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 Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.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? 

                

                                                             

THOUGHTS ON THE NEW ADMINISTRATION’S AGENDA: A LITTLE ADVICE FROM FRIENDS

 

In a month, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. takes the oath of office as the 46^th President of the United States and Kamala Devi Harris the oath as the 49^th Vice President of the United States.  She becomes the first woman to hold either office.

They take over at a difficult, perilous time. A once-in-a-century pandemic rages, accompanied by devastating economic consequences. The country remains politically and racially divided as killings by police of African Americans continue and criminal justice reform remains undone. Climate change poses an existential threat to the entire planet. Biden and Harris have plenty to do and we have some advice for them on their agenda.

COVID, COVID, COVID
Biden has long acknowledged subduing the Coronavirus pandemic would represent his first and most pressing challenge. It’s difficult not to view the leadership void on COVID-19 as the Trump Administration’s greatest failure. As to Biden’s challenge, we recognize that not only did Trump fail through inaction (e.g., never effectively using the Defense Production Act) and lies (“We’re turning the corner.”), he made things worse by poisoning the well with the public in ways that will make Biden’s job more difficult. 

Biden thinks (correctly) we can tamp down the virus through measures like mask wearing and social distancing until vaccines essentially eviscerate the disease. Because of Trump’s politicization of mask wearing and social distancing, Biden will have difficulty getting buy-in on sacrifices that fight the virus in the interregnum between now and widespread vaccine distribution next spring and summer.

By tying vaccine development to his re-election campaign, Trump made some think vaccines now being rolled out were rushed for political purposes. Combine that with a growing, general anti-vax crowd and skepticism about medical researchers based on history in the black community, not as many people may take a vaccine as needed for complete effectiveness.

Biden must enlist every political icon (former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama say they’ll get vaccinated publicly), celebrity, community leader, and trusted religious figure in encouraging vaccination and adherence to the measures still needed for suppressing the virus. Without beating COVID-19, Biden can’t get the economy going. He must push for a new stimulus/relief package from Congress. Yes, we know Mitch McConnell will likely stand in the way, but Biden must make clear to the American people who stands with whom. A president who pushes for what many Americans need so badly could make a difference. Biden can show there remains that thing called the “bully pulpit.” 

Race
At some point, every American president gets an exam question on race. Nearly all fail. Biden has a unique opportunity because, based on the protests last summer, much of the country seems ready to try. The old political barriers remain, but that’s no excuse for inaction. We see several legislative approaches Biden should support and push for:
·    enactment of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (it’s already passed the House);
·    revising many of the actions taken in the 1994 crime bill Biden played a role in passing, emphasizing reducing incarceration for minor drug offenses;
·    limiting criminal and civil immunity in police shooting cases;
·    ending no-knock warrants; and
·    reform measures that would foster increased use of psychologists and social workers, not police officers, in certain domestic situations and other encounters that often lead to police shootings.

State and local governments probably can accomplish more on some of these things, but federal legislation could establish goals and guidelines.

We also think there’s merit in dusting off President Clinton’s “National Conversation on Race” idea. We have an open mind about what form such an effort should take. We know one thing: if we won’t talk about a problem as big, as morally important as this, it won’t ever get solved.

Climate
We’ve written on this a few times, but not enough. We promise we’ll do better. This year – this awful 2020— demonstrated the issue’s importance. Wildfires in the west, storm damage in the middle of the country, and hurricanes and tropical storms in the Southeast and on the Gulf Coast represent the most visible examples of the gravity of the climate change problem.  At least now we have a president who doesn’t deny the science and accepts that not much time remains for addressing the problem.

Biden has taken two steps we heartily endorse. He says he’ll immediately put the United States back into the Paris Climate Accord. This signals the new administration’s seriousness about making America a major participant in anti-climate change efforts. 

Second, Biden has named former State Secretary John Kerry his special climate advisor. Kerry knows this issue well and will sit on the National Security Council since climate change constitutes a national security issue.

We suggest an “all of the above” climate 

approach that advocates multiple ideas. Some special interest will fight every climate proposal. Even corporations professing

support for action on climate change present much different ideas than climate activists. The administration, therefore, should not hang its hat on any one solution. It will lose legal, legislative, and administrative battles, so it needs a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach. We see this problem as so big and so important; Biden must remain creative and push every idea that might do some good.  

       What advice would you offer on the Biden-Harris agenda? 

    

JOHN LEWIS: IN MEMORIAM

THE MAN AND THE MISSION

Civil rights icon Georgia Congressman John Lewis died July 17, 2020. Tributes flowed in from across the political spectrum and cable news networks devoted hours of coverage to his life and times. We each have different views of Lewis and his accomplishments, indeed of his significance in contemporary America. Today we share those views individually:

Henry: A Man Who Made the World a Better Place

Time and place determine much about how

we evaluate any person. Human beings live a linear existence. One event follows another. At times we have trouble linking the success of the later action or event with what preceded it. In baseball, for example, I believe the starter or the middle reliever is as important to the victory as the closer who finishes the game and secures the win. In some people, we have been fortunate to have those who demonstrated “persistence of the

spirt” so we can credit them with making a difference. We honor figures all along that timeline who bend the curve toward justice in different ways and for different reasons.

In John Lewis, we had a man who deserves honoring for many reasons. He made a

difference in different ways. Quantitative or objective facts, significant though they are, tell only part of the story with a man like John Lewis. He was the conscience, the gadfly, the man who, in his own lexicon, made “good trouble.”  He got up after being knocked down time after time. He never stopped fighting the good fight for justice and he always did it with love. He symbolized hope for a nation. His advocacy for justice through nonviolent confrontation reminded us of our highest ideals and that we must always act to advance them.

John Lewis, from all we can tell, acted justly, loved mercy, walked humbly with his God, and made the world a better place than he found it when he arrived 80 years ago. What else can we ask of any mortal being?

Rob: A Record for the Ages

Bill Parcells won Super Bowls and coached his way into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He had a saying: “You are what your record says you are.” John Lewis had a record that says if they had a hall of fame for freedom fighters, he’d have been inducted a long time ago. Just think about some of the things John Lewis did with his life:

·    started civil rights work at age 17;

·    as head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), at age 23

was the youngest speaker at the 1963 March on Washington;

·    led the March 7, 1965, march on the Edmund Pettus Bridge that resulted in

Bloody Sunday at which he was beaten by police, leaving him with a fractured skull. The events of that day directly led to passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law that added half a million black voters to the rolls in the South within a year, 10 million more by 1980, and the election of four hundred black elected officials within three years;

·    thirty-four years in Congress where he led countless fights on voting rights, civil rights, gun control, and health care.

John Lewis was sometimes called the “the conscience of U.S. Congress.” He may have been and that’s another reason to honor him and mourn his death. In the final analysis, though, John Lewis deserved the accolades because of what he did. Period. 

Woodson: Is there no room for disagreement?

Was John Lewis’ life significant? I posed that question to my children on July 18^th.  Two accused me of being factious, insensitive, and even garish. My intention was to encourage analysis of Lewis’ tactics, strategies and results, not to be facetious, insensitive or garish.

Failure to examine our leaders’ decisions is problematic, especially if their goals are economic, political and social parity for African Americans. 

Lewis nearly lost his life on Bloody Sunday, marching for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Today, the Act stands stripped of significant provisions and voter suppression of African Americans is pervasive. 

 Hospitalized for fractured skull, John Lewis

Lewis spoke at the March on Washington in 1963 about the injustice of African American economic inequality. The economic condition of African Americans remains stagnant. Lewis demanded laws to prevent police excesses against African Americans. Police excesses continue. Twice Lewis backed Obama’s efforts to become President. Today the White House is occupied by a misogynistic white supremacist. 
 

The speech that Lewis gave that day was not his original version. Conservatives in the civil rights movement persuaded Lewis to edit his speech.

Lewis’ original speech contained the following:

“In good conscience, we cannot support wholeheartedly the administration’s civil rights bill… it is too little… too late.”

“This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromises.”

“We will not wait for the courts to act… for the President, the Justice Department, nor Congress, but we will take matters into our own hands and create a source of power, outside of any national structure.”

“To those who have said, ‘Be patient and wait,’ we must say that ‘patience’ is a dirty and nasty word.”

“We will march through the South, through the heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did.”

              
                                                            Click on image to hear John Lewis speech. Video courtesy of YouTube.

Lewis chose compromise? Did his compromise change the trajectory of his leadership? On compromise,  Malcolm X said that if a man has a knife 9 inches into

your back and pulls it back 3, the knife is still 6 inches into your back.  Was Lewis or Malcolm right?  We will not know the answers unless we are free to ask the questions.