always comprised of coalitions, and the recurrent question is how rhetoric, tactics, and personnel aid or hinder in recruiting allies.  The controversy over Foreskin Man led Jena Troutman to put her referendum campaign on the back burner, suggesting that Matthew Hess brings energy, commitment, and liabilities to his cause.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Anti-circumcision campaign cut short

Posted on June 9, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Male circumcision dates back to a deal that Abraham made with God, as far as I know; most Jewish and Muslim parents still circumcise their sons to show that they’re keeping their end of the bargain.  Of course, in many rich countries, lots of other people circumcise sons.  There’s some scientific evidence of some health benefits, particularly reduced transmission of AIDS, and some vigorous debate about adverse consequences.  Meanwhile, the percentage of newborns circumsized has declined over the past couple of decades.

But the cut itself is provocative, particularly when you think about it absent religious context.  In Santa Monica, Jena Troutman (above), a lactatation consultant, launched a campaign to ban circumcision in her town, making the cutting of foreskins a crime.  She started to collect signatures to get a proposition on the ballot for the November election, following a similar effort in San Francisco–where voters will address the question in November.

Initiatives and referenda are good tools for campaigns that can generate broad soft support, and good places for majorities to restrict what minorities can do.  (Witness the repeated referenda campaigns on same sex marriage.)  The populist legacy of voters making policy directly requires even more dramatic oversimplification of issues than regular politics.  Hyperbole and polemic are required elements of such campaigns, and the ballot initiative is a blunt instrument for making policy.

And activists against circumcision (“inactivists” is their preferred term) have a variety of reasons for their campaigns.  Ms. Troutman says that she’s just trying to save babies from harm, and explains her ideas, with music, on her website.  Baby boys, the argument goes, are born perfect, and the cut is cruelty.  By analogy, ritual circumcision of boys is very much like female circumcision, now almost universally called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and recognized as cruel, dangerous, and misogynistic.

But there’s a longer history of campaigns to ban circumcision, and it’s less about protecting babies than protecting society—from Jews.  Over hundreds of years, some states have banned the practice intending to isolate, stigmatize, and ultimately eliminate Judaism.   Jewish leaders were ready to see the referendum as a continuance of this anti-Semitic tradition, despite Ms. Troutman’s protestations:

For me, this was never about religion. It was about protecting babies from their parents not knowing that circumcision was started in America to end masturbation (Fox News report).

But Troutman was not alone in her campaign, and in movement politics, as elsewhere, you are judged by the company you keep.  Troutman’s ally, Matthew Hess, wrote the bill she was pushing, as well as the measure in San Francisco.  Hess is committed to the issue, and his comic book series that advances his position, Foreskin Man.
We expect movements to sharpen their arguments, often at the expense of complexity, and the comic book form isn’t the most suitable for nuance, but:  Hess’s books are filled with images that push obvious anti-Semitic buttons.    On the left, see Hess’s villain, Monster Mohel, sporting stylized beard, hat, and prayer shawl.  The heroes look conspicuously Aryanized.
The images, rhetoric, and Hess himself made the charge of anti-Semitism very credible.
So Jena Troutman backed off, abbreviating her campaign.  She and her allies will look for new opportunities to advance their claim without the encumbrance of Matthew Hess’s apparently broader agenda.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Politics, Power, and Movements: Sidney Tarrow at Cornell

Posted on June 2, 2011 by David S. Meyer

I’m honored to participate in a conference recognizing the work of Sid Tarrow, who has been a major force in developing the study of social movements in political science and sociology–and a major force in my development as a scholar.

The Einaudi Center for European Studies at Cornell has posted the conference agenda, along with links to the papers, for interested readers.

Posted in academic | Leave a comment

How Repression Works, American-style

Posted on June 1, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Scott Crow (right), an anarchist who has organized anti-corporate and animal rights events, used the Freedom of Information Act to get his FBI file; he received 440 pages, with much of the material blacked out (NY Times report).

Crow reports being subjected to ongoing surveillance, from both cameras and large men in large air-conditioned cars.  The file also reports that the FBI asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Crow’s tax returns, but the IRS said that he earns so little money that it wasn’t appropriate.  (It’s not legal either.)

Domestic surveillance is back!  The Times reports:

Other targets of bureau surveillance, which has been criticized by civil liberties groups and mildly faulted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, have included antiwar activists in Pittsburgh, animal rights advocates in Virginia and liberal Roman Catholics in Nebraska. When such investigations produce no criminal charges, their methods rarely come to light publicly.

In the wake of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, Congress rushed to pass the Patriot Act, which allowed the government new liberties in investigating potential threats.  In the public debate, the image of these threats was always young Arab men with Saudi Arabian passports who might fly planes into buildings in pursuit of a divine pay-0ff.

But there aren’t so many such people.  It’s easier to track domestic activists who organize openly–and in English.  Most of the anti-terror action we’ve seen from the US government has been targeted at environmental and animal rights activists.

Scott Crow says that virtually all of the organizing meetings he sets up include police and FBI informants, identifiable because they have obviously eaten more protein and spent more time in the weight room than the other attendees.

The Constitutionality, justice, and wisdom (is this a good way to spend police time and money?) is all subject to question.  I’m interested in what you think; here, however, I just want to talk about how this kind of repression is supposed to work in a liberal democratic country like the United States.

Repression is all about setting boundaries of acceptable political conduct.  In authoritarian states, which use a panoply of tactics to limit activities, assembly, and speech, very little is permitted, and all kinds of people end up sharing common grievances against the government.  That’s why, when such states open up a little, they encounter far more dissent than they imagined.

In liberal democratic states, effective repression targets a narrower band of people, and it’s usually justified in terms of limiting particular tactics (violence!), but Crow’s surveillance suggests that the US government views some ideas as more likely to lead to violence.  This should be scary.

Repression works in the United States when most Americans are convinced that those subject to prosecution are crazy and/or dangerous–that is, not like them.  It’s all about maintaining a border between “radicals” and more mainstream activists who might make more moderate claims more moderately.  In disparaging and distancing themselves from those people, the moderates effectively maintain the boundaries set by the government.  Thus, labor unions and civil rights activists in the 1950s and early 1960s steered clear of people who might have a Communist past, sometimes explicitly and proudly.

Repression falls apart when those moderates become convinced that the targets of government scrutiny aren’t so dangerous or different after all, and make common cause with them, at least in challenging the government.  They like to say that it’s like the canary in the coal mine, the more radical, committed, and sometimes less coherent, are the easier targets for repression, but someone else is always next.

Activists struggle to find ways to protect their own radical flanks, without necessarily throwing in with them.

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

More on the Tepid TEA (Party)

Posted on May 29, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Every time I log on to the world, there’s more evidence that the Tea Party movement’s moment is passing.

We see the strength of American social movements in their organizations, their ideas, and their activities.  (We’ve covered much of this over the past few months, here, here, here, and here–and elsewhere.)

On this last point, the signs of decline are hard to ignore–and opponents are quick to point them out.

At ThinkProgress, Alex Seitz-Wall posts a list of Tea Party demonstrations, this year and last, noting much smaller turnouts and even fewer rallies.   Are we getting to the bottom of the tea pot?

(There’s a similar story, with numbers and sources, at there’s a similar story, with numbers and sources, at the anarchist site, Infoshopnews.)  And here’s a table Moveon posted:

Demonstrations and rallies are only part of a social movement’s repertoire, but for a movement, the  numbers game is unavoidable–and unwinnable over even the medium haul.

The frequent, and sometimes relatively large, demonstrations Tea Partiers staged over the 2010 set a baseline of comparison that activists will be hard-pressed to surpass.  Organizing large demonstrations takes a lot of time and money, and getting people to turn out requires a sense of urgency and efficacy.  It’s not always the appropriate priority for a social movement.

Republicans, expressing more and less credible fealty to Tea Party ideals (not always well-defined), made huge electoral gains in 2010, and now are trying to find ways to deliver on their promises.  Much of the politics has moved indoors.

Meantime, the Tea Party’s rather ill-defined agenda has allowed elected officials to run with it off in different directions.  Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, which included the end of Medicare as an entitlement, is one direction that hasn’t commanded enthusiasm at the grassroots. Senator Rand Paul voted against it.  And Senator Paul, who claims, with some credibility to have been a Tea Partier even before the Party started, has been working against the renewal of the Patriot Act and funding America’s current wars–not positions that have generated much enthusiasm from his Republican colleagues in Congress.

When you have an institutional ally, taking to the streets seems less urgent, particularly when there are alternative ways to pursue politics, like lobbying and campaigning.  Right now, the most important alternative for Tea Partiers seems to be the unfolding campaigns for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.  Most of the hopefuls are trying to find ways to demonstrate their commitments to Tea Party voters within the Republican Party primaries, without hampering their ability to tack to the center during a general election campaign.  It’s not pretty.

Most people try to find the most direct and least disruptive way to get what they want from politics.  For most of those who supported the Tea Party last year, it’s no longer through large rallies.  Organizers know this–or should–and try to find ways to take advantage of what their supporters do want to do.  Sometimes, it’s local politics; sometimes it’s national campaigns; sometimes it’s just giving money.  We’ll watch to see how much of any of these alternatives is actually happening.

When the turnout at the grassroots diminishes, the Tea evaporating, what’s left will be more intense, even bitter.

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

You Can’t Count on the Courts to ________ Social Change

Posted on May 27, 2011 by David S. Meyer

“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.” This is a tag from Alexis de Tocqueville’s monumental Democracy in America, published well over 150 years ago.

This is only half the story, however, as scarcely any judicial question arises that isn’t, sooner or later, turned into a political question.

Activists on the left and the right are often unduly focused on the courts, generally expecting far too much from judges, and then invariably overly outraged when they’re disappointed.  I think a lot of this has to do with a mythic misunderstanding of the most familiar Supreme Court decision in America, Brown v. Board of Education.

The most appealing way to understand that iconic decision is to see a Supreme Court, led by the politically savvy Earl Warren, recognized a social injustice (racially segregated schools) and an error in Constitutional interpretation (Plessy v. Ferguson), and fixed them both with a unanimous decision.

Activists love that version of the story, because it suggests that justice will prevail, even in the absence of popular support, political resources, or sustained activism.  This is the wrong reading of Brown and the history of segregation in America, and teaches exactly the wrong lessons to activists today.

Today’s lesson is that a judicial decision doesn’t end the political conflict.  (Steve Boutcher and I published this argument in longer form a few years ago.)

This week, courts handed down decisions that pleased and infuriated political activists.

Wisconsin circuit court judge Maryann Sumi struck down the extremely controversial provision in the state’s budget that eliminated almost all collective bargaining in the state.  It wasn’t about the content of the legislation; rather, in the haste to handle a resistant Democratic minority, the legislature’s Republican majority violated Wisconsin’s open meetings laws.  (On the political battle, see earlier entries, including here.)

But that case will percolate up through Wisconsin’s courts to an increasingly politicized state supreme court, which might rule differently.  Even if not, Governor Walker still enjoys substantial majorities in the state legislature–although recall elections are on the horizon–and can pass the bill again.  It’s not that the respite provided by the court doesn’t matter, it’s just that it doesn’t end the larger political battle.

Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court upheld a provision in a 2007  Arizona law that provides strict penalties for employers found to hire undocumented workers.  They’re required to use E-Verify to vet their workers.  The 5-3 ruling turns on technical assessments of E-Verify’s reliability and interpretations of the text of the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986.  On these points, and on many others, the well-educated and well-intentioned Supreme Court justices differ.

This ruling IS NOT about Arizona’s more recent, and even more provocative immigration legislation, nor does it provide a reliable prediction of how the Court will rule on that issue–when it reaches the Court.  The laws are different, and the personnel and politics of the Court could easily be different by the time that case is argued.

Of course, it’s not just the immigration issue percolating up to the Supreme Court.  This week, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that corporations can make direct contributions to political campaigns.  Activists also wait, with a mix of optimism and dread, for cases about same sex marriage and mandatory health insurance to reach the Supreme Court, scrutinizing every sigh in oral argument and looking for signals.

No judicial decision on any of these matters is going to put the issue to rest; rather, it will provide a target and stepping stone for, uh, more politics.  Brown appeared at a relatively early point in the modern civil rights movement’s history–before Rosa Parks refused to move, and lots of contested politics followed.  And lots of schools remained (and remain) essentially segregated, if not by statute.  Nor did Roe v. Wade resolve the issue of abortion rights; it provided a basis for much more litigation, activism, and very polarizing politics–up to, at least, this point, nearly 40 years later.

The savvy activist knows that the judiciary is a place to make claims, and that a decision (good or bad) can be useful in raising money and mobilizing the base.  But it’s only one place.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Movement Veto and Medicare

Posted on May 25, 2011 by David S. Meyer

When Democrat Kathy Hochshul won a normally Republican Congressional seat in special election in upstate New York, all of the party regulars weighed in with their distinctive spins on what this means or doesn’t mean for the elections coming up in 2012.  (This is normal politics; take a look at the glee with which Republicans greeted the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts.)

The Democrats are having an easier time of it, arguing that Republicans in competitive districts are going to have to spend a lot of time explaining their votes for Paul Ryan’s budget, particularly the conversion of Medicare into a voucher plan subsidizing private insurance.  Critics are quick to note that this will save money only if coverage is restricted and that most people are unlikely to be able to afford to buy the coverage Medicare now provides.

Understandably, voters–who generally support Medicare–are upset.  The Republican answers [a) we won’t change anything for anyone over 55; b) this is the only way to save Medicare; or c) the Democrats are worse] haven’t worked so far.  Rep. Ryan says this is because Republicans haven’t been clear and steady enough–and the Democrats are attacking them with tv ads.  (Shocking!)

The Republican Party’s leadership has so far enforced discipline on this budget–only four House Republicans voted against the budget; only five Senate Republicans voted against it.  But candidates will make their own calls as they interpret the tea leaves of this special election and the many polls that will follow.

Social movements in the US are closely tied to mainstream politics and parties.  The Tea Party reminds me of a number of movements on the left, animated by mostly middle-class, educated, white people who are normally engaged in mainstream politics.  I’ve made comparisons with the nuclear freeze movement in the recent past.

Over time, social movements can enforce something of a veto within a political party, most successfully in national elections.  Although a few Democrats who oppose abortion rights and a few Republicans who support them get elected to the Senate, it’s hard to imagine that a candidate for the presidential nomination could win with the wrong position for her party.

Many movements are easier for candidates to fudge.  In 1984, six of the seven Democratic candidates supported a nuclear freeze, in accord with a strong political movement and strong popular support (consistently over 70%) (much stronger, in polls, than the Tea Party).  But they coupled their support for a freeze with other positions that contradicted it–like advocating new nuclear weapons systems.  In effect, they defined a freeze they could support without alienating people who might otherwise vote for them.

Is the Tea Party really tagged with the Ryan Budget and the end of Medicare?  (In Orwell’s terms, this is ending Medicare to save it.  Or was that Lt. William Calley?)  If so, that’s a rough spot for the movement which expressed other, more popular, goals.  If so, candidates seeking to cultivate movement support in the primaries are going to have a lot to explain to independent voters once they win nominations.

While the freeze was organized around a specific policy proposal that institutional supporters redefined and diluted, the Tea Party’s core goals were never so sharply articulated–and there’s a great deal of conflict among national Tea Party groups–and between those organizations and grassroots groups–on just what the movement is about.  (Ask about immigration or social issues to see.)

By hanging the Republican Party and the movement on a very specific–and very unpopular–program, Paul Ryan and the Republican leadership have served neither very well.  I’m certain Democratic consultants are grateful.  The open question at the moment is whether movement activists or Republican regulars will be the first to defect from the proposal.  (I’d bet on the movement.)

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

Divining Authority (Religious Endorsements)

Posted on May 20, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Many many many Christians, readers have pointed out, are not worried about the Rapture tomorrow–despite the confident predictions of some committed co-religionists.  While some of the faithful have quit jobs to prepare–and to alert others of the coming judgment, other committed Christians are expressly continuing to live their lives as before, going to school, work, or even church.  People within the same families have vastly different expectations about what’s going to happen tomorrow, and who’s going to be hanging around the house the day after.  (See the New York Times, “Make My Bed? But You Say The World is Ending.”)

By the way, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg has announced that, in the event of Rapture, the City’s alternate side of the street parking regulations would be suspended.  It’s got to be a relief not to have to worry about towing in the event of the Final Judgment.

One easy point here: well-intentioned people can look at the same source material, in this case, the Bible, and come up with very different interpretations, even about something as fundamental as the Second Coming.

If organized religion doesn’t give clear guidance on this clearly critical matter, what about other contemporary issues?  How about the Federal Budget?

Before Speaker of the House John Boehner gave the commencement address at Catholic University, a group of professors sent him a letter, charging the the House version of the federal budget violated Catholic teachings by failing to take care of the neediest.  Laurie Goodstein reports:

The letter writers criticize Mr. Boehner’s support for a budget that cut financing for Medicare, Medicaid and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, while granting tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. They call such policies “anti-life,” a particularly biting reference because the phrase is usually applied to politicians and others who support the right to abortion.

But it’s not just some, uh, professors.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops also issued a letter challenging Congress to take seriously the Gospel charge of taking care of the “least of these,” paying particular attention to the poor, the hungry, and the unemployed.

Well, now that the Roman Catholic Church is on record, it’s pretty clear what a committed Catholic like Speaker Boehner should do.  Not quite.

Days later Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued his own letter, supporting the Republican budget and the work of Speaker Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan, who drafted the budget.  Responding to an inquiry from the House leaders, Dolan replied:

I commend your…attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike.

Thus, both supporters and opponents of the Ryan budget can claim cover from the Catholic hierarchy.  Don’t think for a second that the clerics in other religious traditions are less divided, or that other issues are less contested.

Committed Catholics who actually try to promote a consistent ethic of life, as Cardinal Bernardin advocated, oppose abortion, poverty, war, nuclear weapons, and capital punishment.  They have a difficult time maintaining political alliances–and therefore influence, of any kind.

Everyone else picks and chooses.

The mandate of heaven is claimed not discerned.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Rapturous Provocation

Posted on May 19, 2011 by David S. Meyer

People protest in opposition to something.  When those opponents promise something particularly egregious, it’s easier to convince your supporters of a real threat and the necessity of taking to the streets.

That’s why social movements activate their opponents.  Every potential success for one side is a cause of mobilization and fund raising on the other side.

When some evangelicals have determined that the day of rapture approaches, quitting jobs to get their lives in order, secular folks have seen an opportunity to put their views forward.  Ambreen Ali (Roll Call) reports that activists who want to take God out of government are using Harold Camping’s prediction of Rapture this weekend to demonstrate their claim: religion is a bad guide for decisions on matters of public policy.

If true Christians remain on Earth next week–or at least in the United States, the secularists will trumpet their superior judgment and try to build on their more accurate prediction (life on Earth will continue).  Odds are with the secularists this time; Camping predicted the rapture at least once before–in 1994.

In this case, it’s not an opponent’s threat so much as its foolishness that allows organizers to mobilize their base.

Is this also the case with Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal?

Last week liberal activists appeared to heckle House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who was speaking at Virginia Commonwealth University.  They challenged his (and his party’s) support for a proposal that would turn Medicare into a voucher program.  Politically, this bill is likely to be as big an embarrassment as the specific prediction of the end of days.  Democrats are going to talk about it whenever they can.

Republicans are going to try, desperately, not to talk about it.  When former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich kicked off his presidential campaign by criticizing the bill, he was quickly and severely chastised by his party, from the leadership to the grassroots.  Gingrich had said that the Medicare proposal represented a radical change that wasn’t good for the country.  He was right, but he backed off the position quickly, seeing that he had hurt his chances at generating activist support at the grassroots and campaign funds from Republican interests.

One version of the Tea Party is becoming a veto force within the Republican Party, filtering out heterodox ideas that actually might play better with mainstream America than Tea Party orthodoxy.  This happens through the long long primary process, in which prospective candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have to demonstrate their vigorous attention to the most committed of the activist zealots at the grassroots.

Primaries for other offices are also a contest in which the issue activists can win.  Voter turnout is low in primary elections, skewed to the most committed in each party.  By launching primary challenges, movement activists can keep their issues visible, and can try to force conversions among elected officials.  So, Republican Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, a conservative in any other election (and he’s won six Senate elections), is facing a primary challenge from Richard Mourdoch, whose chief qualification is signing an anti-tax pledge that Senator Lugar has, thus far, refused to sign.

The primary challenge might convince Lugar to change his mind–or it might replace him with a purer alternative.   (Tea Partiers had already signed a letter asking him not to run for a 7th term.) Either way, it makes it easier for Democrats to play to the center of the political spectrum.  For social movements, it’s the purity versus pragmatism dilemma that social movements in America always confront.

For Democrats, the increased influence of electoral enforcers and filters within the Republican Party appears like an unexpected gift.

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

Celebrity politics: Eva Longoria and immigration

Posted on May 17, 2011 by David S. Meyer

When Arizona adopted SB 1070, a bill that would mandate police investigation of people suspected of being in the country illegally, Eva Longoria announced the bill was unconstitutional.  With MALDEF’s (Mexican American Legal Defense Fund) Executive Director Thomas A. Saenz, she briefed Hollywood professionals on the bill and its implications.

Longoria has a bachelor’s degree (in kinesiology, from Texas A&M Kingsville), but is not generally recognized as a constitutional authority.  She is better known as a television star, but lately, she’s been talking about a lot more.

Longoria is doing the promotion rounds, appearing on television, it seems, constantly, talking about her tv show, her cookbook, her cosmetics line, her divorce–and comprehensive immigration reform.  She describes growing up in a Mexican American family that has been in Texas since before it was an American state and learning the classic immigrant values: hard work and education.

Her politics aren’t really unusual.  She opposed Arizona’s anti-immigrant law and supports the DREAM Act.  She’s also crusaded against Texas Governor Rick Perry’s budget cuts for services to the mentally disabled (including her sister); most recently, she’s announced that she wants to be a voice for abused children in Mexico.  She’s produced Harvest, a documentary that follows the lives of three teenage Mexican migrant workers.

I  meant for this entry to be more about celebrities and politics than about Eva Longoria, but that’s the problem with celebrities and social movements: their stardom can eclipse the cause.  Although Longoria’s politics aren’t that unusual, the attention she is able to get for them is.  The celebrity advantage is overwhelming.

When Thomas Saenz wants to draw attention to the case against Arizona’s new law, its Longoria’s stardom that sets her apart from other committed individuals.  Press conferences draw more press, rallies draw more people (and press), and activists are better positioned to raise money and visibility for their concerns.  And stars can reach other stars–along with their access to media and money.

It’s an old story in America; we’ve discussed the attractions and risks of mobilizing celebrities before here, here, and elsewhere.  Celebrities are ubiquitous in American social movements and party politics, sometimes dipping into electoral politics themselves (e.g., Ronald Reagan, John Hall, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The celebrity can bring visibility, money, and other resources to a cause.   But celebrities may be poorly informed, inarticulate, or transparently self-interested.  Career worries (read: the risk of alienating audiences) may steer them away from some issues, allies, or tactics.  And the presence of someone known primarily as an actor or athlete can undermine some sense of seriousness.

One obvious risk is ridicule from political opponents.  When President Obama made a public show of returning to the politics of immigration, he did so through a White House meeting.  At Redstate, a conservative blog, see Tabitha Hale’s reaction:

[President Obama has] chosen to prove that he’s serious about reforming immigration by inviting renowned immigration policy experts Eva Longoria, Rosario Dawson and friends to the White House to talk about immigration reform. Yes, that Eva Longoria.

First, how are Hollywood Hispanic celebrities at all a representation of Hispanic Americans? That’s like sending Britney Spears or Paris Hilton out into the world to represent the average American and shape foreign policy around the globe. Not only would it be humiliating, but it would produce no relevant information, since they are in no way representative of well, average Americans.

Second, is our President really this bereft of ideas? He repeatedly punts to celebrities on tough issues. I’m assuming that the strategy is to sway public opinion with star power in the absence of actual policy proposals, ideas, or facts. The reality is that this “strategy” will blow up when it comes time to implement some of these changes and there is no substance. His administration is already facing drastically falling poll numbers regarding Obamacare – it sounds a lot better in theory than in practice.

It seems unlikely that using Desperate Housewives stars and Oprah to help pull the country out of the ditch he likes to remind us we’re in will work much longer. It may be optimistic, but there’s mounting evidence that the American people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors.

It’s time to get serious, President Obama. Let’s start by asking people who know something about policy what they think.

The vigorously anti-immigrant politician and radio host, Tom Tancredo, has blasted Obama for meeting with prominent Latino celebrities, including Longoria, America Ferrera, Jessica Alba, and Rosario Dawson, but not border state governors like Jan Brewer (Arizona) and Rick Perry (Texas), suggesting that this reflects Obama’s lack of seriousness.

Longoria has also been the target of advocates of comprehensive reform, who argue that Obama is using her as political cover to support his less than forceful efforts at reform.

Eva Longoria insists that she’s been doing politics well before she was famous.  Whether for gravitas or her own edification, she’s made a commitment to knowing the issues she engages.  In 2009 Longoria started a master’s degree program in Chicano Studies and Political Science at Cal State Northridge.  I wonder what she’ll do with it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments