On the Democrats.

I bet you’re loving this hyper cringe lib depiction, aren’t you? Well, if you really like it.

It’s always nice to get back to D.C. What can I say? I love it here. Along with all its silliness. Particularly after a wonderful trip to Minneapolis – colloquially referred to as Walz country. And though I did not get to discuss brake lights and the horrors of spicy food with the Coach, I did get to visit the club where Purple Rain was filmed. So that’s pretty cool. After spending a week discussing the thrills of state qualified allocation plans and the many charms of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit…and only arriving back to Dulles at 1 a.m. (I know, I know), you would think one might want to come home, maybe have a drink, and fall asleep to the same Netflix show for the hundredth time. Lucky for you, I hate myself. So, I decided to do my usual poring over the opinions of my internet buds on what’s been affectionately described as the dopamine slot machine website. A healthy dose of doom scrolling from the other hell site as a chaser felt most appropriate. (I’ll never ever call it that stupid name).Why not write an obnoxiously long comment on a thread, and then in some totally logistically sound and not at all sad attempt to once again slowly wean myself off social media…dust off this dorky old domain name as a convoluted method of harm reduction applied to my social media addiction.

Speaking of harm reduction.

I think I gather the notion of “holding Democrats accountable” by not voting for them is appealing because the implication is they will move closer to our position to win our support in the next election. Is that correct? If not, then I suppose ignore the rest of this. It’s long.

I guess my problem is there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in recent decades that proves Democrats respond to this method in the way it’s implied they would. The situation is presented as though withholding support from Democrats automatically creates better policy outcomes. This seems overwhelmingly incorrect. I would assume most would name 2000 and 2016 as the most glaring examples of Democrats failing to capture the left. The policy outcomes of those elections certainly don’t seem to align with what I understand to be the left’s preferences and priorities.

Democrats should have moved further left to appeal to the folks that didn’t support them enough in 2000, right? Ralph Nader appropriately decried the steadily right leaning list of the party and rallied millions to his cause. Just under 2.9 million to be specific. And no, I’m not here to relitigate Nader’s presence as a spoiler in that election. But I do think it’s useful to examine outcomes. If we take a look at foreign policy for example, I’m going to reductively name the “left” as any group of people in this country who believe in not wantonly murdering people wholesale around the world. While Nader didn’t campaign on foreign policy, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume where his supporters might fall on the topic.

If we apply the logic I see so readily deployed on the internet, Democrats should have adopted a much more doveish tone, along with overtures to Nader’s platform. Except they didn’t. Nothing about the Democratic Party moved leftward after losing to Bush. Not in earnest. We nominated a war hero who ran an “anti-war” campaign after voting to invade Iraq. The electorate cared so little about that rightward shift that we lost another election anyway. Nader’s influence and reputation would decline in subsequent years. He ran again, and again – each time obtaining a fraction of his support in the so-called “spoiler” campaign. He often correctly decried the warmongering ways of the Democratic party.

And yet.

Obama also ran as an “anti-war” candidate. Extremely politically convenient with an intensely unpopular war and a president so underwater in favorability it almost seemed a foregone conclusion the election would be a historic blowout by comparison to recent years. We also projected every idealistic hope and dream imaginable onto a candidate who by all accounts sincerely believes in our better angels, and who used his once in a generation political talent (and yes, the historic nature of his candidacy) to that effect. The result was a governing and political ethos that almost always went for the pragmatic conciliatory approach, much to the dismay of leftist advocates, many of whom struggled to inject left ideas into the public consciousness during a presidency that was essentially hobbled within two years. While there were some key victories, Democrats largely remained steadfastly committed to the so called Third Way and entanglements abroad. And while many of us who projected rainbows and butterflies onto Barack Obama could be forgiven for our disappointment and disillusionment, it seems more important to once again acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the strategy in 2000. What sort of lessons did Democrats learn from that election? From 2004? Governing from the left does not seem to be among them.

I might have joked about hating myself earlier, but I don’t hate myself enough to relitigate 2016. This thing is already too long. Basically just a stream of consciousness at this point. But I hope we can all agree that while Democrats stylistically adopted a progressive display, the party certainly didn’t materially move leftward post Trump. An insurgent Sanders campaign reignited a progressive fervor that remains impactful to this day. But a general (and understandable) lack of enthusiasm for Clinton got us where we are.

If anything, the Democrats response to these losses has been to move further to the right — on crime, on immigration, and on foreign policy. You have to ask yourself – what was gained from withholding support in the 00’s? A few trillion-dollar wars and a bunch of dead Palestinians. Setting aside all of Clinton’s flaws for a moment, Democrats have never believed the left in this country is potent enough to beat them. And for now, it would appear they’re right. In a general election they will almost always attempt to appeal to “moderates” despite our protests. We can hate that. And we can want to punish them by not voting for them. But, again, where does that get us? Worse policy outcomes. More harm. That doesn’t seem like the goal to me.
Despite what I’ve described as a neoliberal (yawn) warmongering (accurate) era the likes of which we’ve never seen, Biden’s domestic policy has been among the most aggressive expansions of the welfare state in decades. Effective strategies were employed by advocates and organizers during the primaries and throughout the administration to win literally trillions of dollars to improve society despite majorities that literally could not be slimmer. The person running for president as a Democrat right now cast the tie breaking vote for much of those accomplishments. It seems that, rather than wholesale abandoning the path that would most likely lead to desired outcomes — fighting through initial struggle can yield tangible results. This of course is not without setbacks.

Applying this to today’s most glaring issue — I completely understand why someone could not in good conscience support the horror Democrats are currently enabling abroad by casting a ballot in their favor. Joe Biden and the Democrats have enabled an atrocity. I think this is an entirely fair position to take. It also seems fair that, when confronted with a shitty decision, one might choose what they think is the best option even if it’s a shitty option. What I will take issue with is the notion that a vote for Harris somehow automatically removes all capacity to continue to advocate against our actions abroad. It’s never been made clear to me why voting for Harris is a wholesale endorsement of everything she and the Democrats stand for. That’s not how voting works in my view, seems unnecessarily maximalist, and ultimately just doesn’t really make any sense.

If you believe withholding your vote will garner support for your position next time around — why? Where is the evidence for that on a national level? Why is there an assumption any of these parties would move the way you want them to as a result of withholding your vote? That goes for you as an individual and the royal you. Is punishing Democrats worth the harm incurred? Do you sincerely believe it wouldn’t make a difference who was in power? Look, I have no problem criticizing the Democrats. They’ve been party to all manner of terror and awfulness. On the issue most dear to me, transformational policy in the criminal legal system – Joe Biden and the Democrats’ record is nothing short of abysmal.

It doesn’t change the fact that a vote for them moves me closer to my goal. If you don’t think so I am more than willing to try and understand why. Remember, we’re not talking about passing shitty legislation that will harm our ability to pass much more meaningful transformational policy down the stretch. It doesn’t appear to me the same calculus should be applied to a general election in the United States of America with the way our electoral system is designed.

As I can tell the last let’s say…32 years of Democratic rule started with Clinton. The result of three lost general elections in a row was the birth of the New Democrats and the party’s full embrace of neoliberalism, the Third Way, and reactionary policy in the criminal legal system. The destruction of the American welfare state in the 90’s can be traced right back to Bill Clinton. The ’94 Crime Bill written by Joe Biden and signed by Bill Clinton. Certainly didn’t help that Newt Ginrich and his buddies made matters worse. We’ve seen this story before. And it’s been that way ever since. Despite all this, I have yet to see any evidence that shows refusing to participate in the general election actually creates better outcomes for any of the issues I care about. Would Bob Dole have been better for working class families? For me, failing to participate is essentially an expression of idealism that has created exactly zero material gain for the communities we’re purporting to be fighting for. If the candidate that I voted for does not deliver on the issues I demand, it does not then automatically follow that it is somehow advantageous to enable a worse outcome.

If your argument is electoral politics are a waste of time and we should be focused instead on mass popular and political education, organizing, mutual aid, etc. — then I’m all for that. It’s not clear to me why one can’t make an electoral decision they think will make all of that easier and then continue to do those things. Consider: a refusal to take the path of least resistance will only create a landscape in which it is far more challenging to organize and build the power necessary to…I dunno maybe win some of the shit you claim to believe in. I get it. The two-party system is ass. Very few would disagree. And while there is no shortage of backhanded tactics and legal machinations parties can employ to discourage and depress the rise of alternatives – it’s still not impossible. And it’s not clear to me why we’re off the hook for losing all the time. You want our ideas to win? Then we need to be more effective. Organize more effectively. Build power more effectively.

Losing elections does not make us more effective. It makes it damn near impossible to accomplish any of our goals.

So, maybe it’s worth coming back to this question — what is the goal exactly? It’s likely we have very different ideas about what it means to improve society in any material way, but I would say that’s probably mine. Do we think elections matter for such a prospect? It certainly seems that way to me and as such it seems we should take the action that is most likely to lead to that result. In November there are several actions we can take. I would like for anyone to explain to me how refusing to participate or voting for a candidate that cannot win — moves society forward in any material way.

It quite literally doesn’t matter whether it’s the “lesser evil”. My vote is not an expression of how evil I think something is. My vote, and perhaps more importantly, action intended to influence how others vote — is a utilitarian act. It is not an assessment or manifestation of all the things I want to happen or that I believe should happen. It is an act designed to move me closer to my goals. Closer to a world where material conditions can be improved.

So yeah. I guess I just don’t get it. I suppose everyone isn’t explicitly saying people shouldn’t vote for Harris and that if they do, they’re a genocidal psychopath. But that’s basically the implication. And that just seems logically incorrect to me.

I have yet to see a strategy that explains how a Trump administration will improve any of these outcomes. And I’m not interested in fear mongering about Trump, per se. I’m not interested in bullying someone to vote for Harris because Trump will be worse – even if I think that is objectively clear. But I do have to ask what the strategy is should he become president again. If the argument is, “It’s not our fault the Democrats can’t get more people to vote for them. Harris needs to adopt my position. She needs to earn my vote. Otherwise, she won’t get it”. Setting aside the assumption that this threat will work, which, again I have not seen a ton of evidence that it will. Ok. That’s fine. Let’s suppose she doesn’t. Let’s suppose the gap in left enthusiasm is what costs her the election. Now explain to me what the strategy is moving forward. I have yet to see a something that helps me understand with any confidence that Democrats will come closer to left positions in ‘26 or ‘28 as a result of losing this election. If anything, they will only move further to the right.

And the damage that will be done in between? A 7-2 Supreme Court? Maybe even 8-1?

At this point the “most important election of our lifetime” has become little more than a tired cliché. But given the current makeup of the Court – does it not apply in earnest here? Even if we were to elect President AOC and Vice President Rashida Tlaib. Even if we won the senate, the house, every governor’s race, every state house. It would be a generation before anything we care about survives SCOTUS. Irreversible destruction to our rights and civil liberties and unmitigated hostility to even the most modest adjustment to our horrific inequality. Even if we could manage to end the filibuster, pass the dream platform. How much of that survives a Court with Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Matt Gaetz on it? What then? Win enough majorities in the next ten elections to change the constitution, I guess?

Assuming we’ll still be having elections.

Vote your conscience this November. Just be thoughtful about how we’re going to pick up the pieces when it’s over.

On Anger.

I was recently listening to a podcast about New Year’s Resolutions and I was struck by something in particular: People that work in social justice spaces are angry – all the time. I guess this is one of those ‘no shit Sherlock’ statements but it’s the first time in a long time I’ve really sat down with the concept. People who work in social justice spaces are very understandably and justifiably angry. The world we live in is brutal and terrible and even more brutal and terrible for marginalized people. It makes sense that marginalized people are angry all the time because this world demands it for our own survival. People in these spaces correctly push back on their being tone policed by people who don’t belong to their communities. People who demand that marginalized people think and feel about their own oppression in ways that are suitable to the sensibilities of those who don’t have the slightest clue what it is like to experience the world as marginalized people do.

And yet. I have to wonder. What sort of life is that to live? What sort of life are we living when every waking moment of our existence is spent just waiting to pounce on some unsuspecting passerby who should be so unfortunate as to make the grave mistake of expressing the wrong term, supporting the wrong candidate, belonging to the wrong party? What sort of life are we living when, in the quest to try and create a more just and equitable society for all people, we have robbed ourselves of any semblance of personal peace or tranquility?

A lot of people in these circles talk about self-care. They talk about the importance of not involving the ‘movement’, as it were, too much in your personal life. They talk about being serious about emotional labor and the need to think critically about how we choose to spend it. This feels different from that though. If practicing self-care means we carve out a small percentage of our lives to remember or imagine what it must be like to be a person with a happy soul – is that really practicing self-care? Are we even capable of being truly happy?

It’s true that ‘to be black and conscious in America is to be in a constant state of rage.’ I imagine the same could apply to most marginalized groups. I wonder if it’s worth examining the utility of a constant state of rage. I wonder whether it might be useful to explore some sort of alternative. Because this doesn’t seem sustainable.

Protest envy – What conservatives get wrong about Alex Jones and the NFL

I’ve seen this argument from conservatives make its way around the social media circus. It goes something like, “SJWs want to have their cake and eat it too. They cheer the banning of Alex Jones but cry about the treatment of athletes taking a knee. Can’t have it both ways LIBTARDS. #MAGA”

So. A couple things. For one – Alex Jones represents an actual danger to society. Put aside his outrageous conspiracy theories and typical tinfoil hat commentary for a moment. This is a man who legitimately promotes and incites violence and who not only fosters horrific “truther” theories about the murdered children of Sandy Hook, but actively encourages the harassment and abuse of their parents. As a result, he is facing appropriate public scrutiny as well as legal action. For those of you rightfully concerned with free speech issues generally, what do you make of the chilling of the speech of parents of dead children?

Let’s compare this to the vast majority of NFL players who are doing nothing more than taking a knee on the field. Some of them are taking their actions a step further by raising money for social justice causes and publicly speaking on issues that are important to them and the communities they come from. Many of them draw inspiration from the very notions conservatives claim they don’t respect: freedom. The freedom to speak against injustice. The freedom to call attention to those who would use their status in our society to unjustly do harm to others. The majority of the men and women who fought and died in America’s imperialist wars died because they believed they were fighting for that very freedom. What is supposed to make this country great is our ability to criticize it. If anything – the actions of those taking a knee honors their sacrifice even further.

Presumably, what these conservatives are attempting to do is draw parallels to other content-based speech restrictions in which the government decides what we can and cannot say based on the content of our speech and or the viewpoint from which that speech originates. Aside from triggering horrific first amendment exam memories, I don’t need to do this analysis because so many others already have and most already point out that private entities like Facebook and other platforms are not subject to the same limitations as the government. Jones has been banned for violating these private companies’ Terms of Service and contract agreements – most of which list hate speech and harassment as prohibited content. Jones faces banishment from digital platforms, while NFL athletes face loss of wages from their employer as well as public admonishment from the President of the United States of America.

This brings me back to the NFL. It too is a private company whose employees are subject to the terms and conditions of their employment. It is true that the NFL is (probably/maybe/likely god this feels like a memo and I DON’T HAVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER) well within its rights to prohibit players’ behavior it deems contrary to its business operations. This case however is not so clear – as many legal experts specializing in employment and labor law have hypothesized.

Regardless, conservatives who make this argument are missing the point. Whether the NFL is lawfully restricting the speech of its employees is not the focus. The focus is on the fact that they are restricting, lawfully or not, the speech of individuals protesting injustice. Most of us aren’t overly concerned with the legal status of the NFL’s decision-making (although it does appear to be on somewhat shaky ground). Ask yourself – were people conducting boycotts and sit-ins during the 50’s and 60’s because they didn’t know it was illegal? Do you think organizers were worried about the breaking the law? Much of the actions that took place during the Civil Rights era were taken precisely because they were illegal at the time. They intended to break the law – because the law was unjust. Large numbers of the American people didn’t like that either.

It doesn’t matter whether the NFL is legally permitted to discipline their players. Not really anyway. Who knows how a court might rule on such a case? Courts have often proven to be far from deliverers of justice throughout this country’s history and still today. What matters is that it is morally unacceptable to castigate and ostracize today’s athletes for pointing out systemic injustice in our society. Legality is not the focus here – justice is. Comparing the actions of our athletes today to the likes of Alex Jones is outrageous.

So. Next time you find yourself making this false equivalency, understand that you sound like this. Ring any bells.

On Civility.

 

 

It’s been nearly two years since I’ve posted anything here. Law school will do that to you. Given recent developments, now seems like as good a time as any. Accordingly, I’ve been asked to share some words from a friend.

There aren’t many things we can agree on, as a country, but in spite of recent dialogue, the value of “incivility” as a political tool is one of them. We might not all say it out loud, but we all agree on it on some level.

Marco Rubio may decry the coarsening of our politics, but he’ll also hand wave away attacks on the media because, hey, the people who vote for him don’t like the media either. Republicans may tut-tut President Trump’s most egregious statements – “Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Paul Ryan famously said! – but that doesn’t mean they can’t see the value in having Trump around.

In the more charitable reading, they see Trump’s “incivility” as something they have to put up with to get tax breaks for the wealthy; in the least charitable reading, his “incivility” is a tool that broadens the range of acceptable social views and makes their own extreme ones seem within the mainstream by comparison. I won’t make a judgment on which is true.

On the ground level, Republicans have never really had a problem with “incivility,” either. When anti-abortion activists protest outside of abortion providers, is there any difference between that and what Maxine Waters called for over the weekend that led to so much handwringing? There is just one I can think of: Waters called for targeting public figures, not private citizens.

Even without making that distinction, however, we’ve simply never been forced to sit through a national discussion about whether these protestors are coarsening our national dialogue, are inciting violence, or otherwise threatening western civilization somehow. And, remember, this is protest in response to legal actions – regardless of where you perceive them to fall on your personal moral spectrum, an important distinction.

The reason for that is clear: It’s not about the necessity of civility within a functioning society. It’s about which views are abhorrent enough to do away with the typical rules that govern most interactions within that society. I doubt anyone criticizing the Red Hen would object if they kicked out a patron who launched into a racist tirade in the middle of the restaurant. I doubt anyone would blink if a group of customers decided to heckle that person, either.

Because we’ve (mostly) agreed that this form of racism doesn’t belong in polite society. Anti-abortion activists and their supporters have mostly agreed that abortion is such an urgent moral calamity that it deserves setting aside the rules that typically govern our society.

These are well established norms. And, if they aren’t universally agreed on, they are at least uncontroversial enough that we’re never subjected to the kinds of hand wringing that resulted from Sarah Huckabee Sanders getting a free cheese plate for her trouble of having to find a new place to eat dinner one time.

The debate, then, isn’t about whether incivility is or should be an effective tool for shunning specific views. By and large, that debate is settled; the answer is a near-unanimous “yes.” The debate, then, is about whether the Trump administration’s actions and espoused views should fall outside the realm of what is accepted in modern society.

And, we don’t have to be vague about this: Nobody that I know of believes lowering the marginal tax rate on income over $500,000 from 39.6 to 37.0 percent for individuals means Mike Mulvaney shouldn’t be able to enjoy a quiet night on the town. As harmful as the tax plan will likely be, it doesn’t represent the kind of existential threat other Trump administration policies do.

What happened to Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen last week was a specific response to a specific policy. Namely, a policy that sought to separate children from parents seeking asylum at the border for the purpose of serving as a deterrent to future asylum seekers. We need not be vague about this. It is an obviously cruel policy, one that is obviously designed to inflict maximum cruelty, in order to show potential future asylum seekers they aren’t welcome as a matter of policy.

If you think that is a reasonable policy position to adopt, by all means, defend it. I won’t respect your sense of morality, but I can at least respect a certain intellectual consistency.

What I can’t respect is acknowledging the policy for what it is – needlessly cruel, and specifically designed to inflict maximum cruelty – and yet arguing that it doesn’t deserve to be met with whatever tools are available in opposition. Yes, up to and including making life slightly uncomfortable for the people inflicting that cruelty. We can’t vote these people out of office — yet – but we can make Sarah Huckabee Sanders have to wait a half-an-hour extra to find a new spot for dinner.

Some laws and policies don’t deserve to be met with polite disagreement. Remember, we have already agreed on this.

The actions the Trump administration are taking are either within the bounds of what is acceptable by polite society, or they are not. That’s the debate. That’s the question. That’s all this is about. Let’s put aside concern trolling about civility and debate that.

Why we riot.

Since these sorts of arguments keep popping up all over my feed I wanted to share my modified response from one particularly fun Facebook thread. Considering it started as a social media post, it’s sort of hastily written (I was supposed to be learning about expectation damages or something at the time). I’ve tried to clean it up a little and add a few things to make it work for this post but really I’m less concerned with grammar and structure and just wanted to get this out there. I haven’t posted in a while so I figured I’d share it here.

There seems to be a strong desire to find every way to avoid having the conversations that we need to have. In an attempt at forcing harmony we often find this need to isolate some imagined wrong that both “sides” have committed. As though the sides are on any sort of level playing field from which we could measure harm in a balanced fashion. While engaged in the mental gymnastics required to ignore blatant injustice even after it’s made itself abundantly clear, lots of people from all sides tend to try and point out the “wrongs” committed by one group or race against another – again as though these entities are dealing with each other with any sort of equity. If I can I would like to shift the focus just a tad.

It’s not about problems coming from one group or race. It’s not about the media dividing us. We’re already divided. The more and more I see this, “Both sides need to do this” argument the less tolerable it becomes. I get it. It’s well intentioned. But please don’t shift focus from the discussion that we need to be having. If anything the media is now forced to address these issues because with the advent of technology and social media, we’re already addressing them ourselves

Let’s be clear. This was always happening. The only difference is they can’t ignore it now.

It would be great if we could focus on institutionalized power structures and government entities whose agents are supposed to be acting on behalf of the citizenry. It’s paramount to recognize that this citizenry happens to have four hundred years of bloody, brutal, and horrific racial animus attached to it. It’s not that all cops are racist (though likely several are), rather, it’s about a powerful institution (the police) that often acts with little oversight or legal remedy. When this institution messes up, the ramifications are widespread and further exacerbated by the racial history of this country. Agents of the state should be subject to intense scrutiny considering the amount of power we have given them, that is, to take life seemingly at will.

“I know there are problems with black people getting shot by cops, but I really have a hard time believing that all of it is caused by malice.”

It doesn’t matter if it’s caused by malice. It’s unacceptable. Black people were being lynched in public squares for centuries long before malice in policing was a factor worth considering.

“If we see a cop wrongfully shoot anybody, let’s prosecute them for murder.”

We’ve tried prosecuting police. They walk. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Betty Shelby walks. We see police walk time and time again in the face of mountains of evidence. The legal system is not developed to hold police officers accountable because there is an inherent conflict of interest within the criminal justice system. We’re asking District Attorneys who work with police on a daily basis to then turn around and prosecute those same police. We’re asking police chiefs to hold their officers accountable when their unions have literally gutted any form of meaningful disciplinary action in their collective bargaining agreements. I have zero reason to have any faith in our legal remedies because those legal remedies do not exist or are severely hobbled. It is next to impossible to hold officers accountable for their actions – and that’s why people get angry.

That’s why people riot.

A riot is the language of the unheard. That’s from a guy white folk like to throw in our faces when we riot, by the way. To what extent are people supposed to lie down and take it before they finally lose all faith in their society to protect them and treat them equally before the law?

This thing folks keep doing by trying to equate the experiences of a grossly marginalized and historically oppressed group of people to a public profession that brings with it the risk of danger simply doesn’t add up. This isn’t a “both sides” thing. The heavier burden should absolutely be placed on the power structure that is abusing its position in society. Not on the oppressed citizenry that represents approximately 13% of the population and has been quite literally held down for centuries.

Don’t talk about the riots without talking about why the riots are happening. Don’t shift the focus from police brutality to black on black crime. Don’t co-opt a movement with your own faux hashtag that serves as nothing more than a tool to shut down black folk. It appears that there is no correct way for the oppressed and or the marginalized to express themselves without fear of public condemnation and dismissal.

That’s why people riot.

So next time you criticize black folks for not simply “doing what they were told” after they’ve been shot, imagine living in a society where you wonder if you’re going to make it home every single day.

Or maybe ask yourself if you’ve ever wondered if your name will be the next hash tag.

This is fine.

To be honest I didn’t pay much attention to the calls for self-care and mental health. I joked about playing Pokemon Go. I laughed about the Kimye vs. Swift controversy. But today I feel like the dog in the comic with the house burning down.

This is fine.

A person I will refer to as #CheetoJesus has some ideas about how the country should be run. Among those ideas include the jailing of his political opposition. The silencing of members of the media that criticize him, followed by continued threats and calls for “opening up libel laws” to discourage any further criticism. The encouragement of violence. Rampant bigotry and blatant racism. Sexism and misogyny. Oh and then there’s murdering the families of our enemies. And so much more.

We’re gonna win so much you guys. We’re gonna win so much we’re gonna get tired of winning. Bigly.

The National Fear and Hate Convention is about to allow #CheetoJesus to accept the party of Lincoln’s nomination for the most powerful position on earth. A couple days ago #CheetoJesus took the stage to music written by a person who belonged to a group of people this convention doesn’t believe should have rights. A sitting member of the United States House of Representatives explained that no other race has ever contributed so much to society as his own. Later that night Mrs. #CheetoJesus delivered Michelle Obama’s speech.

This is fine.

The only person that can stop #CheetoJesus from taking the country down the path of nationalist authoritarianism has lost the faith of not only the progressive wing of her own party, but nearly the entire country. Because email.

Oh yeah and lest we forget yet another black life has been forever altered at the hands of an individual sworn to serve and protect the public.

On the ground. Unarmed. With his hands up. Attempting to save an autistic person.

This is fine.

Despite my fervent efforts to quell the reality of marginalization, I’m beginning to question whether or not I belong in this society.

Right now I’m having a really hard time believing I do.

The Drunk Uncle

Our first guest contribution comes from our esteemed colleague, The Balding Conservative.
—

Every family has one. If you think your family doesn’t, then take a good hard look in the mirror because chances are it’s you. For those of us aware of the concept, the Drunk Uncle is a fixture of family gatherings.  You can always count on his attendance at the annual Thanksgiving feast and 4th of July cookout. While his presence is not always celebrated, it is expected, it is tolerated, and it is mitigated.

The Drunk Uncle embodies everything we love and hate about these assemblies. He is the person to make an inappropriate comment on your cousin’s recent weight gain, and most likely elevate the volume level at the dinner table. He’s the one you can count on to cause an awkward silence or two, and to say something just to get a reaction out of his sister in law.

He can be a hassle to accommodate, he can be a pain in the ass, but we put up with him. He is family, he is blood, he is kin.

He’s also really f*!#ing entertaining.

Once you get past the inappropriate comments, and boisterous proclamations, you have to give him credit for the entertainment value he brings to the literal and figurative table. He says what he is thinking, and he doesn’t give two sh**s whether or not it is appropriate table fodder. In fact, most often the majority of attendees secretively enjoy his presence, and look forward to the shenanigans every year. He is a refreshing addition to a potentially droll situation.

The problem with this is that the Drunk Uncle paradox rarely translates to anything else in our lives. Take him out of the family circle and you must constantly be on guard that he does not embarrass you, or the family, in front of the world.

Donald Trump is the Drunk Uncle of the Conservative Party.

Let that sink in for a minute. The man that we determined should be the voice of our party, out of the 17 people that showed up for dinner, is the our Drunk Uncle.

I’m not saying that any one of the other 16 dinner guests were the ideal representatives: the one that it’s just understood that carves the turkey and says grace.  But still, we went with the Drunk Uncle.

In a way, I get it. People were tired with the status quo, the redundancy and predictability of usual candidates wore on folks, and they wanted a breath of fresh (different) air. The notions of “he says what’s on his mind” and “he doesn’t care what others think” were novelties that appealed to a lot of people. This is also a very scary concept.

I’d like to think that Trump is a smart man, that now that he has the nod he’ll dial it back. He had to assume this persona to separate himself from such a large field. Maybe we’ll see a shift now that he needs to win over a larger audience. The problem is that he can’t un-say all of the things that he did to get to this place. You can’t erase that, or hope people forget in this day and age. The fact is that he’s said certain things that were insensitive, ignorant, and hurtful to many people. That most people with a brain will see right through whatever new stance he might take in the future. And who’s to say that if he is elected, he might not say something off the cuff that incites the American people, or the world. If the Drunk Uncle is the guy who you’d find throwing firecrackers in the backyard with the kids, Trump is the leader that would drop a sound bite that could set off a firestorm. In the confines of a family gathering this could be contained and dealt with, on a worldwide stage this is a terrifying concept.

I love our country. I trust that the men who set up our government 240 years ago made it so that no single person could do irreparable harm over the course of 4 years. What I am most scared of is with the current state of things- racial tension at home, religious conflicts worldwide – that we are sitting on a powder keg. And we just chose to give our Drunk Uncle, outfitted with a handful of fireworks, the nod to lead the family prayer.

Donald Trump and the Prisoner of Social Democracy Part 1

I remember sharing a picture at some point during the 2012 general election cycle. It was a profile headshot of Hillary Clinton with “2016” in an alternating red, white, and blue in a large font towards the bottom of the image. I remember thinking this is going to be the next president of the United States.

2015 came around and as expected Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy. I was an early adopter though not without controversy. I thought to myself there isn’t going to be any other candidate that will seriously challenge her. Though we had some significant differences regarding policy, it seemed that she would make the most sense as there was no other candidate with any reasonable expectation to best her during the primary season.

Enter Bernie Sanders.

I mean. Come on. This guy was everything a lot of us on the young left have wanted for a long long time but never thought we would see. I don’t think I’ve seen a campaign stay more on message in my relatively few years of paying attention to politics. He’s probably the closest thing to all the ideas we naively projected onto Barack Obama eight years ago. Bernie Sanders has been an outstanding representative of the people – placing a megaphone to voices often drowned out by money, influence, and conventional wisdom. His ads are inspiring. Like. Really inspiring. I believe he has been the only candidate in this race that has maintained an unwavering voice of support for working class people. I think he has been an incredibly important figure in our nation’s political history and a major influence on the Democratic Party for years to come. Unfortunately, though Bernie Sanders is a lot of things, the Democratic Party’s Nominee for President of the United States isn’t going to be one of them.

Bernie Sanders is that summer fling that ends up lasting longer than it should have and when it finally ends both parties end up walking away with hurt feelings. Bernie Sanders is that Chinese food that was absolutely amazing the night you ordered it but every time you go back to it you know you’re engaging in some risky business. Bernie Sanders is that awesome new spot that plays really fun oldies and all kinds of different music from different eras and has a great happy hour but then in just a few short months is overrun with too many people that are just way more hip than you and exclusively plays trap music (lookin at you Brick House). While the intarwebs is an amazing hub of all the world’s knowledge, social media and Senator Sanders’ supporters have become a volatile combination – one that my anecdotal experience, though likely unrepresentative, has left a really bad taste in my mouth. Particularly as a black dude who at least likes to think of himself as some sort of feminist.

I never paid much attention to the Bernie Bro narrative. Largely because it was just that: a narrative. But time and time again the sheer vitriol levied against Secretary Clinton left me awe-struck. To the point where now I just make up horrible things no “real American” would ever do and blame Hillary for funzies. My favorite so far has been, “Well Hillary Clinton did punch George Washington in the balls that one time”. What’s worse – the racial dynamic that has played out during this election cycle has inspired a range of emotions from empowered to heart broken. It’s annoying enough to have your political identity hijacked and defined by what demographic you belong to, but it is another thing entirely to go from attempting to defend Senator Sanders from leftist Black activists and Clinton supporters alike to finally understanding what this was all about after experiencing it myself.

After the democratic primary in New York I swiftly (and perhaps shortsightedly) took to social media to declare Sanders’ leftist anti-establishment insurgency officially over. And just as I did a little over a year ago I have once again shifted to make clear my allegiance to Secretary Clinton. Several acquaintances appropriately pointed out there was still much to achieve for the Sanders campaign and dropping out just then might be premature. This is probably correct. Yet the refusal to acknowledge just how unlikely it is that Sanders will be the nominee feels eerily reminiscent of the sort of lock step mentality that grips the most zealous far right tea partier. This sort of dogmatic hive mind mentality that has overtaken his most fervent fans is just as pervasive on the left as it is on the right if not worse. Aren’t we supposed to be the reasonable ones? Perhaps the most bothersome element of Sanders and his supporters is the cult of personality generated around his candidacy. The messianic nature that has been attributed to him by the die-hards is at best eye-roll worthy and at worst vomit inducing. Speaking ill of Senator Sanders on social media is nearly as dangerous as speaking ill of Beyonce. Don’t try either at home kids.

But, time heals all wounds. Or so they say. And though this race has had its ugly moments in actuality it has been a relatively mild one and more substantive than I’ve cared to give it credit for. At least as these things tend to go. I expect Secretary Clinton will continue steadfastly to the convention and be named the nominee despite threats from the Sanders camp. I’ve told myself she’s going to be OK. I want to believe she’s going to be OK.

Enter Donald Trump.

An Introduction

Sometimes I’m not even sure if I like my locs.

I’m extremely self-conscious of them. I often find myself peering into any reflective surface hoping no one will notice and lamenting as to their thickness or lack thereof. Their texture, thanks to my not-really-that-kinky-but-just-enough hair, seems too soft. I am constantly bothering with the band I use to tie them back and keep them out of my face. This is probably extremely noticeable I think to myself. But I can’t help it. Trivial as it may seem I can think of few things that cause me more latent stress.…with the exception of the rise of Donald Trump. But we’ll save that for a later post.

Sometimes I find that I am in love with my locs. I can think of few things that become more of an immediate physical identifier than one’s hair (sorry to my follicle challenged friends out there). They’ve become a major part of my identity even though it hasn’t even been three years since I’ve started them. I often find that my hair is the one of the first things anyone will notice about me. I often find that I appreciate that. Even though I also do my best to fully appreciate the now ten year old message of empowerment from the great India.Arie. Particularly female empowerment. Particularly black female empowerment. In a world where this is the reality there isn’t enough of that out here. Women of color are constantly battling what seems like a never ending assault rooted in either racism, misogyny, or both. I do my best to recognize my privilege.

Given these parameters one can imagine what it might feel like to have to consider cutting my hair in order to have a successful legal career. It’s an idea I find particularly discomforting as I plan to embark on what’s been described by some as the greatest experience of their lives and by others the worst.

The other idea I find perhaps more discomforting and much more intellectually challenging: that I may need to alter a much deeper element of my identity – my politics.

It probably isn’t necessary to immediately delve too deeply into all of the challenges associated with being a young black man with dreadlocs attempting to successfully complete a legal education, and then using that legal education to successfully challenge institutional elements of our society that often make it hard for young black men with dreadlocs among other things. There will be plenty of time for that. But you get the picture. Or at least I’ll consider it my job to make it so that eventually…you will.

It is necessary to explain that I hope to use this space to be able to adequately express my thoughts in a way that will invoke some damn good conversation. I think it’s also necessary to make it very clear that my identity and life experience absolutely influence my world view. So I felt I would use the moniker The Dreaded Liberal to pay homage to my heritage, my identity, and my culture. Who I am and what I’m about. Fully recognizing the etymology behind both terms and fully not giving af.

I also want to use this space to talk about other stuff besides race and politics. Culture, sports, music, television, film, among other things. You know. Fun internet stuff with my friends. Hopefully I can find a group of folks that are interested in contributing and we can have all sorts of columns on all sorts of things.

I have no idea how often I’ll be posting. I have no idea how long it will last. I have no idea if this will be any good. Most of the time starting a blog has come up, the conversation usually goes something like:

Them: You should write a blog.

Me: Yeah but you need to be a good writer to do that.

So. I guess we’ll see. Apparently in order to be a decent attorney having a rudimentary grasp of the English language is important.

Well now we can’t say I didn’t try.