AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS: DEMOCRACY, THE N-WORD, AND THE NEED FOR ALLIES

 

We see a new iteration of the n-word at the forefront of our current political discourse.  For

anyone who leans progressive, as each of us does to varying degrees, the last few weeks haven’t been pleasant. We’ve seen plenty worthy of being unhappy about recently:

·    An unending campaign in some states that would take us backward on electoral fairness
through voter suppression laws and redistricting plans that threaten (perhaps assure) permanent Republican rule despite demographic change that should swing legislative representation toward Democrats.

·  The dwindling stature of the Biden presidency, burdened as it is by falling poll numbers and bickering among Congressional Democrats that imperils his domestic agenda and the party’s prospects in the 2022 midterms.

·    Relative public indifference to Republican obstruction of a full-fledged investigation into
the January 6 attack on the Capitol, amid hints the Biden Justice Department may go easy on some insurrectionists out of a misguided fear of further radicalizing them; and

·    Misogyny, racism, and homophobia at high levels of the nation’s most popular professional sport.

Given this list, we almost find ourselves asking, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theater?”

Historical Parallels

We acknowledge the nation has found itself in such a dark place before. About the tumult of 1968, journalist David Halberstam wrote that he  saw thecountry on the “verge of a national nervous breakdown” because of Vietnam and racial turmoil. Perhaps we’re not there now, but disarray abounds. Many supporters of former President Donald Trump appear willing to abandon democratic norms and institutions so he can wield power again.  

After Barack Obama’s 2008 victor some saw the ugliest of our racial conflict as behind us, a feeling that was clearly premature. Even six years ago, before Trump’s rise, many wouldn’t have believed the acquiescence of mainstream Republicans to this abandonment of democracy. 

We don’t know where this is going. The 1960s

precedents may or may not apply. After the civil rights marches Congress passed laws that improved the legal, social, and economic lives

of people of color. Yet, we have today’s political polarization, much of it rooted in racial division.

We moved in a different direction in foreign policy,

or appeared to for a while. Still, despite our Vietnam experience, we fought a 20-year war in Afghanistan from which we’ve only now extricated ourselves, complete with messy consequences for the current administration. We can’t say this will all come out right.

The Race Thing

We find nothing so disconcerting as the direction in which we seem headed on race. Barack Obama got

elected president. Kamala Harris got elected vice president. Those are positives, but look at what’s happening on the other side of the ledger.

Across the nation angry white parents attack school boards and teachers in seeking assurance their children will never learn, at least in school, the country’s terrible racial history. They’ve

found a convenient whipping boy by distorting an obscure old academic approach to race discrimination called Critical Race Theory and made it a boogey man that has become the basis for whitewashing America’s past. Meanwhile, in some states Republican legislators demand that their black and brown colleagues (and white ones so inclined) never refer to racism in legislative debates, even if a third grader could see the racist intent in voter suppression proposals and gerrymandered redistricting plans.

These Republican legislators and their right wing media comrades squeal long and loud if anyone calls out their behavior. Me, a racist? How dare you! We suggest they read Robin DiAngelo’s bestselling book White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to talk about Racism. She could have subtitled the book Why So Many White People Refuse to Talk About Racism.

                                

We’ve wondered what difference really exists

between these modern deniers of racism and their Jim Crow predecessors. It’s true, they don’t regularly use the n-word in public. At least we knew where old time segregationists stood, men like Jim Eastland and Ross Barnett, many of whom used the n-word in public. Former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden didn’t in his now famous

e-mails, but the message was the same. Wouldn’t we live in a more honest, transparent society if descendants of the segregationists—the Grudens, the Greg Abbots, the Brian Kemps – discarded the fake civility and talked like they feel and act?

Not Devoid of Hope

Woodson tells of a white friend who told him the story of a young man of color – a fifth or sixth grader – with whom at school he developed a close friendship as a youngster. One day, no one could find the young black man.  His friend discovered him crying in a restroom because someone called him by the n-word. He’d been taught that if he lived righteously and played by the rules people would accept him.

The incident demonstrated that wasn’t always the case, seemingly yet another reason for despair. The

white student, now an adult, said 

that was when he first realized his black friend’s life experiences differed radically from his own. Now, as an adult, this white man attends a multi-ethnic church and has committed himself to racial justice. 

The story illustrates that bad people inhabit the world and we must face them individually and

collectively. It also shows we can find hope when we find allies. Fellow travelers abound. Kindred spirits of all colors inhabit the world. They don’t hide behind false civility and will engage in good faith discussion and debate. Henry reminds us that in the past we’ve always had enough people who believed in this vision that we could keep it alive. Do we have enough now? We shall see. 

MOVING BASEBALL’S ALL-STAR GAME: THE DILEMMA OVER BOYCOTTS

When Major League Baseball pulled this year’s

All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law and moved it to Denver, the decision provoked a debate that divides both

defenders and opponents of the law. That debate pits those who see MLB’s decision, and potential boycotts by other corporate entities in Georgia, as a powerful tool in the fight for voting rights against those who lament the loss of income by black and

brown businesses and employees from events like the All-Star game.  MLB’s summer classic annually produces $84 million in economic activity. Cobb County, Georgia had expected $100 million in tourism revenue from the game.

 

The Rationale

Certainly, some saw MLB’s decision as an easy call. Those in that camp argue boycotts bring pressure on legislators who pass laws like the one in Georgia to undo the damage by repealing or modifying the measure. They point out the goal is getting decision makers to enact policies in the best

interest of the boycotters (or, in this case, black and brown citizens potentially disenfranchised by the election law). Sometimes, boycotts mostly serve the purpose of discouraging others from the behavior being protested. MLB’s move of the game, and potential action by other corporations, could dissuade other states from going down the same road (over 40 states have similar bills pending in their legislatures).

Advocates of actions like MLB’s argue boycotts represent a form of political warfare. Wars produce

casualties. Boycotters, as other warriors, do a cost benefit analysis about the value of what they might win in the war when compared with the likely losses. As Woodson reminds us, destroying public transportation wasn’t the goal of

the 1955 Montgomery bus boycotters; they just wanted better transportation services for African Americans in that city. Labor unions that utilize boycotts of a business in their organizing activities aren’t out to destroy the business, they just want better wages and/or working conditions for their members.   

 

The Other Side

Despite the force of these arguments, this debate has two sides. In the Georgia situation, opponents of moving the All-Star game note that small businesses and employees like stadium vendors and parking lot attendants will lose financial opportunities as a result of the game leaving Atlanta. Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a strong advocate

of the law, pushed this argument. Kemp said black and brown vendors who lose money this summer can blame Democrats, like President Joe Biden and his likely opponent in his race for re-election next year, former state Representative

Stacy Abrams. Kemp has hardly been a friend of black voters in Georgia, so his “support” of black businesses probably requires a sizeable grain of salt.

Abrams, however, is another matter. Despite expressing her “respect” for boycotts, Newsweek reported she tried to stop MLB from pulling the All-Star game from Atlanta. The magazine said she talked with a high MLB official and urged that the game remain there. She later issued a statement that said she didn’t want to see “Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.” Whatever political motivation Abrams might have had for coming down on the issue as she did, her action represented the thinking of some progressives as well as of conservatives.   

Corporate Dilemmas

The pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues like the Georgia voting rights law puts them

in several binds. First, they must consider the possibility of boycotts by progressives who oppose legislation like the Georgia bill. Coca-Cola, for example, certainly wouldn’t

enjoy a boycott of its products by blacks and browns who want the law repealed or changed. On the other hand, siding with opponents of the law risks alienating conservative supporters of such measures. Already Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has worn out the airwaves complaining about “woke corporations” that express support for progressive legislative actions.  

To some extent, corporations and their supporters in legislative and judicial halls, created this dilemma. They’ve argued, as the Supreme Court in effect said in the Citizens United case, that corporations are people too. If that’s the case, they’re subject to the same pressures as every other actor on the political stage, meaning they’re accountable for the disproportionate power they have in our society due to their wealth and political influence.  Boycotts may just become part of the cost of doing business.

 

A National Solution

Congress has under consideration the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a comprehensive bill  that

would fix many of the problems the Georgia law created and head off at the pass many measures now under consideration elsewhere.  Corporations could support a national voting rights standard, arguing that’s better for the country than the hodgepodge of laws we have now.

Abrams isn’t alone in opposing bills like the one in Georgia, while seeing the potential detriment to black and brown citizens who suffer economic harm as a result of well-meaning civic actions. The Georgia debate simply kicked off the fight over this issue. It’s thorny and implicates differing interests. It’s the kind of thing some see as easy. Others believe reasonable minds could reach different conclusions.  What’s your thought? 

                

                                                             

GEORGIA ON OUR MINDS: A TALE OF TWO SENATE RACES THAT COULD DETERMINE BIDEN’S EFFECTIVENESS

Something of a death struggle rages in Georgia as 2020 fades away and 2021 emerges. Democrats and Republicans have mobilized for runoff elections in two U.S.

Senate races with enormous implications. Those January 5 battles will decide control of the senate and, perhaps, the fate of much of incoming President Joe Biden’s agenda.

The Peach State ended up with these two

contests because its law requires that senators win a majority of the vote, even in a general election. Nobody in either race got a majority on November 3. Historically, Democrats don’t do well in runoff elections in Georgia. With the allure of the presidential race gone, many Democratic-leaning voters don’t show up. Biden’s narrow victory this year notwithstanding, Georgia has been a red state for a long time. Republicans have a structural advantage and much of the political community expects GOP wins in both races. Not every factor, however, points in that direction.

 

The Players

In one race, 33 - year old Democrat Jon Ossoff, a London School of Economics graduate who nearly won a congressional seat in a 2017 special election, faces incumbent Republican David Perdue for a full six - year term. Perdue,71, narrowly missed getting a majority in the general election. He’s seeking his second senate term.

Democrat Raphael Warnock, 51, serves as senior minister at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church. The man who occupies Martin Luther King’s pulpit faces Senator Kelly Loeffler, 50, in the race for a two-year term. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appointed Loeffler

earlier this year to fill

the seat of Johnny Isakson, who resigned. Loeffler, a devoted Trump supporter, has extensive business interests, including ownership of the Atlanta Dream of the WNBA.

Corruption charges have dogged the Republican candidates as both have been accused of insider stock trading. They

allegedly sold stocks based on information received in closed-door senate meetings earlier this year about the damage certain industries would suffer in the coronavirus pandemic. In the current polarized political environment, the charges haven’t gotten much traction. Democrats apparently believe the worse about both Perdue and Loeffler and Republicans appear not to care much. Republicans make the usual they’re-too-liberal arguments against Ossoff and Warnock. Again, it’s unlikely the claims make much difference. The races come down to which tribe can get its members to the polls.    

 

The Stakes

When it was all said and done on November 3,

Democrats had 48 U.S. Senate seats (including two independents who affiliate with them) and Republicans 52. If Ossoff and Warnock knock off the Georgia incumbents, Democrats would control the senate by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote. With that control, Democrats woul chair  committees and

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer would control the calendar and the ability to bring up bills. He could exercise the powers current majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky now wields so ruthlessly.

Control of the senate will say much about Biden’s ability to confirm cabinet and other

officials, make judicial appointments, and fulfill campaign promises on matters like climate change and racial equity. Biden believes he can work with Republicans, but he knows Democratic control of the senate would make

things so much easier and so much more possible. Biden and Harris have campaigned in Georgia for Ossoff and Warnock and one or both of them could make additional appearances before the election.

 

The Campaigns

For Democrats, the races are about turnout. If organizers like 2018 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams can approach duplicating the turnout of black, Hispanic,

narrow win in the Asian, and young voters, especially in the fast growing, rapidly diversifying Atlanta suburbs that gave Biden his residential race, they believe they can win the senate races, despite the structural GOP advantages.

For a long time, Republicans fought among themselves about these runoffs. President

Trump claimed he lost Georgia because of voter fraud, despite a Republican governor and secretary of state. Some normal Trump allies suggested Republican voters should stay home and skip the runoffs because the system was rigged and their votes wouldn’t count. No evidence of that exists, of course; recounts produced the

same result as the initial tally in the presidential race. Still, some people believe Trump and that has created massive upheaval in Republican ranks.

The GOP infighting has subsided. Some trends in the polling have favored Perdue and Loeffler. Though both races remained statistically tied for much of the campaign, the incumbents edged upward in later polling.

Turnout, however, could tip things toward the Democrats. Early voting exceeded expectations and broke records for a runoff election. In the first week, the numbers approached those of the same time frame in the general election. No one knows if voters will sustain that pace, but that’s the goal of Abrams and her cohorts. If they reach it, Ossoff and Warnock have a chance.

Money and campaign workers have flooded

into 

the state. In races with razor thin margins like the polls show, anything can happen. Georgia is on the nation’s political mind and the January 5 outcome means a lot.

The tale is still to be told.