Pushed Out Of The Tent?

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.

-- Frederick Douglass

This is my favorite quote from Frederick Douglass. It’s a divine truth; its wisdom is applicable to any epoch. Every person will have to deal with questions of justice, poverty, ignorance, and class. Douglass knew firsthand that Justice, in the form of basic freedom, ranked higher than issues connected to poverty, ignorance, or class. I struggle trying to find new ways to explain this to some of our allies on the left. The election of Donald Trump has caused some to question whether the Democratic party should continue to advocate for people who have “identities” that are problematic to electoral success. If the Democratic party is willing to eschew Justice for the sake of victory in 2018 and 2020 it will end up more fractured than it is now, and I promise, there will be no victories to show for the effort.

When I read Hal Ginsberg’s blog and the articles he cited to ground his political and theoretical musings I was amazed at how negotiable the lived experiences of some of the Democratic party’s most loyal supporters are to some in intelligentsia. After I read all three articles I was left with some questions. Why do so many progressives believe they have to choose between racial/social justice and economic justice? How would the Democratic party convince committed activists to move away from addressing issues of civil rights and social justice? Does this new party positioning mean the economic left and environmental left have to work harder to ignore issues involving race and gender? Why do progressives ignore the economic interests of people of color when they write about the economic hardships facing working class whites? When did progressives subscribe to the Ronald Reagan economic theory that a rising tide of working class white relief lifts all boats? For years, the left has mocked the Republican party as being the stupid party, but now we have academicians publicly admitting we probably can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

In one of the pieces Mr. Ginsberg cited Mark Lilla wrote, “In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.” As I think back to what’s been happening over the course of the last 3 or 4 years I wonder which issues the professor would have had us stand down on. Should we have ignored the Draconian laws states like Indiana and North Carolina implemented against members of the LGBTQ community? Should we have pulled back our support for women fighting for equal pay and against state legislation designed to rollback their reproductive rights? Should we remain perfectly still the next time we’re confronted with cell phone or dash cam footage of an unarmed Black man being murdered by the police? I wish I knew the difference between moral panic and righteous indignation. I’m unable to rank sovereign identity specific issues in a way that places them below the fight against trade deals. On a side note: who had a higher net worth Eric Garner or Walter Scott? It doesn’t matter: both were murdered for the world to see and none of the officers involved were held responsible.

Most of the articles I’ve read calling for the Democratic party to rebrand itself for 2018 have been written by people who don’t have to worry about voting precincts being closed in their communities. The authors of these strategies for the future don’t have to worry about the consequences of Planned Parenthood facilities being shuttered. I haven’t read any work produced by members of the LGBTQ community calling for the Democratic party to pull back from issues they support. Why are so many, with nothing to lose, arguing so hard for the Democratic party to abandon some of its most vulnerable constituents?

In the second piece cited by Hal, Alex Seitz-Wald writes:

To win back the white working class voters who populate both states, Democrats would likely need to de-prioritize policies that are either unimportant or alienating to these voters, like immigration reform, and so-called identity issues to refocus on a bread-and-butter economic message.

There’s a tone deafness at work in his writing that I assume he isn’t even aware of: de-prioritize policies that are either unimportant or alienating… so-called identity issues. If I didn’t read this article myself I would have thought those words came from a conservative think tank. He does go on a paragraph or so later to concede there’s no guarantee that this strategy would work, but the dismissive nature of his words have already caused damage. It’s hard to form unity with people who view issues related to the life and liberty of half of their allies as something that may need to be “de-prioriorized. If this is what the smart people are saying about us in public what are the not so smart people saying in private?

To be fair, Hal attempts to thread a complicated needle that the other writers chose to ignore, but he didn’t put much meat on the bone as to how we could successfully tie the existential needs of the identity specific crowd to the economic needs of working class whites. I feel very strongly we must avoid the false solutions provided by either or propositions. Near the end of his blog Hal writes:

To become the dominant national party again, Democrats must unite behind policies that serve the economic interests of poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans. This means fighting against every trade deal that pits fairly paid domestic workers against overseas laborers making 90% less. It also means fighting for, among other things, 1) higher taxes on the wealthy, 2) unions, 3) universal healthcare, 4) a tight safety net from birth to death, and 5) truly affordable higher education for all who are qualified. Indeed, this is so crucial for the party’s success, that it must adopt as a litmus test for its candidates a demonstrated commitment to redistribution of wealth and income down.

Hal makes a great populist argument. If the only goal of the Democratic party moving forward is to put a chicken in every pot- then this paragraph is worthy of being part of the platform in 2020, but if we do all of those things and it doesn’t stop the extrajudicial murder of Black people at the hands of police, if women have lost their reproductive rights and access to healthcare, if the LGBTQ community is still facing bigoted legislation, and brown, yellow, and red people are subjected to new indignities how does dominant national party status help society’s most vulnerable?

I see the telltale signs of the economic hardships working class whites have been enduring. Southwest Virginia has some real horror stories. Their suffering is real. We should fight against global polices that breed the poverty that causes resentment, but not at the expense of people who don't have a voice. We don't have to choose between these issues. If we are as smart as we profess to be we can figure out how to protect the voting rights of Black people in the south at the same time we help their white coworkers get raises or better jobs. I want to finish with a quote that may clean up what my inartful writing style might have messed up:

Finally, let us understand that when we stand together, we will always win. When men and women stand together for justice, we win. When black, white and Hispanic people stand together for justice, we win.

-- Bernie Sanders

 This is in no way an attempt to demean or belittle Hal Ginsberg. He has been a friend.  

Mountain (In)justice

A Class 1 misdemeanor in Virginia is the highest of the misdemeanor classifications. It's punishable by up to 12 months in jail, as opposed to prison, and is punishable with a fine of up to $2,500.

All of the links in this blog are redirects to videos, audio, and an independently published article supporting my claims. This is the true story of what happened to me.

On October 5th 2016, I was charged with a Class 1 Misdemeanor and served with an Order of Protection. The incident that lead to the criminal complaint occurred just before 9am outside of a Mitchelltown, Virginia convenience store. I was stopped in the parking lot by the plaintiff who, per his sworn statement to the Magistrate and the court, "followed me out of the store." The content of our conversation is still disputed, but no one disputed the fact that I was leaving the store when the plaintiff followed me and provoked our confrontation. The plaintiff's initial statement to the police, his statement to the court, the store surveillance video used at my November 16th trial, and eyewitness testimony confirmed this.  

I was accused of threatening to kill man (in public) and creating a public disturbance. In his statement to the Magistrate, the plaintiff said, “He then reached in his pocket; not sure what he had I turned and walked ‘by’ into the store.” What I reached for was my phone. I thought he was going to say I hit him, so I started recording. When I ended the recording I had 25 seconds of video. I left the store thinking everything was over only to be visited two hours later during my live radio show by a member of law enforcement who gave me a chance to tell my side of the story. At the completion of our talk I was assured nothing more would come of this situation. I look back and regret not letting the official know about my video. I didn't let anyone associated with law enforcement see the video I recorded. Approximately 13 hours after the incident I was told by a coworker at my 2nd job that I needed to stop by the Sheriff’s Office before I went home. Before I went inside the Sheriff’s office I used my phone and some recording equipment to wire myself. I left with a 19-min mp3 that further complicated an already frustrating situation. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, it's legal for citizens to record conversations with law enforcement. Once I got home, I made copies of the audio and video files I recorded and emailed them to a few people I trust. The misinformation I received from the deputy who processed my paperwork made me feel like I was being set up. I was so paranoid that I mistook his ignorance of the law with malice. The very next day (Thursday) I made a video detailing the events from the day before, and on Friday I retained legal counsel: a local attorney I trust and a Black woman from Richmond connected to several civil rights organizations.

On October 19th, two weeks after the incident, the protective order against me was dropped and replaced with a no contact order. I was given a strict warning not to be in the immediate proximity of the plaintiff ahead of my November 16th trial. In the two week period between the accusation and my first court appearance I was treated like I was already guilty by many people in my community. I had a cadre of very supportive people: young, old, rich, poor, black, and white, but they were indeed in the minority. There were people I worked with on various projects over the last few years who treated me like I was Hannibal Lector. My wife and I traveled every weekend just to get away from the constant questions about that morning. For 6 weeks, I lived under a presumption of guilt. I was (incorrectly) told by the deputy who served my warrant that I wouldn’t be able to attend county government meetings because of the protective order: thus limiting my ability to participate in some very important local issue. On several occasions before my preliminary hearing Bath County Sheriff's Deputies publicly and privately admitted they knew the plaintiff had been causing problems with other citizens, but felt powerless to act. When I asked what was being done to protect other citizens from this kind of abuse I was told, “We know what’s going on.” They truly believed their knowledge of the problem was a viable remedy to it.

In the weeks before my confrontation with the plaintiff I faced incredible harassment: I had horse manure delivered to my day job multiple times, I received a threatening phone call from an elected official the day before I was confronted, and I had another elected official threaten to cut funds to a non profit organization I'm affiliated with. For as bad as the harassment was in the weeks before the confrontation, things proceeded to get worse. Someone close to the plaintiff contacted two venues I was scheduled to give talks at and tried to get my speaking engagements cancelled. I had to suspend a business opportunity that was planned for November due to the loss of revenue that came from canceling speaking engagements and the legal expenses I incurred. Even though the case was dismissed, my family and church suffered immensely: my mother lost close to 20 pounds worrying about the outcome of my trial, my wife spent six weeks answering questions about my mental stability, and our church came under undue scrutiny for having ordained someone like me.

This story really got confusing after I was found not guilty. The Commonwealth’s Attorney for Bath County didn’t want to prosecute the case: he thought it was ridiculous. A special prosecutor from another county was tapped to prosecute me. I learned that the magistrate didn’t want to issue the misdemeanor warrant. The Sheriff met with me a number of times to assure me that neither he nor anyone in his department was out to get me, yet I had my life spun upside down by someone with too much free time on their hands, a grudge, and the support of elected officials. The overwhelming majority of people representing the legal system in our area didn’t want this issue to go further than it had, but I still found myself in court facing a criminal charge.

In the time since my charges were dropped I’ve asked myself two questions over and over: what if there wasn't a surveillance video of this incident? What if this happened to someone passing through town who didn't have access to a proper legal defense? During my trial I was questioned in a very vindictive and mean-spirited way. It was more than a ferocious prosecutor doing his job; It was personal and condescending. At one point during my cross examination the prosecutor wanted the judge to find me in contempt of court. I had all of the evidence on my side, over thirty people showed up to support me, the sheriff testified on my behalf, the manager at the convenience store testified she never felt the situation created a public disturbance, and I still had to fight like hell to prove my innocence. This is what justice looks like for too many people in our society. Even with all of the evidence supporting me, I had to be perfect to get the benefit of the doubt necessary for a flimsy case like this to be dismissed.

I've spent the majority of my adult life pointing out and fighting against systemic inequalities in society and our legal system. I use the platform I have to highlight the injustices I see. I’ve lost employment opportunities and speaking fees because of my public stances on issues related to the Black community. A lot of people are shielded from the subtle kinds of racism black people deal with on any given day, so they are often surprised when they hear claims of racism. Just because a Black person has caring and supportive white friends doesn't mean they can't be touched by racism. This is a reality Black people need to stay in touch with. When your skin color is enough to warrant suspicion there's no amount of intellect, wealth, or success that can protect you. If my situation occurred somewhere else I can't say with confidence that the outcome would have been the same. We live in a country where too often Black victims of crimes are talked about worse than their killers. My situation was steeped in ignorance, but race played a part in the way I was treated. I have audio and video of people doing worse than I was accused of (in front of law enforcement) and their actions were ignored. I was one of the lucky ones.
 
There's a sequel to this piece chronicling the disturbing behavior of our elected officials. 

Click the link below to read the full article from The Recorder

http://thoughtwrestler.blogspot.com/2016/12/cardwell-charge-dismissed.html

Hegemony, Shifiting Demographics, and "Populism"

"And before we knew it we were totally outnumbered at the family gatherings and consigned to a corner of the sectional, whispering and ducking among the flying hands, feeling rather small and blind, like moles or voles trembling in the shadows of the raptors."

When I first heard Paul Hostovsky's poem "Hegemony" I was so caught up with the in-group out-group role reversal narrative that I completely missed the poems lesson: communication. In the poem the protagonist has three deaf cousins who were largely ignored by the rest of their family, but through a series of marriages, births, divorces, and new marriages the biblical narrative of "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" was manifested. The deaf cousins found themselves the center of attention. The "small and blind" feeling the new minority of the hearing felt was based solely on their response to their new position within the family. The majority's willingness to ignore the minority left them on the outside looking in. Maybe we need to start communicating better and read more poetry? 

It's another week and I find myself in the familiar position of sitting in front of my computer with the option of writing about things that, for one reason or another, seem to only happen to people who look like me. Last week provided a wealth of material. I could write about the American legal system failing another black family: the Michael Slager mistrial. I could definitely write about Joe McKnight being murdered and the shooter (Ronald Gasser) being released only to be "strategically" arrested days later. How about that press conference Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand gave? I could drone on for days about his use of threatening messages and profanity as a vehicle to diminish the legitimate concerns people of color have about these types of investigations.

I am very distrustful of anyone who downplays or attempts to diminish the lived experiences people of color talk and/or write about. We inherited an America that wrote a Declaration of Independence and a Preamble to the Constitution that willfully excluded Africans. From a historical perspective, we are far enough from the most egregious forms of racism that even the conservatives admit slavery, Black Codes, and Jim Crow were wrong, yet too many of these same people (and even some liberals) refuse to address the racial inequities of today. It's like being a passenger in a car with a driver who admits to swerving erratically twenty miles ago, but refuses to acknowledge the two left tires in the center rumble strip now. The past is a great whipping boy for anyone trying to deny structural racism today; The past allows nostalgic Americans to ditch their responsibilities to the next generation by pointing out how bad past generations were. We're constantly reminded: "No one alive owned slaves." "You people are represented in every field." "This isn't the 1950's." Statements like these do two specific things; they offer absolution to those making them, and create resentment inside the people hearing them. People of color haven't been spared from economic hardships, so why are we only talking about working class whites?

America was created for white people. I don't know how this easily locatable fact has been turned into a controversial statement. If one were to honestly connect the dots between the actions America has taken in the name of the flag or the idea of American "exceptionalism" you'd come to this conclusion. What it means to be white has changed since the 19th Century, but the goal of controlling contested resources is the same. Black freedom movements combined with the increased migration of Hispanics and other people of color changed the rules that governed who was considered white. Germans, Italians, and Polish people gained full acceptance into the American family. The Irish faced terrible discrimination when they got here, Italians were called every racially insensitive name in the book, and Polish people are the butt of some of the worst jokes ever told, but none of these people were systematically excluded for the first 60 plus years of the 20th Century. The collective economic pain many white Americans are feeling is rooted in economic decisions younger than me. There's always been pockets of poverty, but economic despair combined with the potential end to white hegemony have created a fear that passes for "anger".  

White inclusion has historically been strong enough to unite people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, but like the dollar: inflation has limited its purchasing power. The last decade has been marked by populist movements on both sides of the political spectrum. Donald Trump's underlying message of restoring whiteness was the electoral glue Bernie Sanders' economic message lacked. Scholars and political pundits on the left and right have worked incredibly hard to explain the overt racism we've seen as if it's a by product of the economic anxiety and not a constitutive part of it. We're told to focus more on what automation and globalization have done to working class whites than the racists and racist organizations they've embraced. America is changing fast. Extreme wealth is the only insulation from "New America", ane there's a shortage of cash. Whiteness isn't a blessing or a curse. I'm not trying to create anger, guilt, or sympathy. I'm suggesting we be as honest about this moment in history as we are about the past. 

Pathways to the middle class have narrowed, but economics alone doesn't explain why the old Tea Party/Trump coalition hates the old Occupy Wall Street/Fight For Fifteen crowd. If it were just about money the party fighting for higher wages would have won the election. I'm not willing to waste time circling the square about Bernie being screwed by the DNC. I won't engage hypothetical situations in which Trump isn't the president-elect. Donald Trump represents the hopes and wishes of millions of people who advocate for a return to authoritarian white hegemony. I can't afford to waste my time psychoanalyzing these people or parsing their words. Since the Rodney King beating I've watched dozens of courts across this country reaffirm the fact that I don't have the same rights as my white peers. The fairy tale is that all of these issues are separate from each other. People work harder to deny the existence of  causal links than to accept them and attempt to correct them. I don't care if someone has a personal prejudice: we all have them; I care that their prejudices are allowed to influence the daily experiences of others. As America undergoes more racial and cultural shifts we will see more whites only populist movements. We will be told these movements are based on creating opportunities, but if you listen closely you can hear the desire to reshape America into the country she always was. The family in the poem is a great metaphor for the new minority's fear.

What Does It take To Have A Revolution?

Revolutions aren't won by people who give up. I’ll go out on a limb and say that in the recorded history of the world quitters have never led a meaningful revolution. The Bernie Sanders' political revolution will crumble because too many of his supporters are in it for the inspirational speeches and the sense of purpose that comes with being associated with a popular movement. If Bernie's followers were serious about their “political revolution” they would start at the local level where it’s easier to influence the allocation of tax dollars and election results. I have a friend who covers local politics in Blacksburg, Christiansburg, and Roanoke. One would think that city council meetings would be “Bern-ing” with all the support Bernie Sanders has on the campuses of Virginia Tech, Roanoke College, and Radford University, but you’d be dead wrong. One tragic irony and fatal flaw of this movement is that it can lure 20,000 people to a park in any city USA to play hacky sack, beat a drum, and sing crappy folk songs, but it can’t get a few dozen people in municipal buildings to participate in actual governance.

It gets harder everyday to ignore the incessant whining on social media by the #BernieOrBust movement. I read the comments sections of the blogs and political websites I have bookmarked; it’s obvious that many of Sanders’ supporters understand the social, environmental, and economic realities we face, but most don't have a clue what to do about them. This fact sits at the center of the secular savior complex some of his most ardent supporters have developed; Instead of going out and doing the hard work necessary to shape their communities, many believe electing Bernie will free them from their social responsibilities. Most of the people engaging in this revolution are doing so from the comfort of their laptops, tablets, or smart phones. Social media has trapped them into a false sense of activism. Getting a clever hashtag to go viral doesn't matter if you can't get your local representatives to put it on a docket to be debated publicly.

In my travels throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia it’s become painfully obvious that Fox news and conservative talk radio are beating the hashtag activists when it comes to pushing their political agenda. The language I hear parroted during public discussions is full of the tired tropes and stale talking points I’ve heard for the last twenty years. There’s a reactionary segment inside the baby boom generation that wields much more power than their children and grandchildren. They have this power because they’re  actively engaged in the political process; while their kids are busy trying to pay for the healthcare and education their grandkids are upset about, they watch multiple hours of Fox news and go to school board meetings, city council public hearings, planning commission workshops, and budget sessions and shape policy in the image of Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity.  

Whether Bernie is the most progressive candidate or my favorite, “the last best hope for America” is completely irrelevant if he can’t get his followers to do more than tweet and phone bank. If you want to be a revolutionary- while maintaining a comfortable distance from the work and danger that comes with being a revolutionary- then this is your movement. If all you’re interested in is a cool story to tell 20 years from now jump on board. This revolution is being fought by an army of entitled adults and children; too many Busters have never experienced the nastiness that comes with being on the underside of society. Some inside this movement never developed the thick skin necessary to be a good fighter. Their inability to process defeat and handle disappointment has stunted their emotional growth. Movements are hard. The word revolution is used in such a cavalier manner that it’s lost much of it’s meaning. Three 18th century revolutions (American, French, and Haitian) altered the course of history in the western hemisphere. What made them truly revolutionary actions was the way they completely unhinged the status quo. The American colonies successfully overthrew a despotic monarchy to create their own government. French citizens ended de facto feudalism and absolute monarchy, and the Haitians overcame colonization and slavery. Those revolutions were fought for by men and women who didn’t know what a safe space was. Their feeling weren’t spared from the harsh realities of life. If the political revolution Bernie Sanders is calling for is to ever materialize he’s going to need better soldiers. In many respects, social media is worst thing to happen to this crop of militants. Yes, technology has made spreading a message easier, but it's also created a generation of keyboard activists who equate shares and retweets with real world activism. While Millennials get their causes to trend on twitter their grandparents are busy helping make policy decisions at the local and state level.

“To educate the masses politically does not mean, cannot mean, making a political speech. What it means is to try, relentlessly and passionately, to teach the masses that everything depends on them; that if we stagnate it is their responsibility, and that if we go forward it is due to them too, that there is no such thing as a demiurge, that there is no famous man who will take the responsibility for everything, but that the demiurge is the people themselves and the magic hands are finally only the hands of the people.”

― Frantz Fanon

Do You Know What It Means To Have A Revolution?

Progressivism And Its Discontents

“The time comes when each of us has to give up as illusions the expectations which, in his youth, he pinned upon his fellow-men, and when he may learn how much difficulty and pain has been added to his life by their ill-will.”
― Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

The ideological rifts inside the Democratic Party are widening. Some of this animosity can be attributed to the fact that progressives are required to fight multiple battles simultaneously. One unintended consequence of fighting so many battles at once is our sometimes collective inability to appreciate how important each battle is to the overall movement. We (at times) ignore or diminish causes others are passionate about because their fights might not impact our daily lives. This creates artificial hierarchies between allies, breeds animosity, and leads to distrust. Progressives with racial, ethnic, and LGBTQA specific interests tend to focus more on fighting battles in the culture wars specific to their identity. This doesn't mean fighting "big" oil, "big" coal, "big" agrochemical, and slew of "big" corporate polluters isn't important, but daily existential threats take priority over fights that could take a generation to yield tangible negative results. This doesn't mean people of color get a pass on environmental duties. Racial minorities are disproportionately affected by carbon based polluters. Flint, Michigan is the big story, but there are almost a dozen schools in Newark, New Jersey facing a similar water crisis. These fights take place while all of us share the burden of fighting for higher wages, single payer healthcare, and to break corporate America's grip on the Federal Government. No matter how hot our progressive fires burn none of us are capable of efficiently fighting on every front. Every issue we fight for is important, yet we lose sight of this. Progressivism has to include everyone for it to be more than an empty political trope.

I struggle to get some of my progressive friends to understand that sometimes defending the gains we've made can be more important than trying to advance the next cause. It's hard to accept the fact that our role in the movement might be to provide a steady foundation for others to build on. The Black progressive experience in America is rooted in the understanding that: I may not get there with you, but I'll give my life to better yours. Who really believes Black and White Abolitionist like William Lloyd Garrison, Fredrick Douglas, John Brown, or Harriet Tubman wouldn't have chosen an easier way if there was one? Progress is hard! Trying to overcome overt biases is hard; it's even harder to overcome the underlying, often unconscious ideological biases at the core of many bad social and economic policy decisions.

I've been ruthless in my critique of many of the younger progressives I've met in the last few years- sometimes too hard. In the 90's I believed we were going to be the generation that ended police brutality, got companies and universities to divest from South Africa, and end the Israeli occupation in Palestine. I, like many of my friends, hit the ground running. We were full of energy, ambition, and "expertise". I talked way more than I listened, I was condescending towards some of the people who helped force integration in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, and I thought "REVOLUTIONS" were sprints instead of marathons. Terry Prachett has a quote I love, "Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes." I don't hold the cynical view that nothing changes, but I have to admit that some things have remained the same. On March 3, 1991 Rodney King was beaten within an inch of his life following a high speed chase. 25 years later Black men are still dying in the streets at the hands of law enforcement. We use hashtags to commemorate today's victims of police brutality, but we haven't eradicated the problem. 

The Rodney King beating, the acquittal of the officers, and the subsequent riots woke me up. All of us have an issue or event that changed our lives, if you don't have one- then maybe you're not the revolutionary you thought you were. It's hard moving from one defeat to another along the slow path towards progress. This can kill you! The stress associated with trying to force a country to adhere to its promises has put many good men and women in early graves. This is more than a cool bumper sticker on a hybrid, or a secular savior complex one might have with a leader they identify with. Harriet Tubman said the only regret she had was that she didn't die in Harper's Ferry, West Virginia with John Brown. She looked back on her life and wished she had participated in a raid that lead to the death of everyone involved. When Medgar Evers was murdered Martin and Malcolm kept fighting. When John Kennedy was killed Robert kept serving. Progressivism isn't a one time event where you show up get the tee shirt and reflect on the good time you had. If you choose this life you'll learn to accept defeat or be defeated by it. If you have access to someone you trust over 60 ask them how it felt when the Kennedy's were assassinated, ask them how they felt when they heard Dr. King was murdered. It seems like progressives get weaker the closer we get to realizing our goals. 50 years ago progressives found ways to compartmentalize the deaths of their peers and colleagues to fight on; today, we threaten to boycott elections if our candidate doesn't win. We lack a toughness that we may never get back.

In the last five years Arizona implemented a photo I.D. law that legalized racial profiling before it got struck down by the Supreme Court; Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act  was declared unconstitutional; and Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia all crafted legislation with the intent to disenfranchise Gays and Lesbians. These are the issues that don't affect progressives who were born with an "advantageous societal predisposition". If you choose to sit out of an election that could further erode the gains fought for before many of your parents were born then you were never an ally. Peel your Bernie bumper sticker off your Ron Paul one and trade them both in for a Make America Great hat. If you can't see that either Democrat is far better on social issues than any of the Republicans you're either apathetic too the plight of the rest of us in the big tent or you haven't matured enough to know what it means to be a revolutionary, either way I'd rather be in a foxhole with someone I can trust.

Bernie Can't Win Virginia: Neither Can Hillary

This election cycle has provided more than its share of political theater; however, after Iowa and New Hampshire there are still some questions we aren't any closer to answering. Can the GOP establishment sabotage Donald Trump without alienating the right-wing of their party? Can Bernie Sanders win electoral support in minority communities? When will Jeb Bush admit defeat and suspend his campaign? Can Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination after three decades of personal and political attacks from conservatives and liberals? But for me, the biggest question is: can Bernie or Hillary keep the Commonwealth of Virginia blue?

In 2008 President Obama won Virginia with 53% of the vote; It was the first time Virginia went blue since President Lyndon Johnson won here in 1964. In 2012 the president defeated Mitt Romney winning just 51% of the vote; Mitt Romney received almost 100,000 more votes than John McCain did four years earlier. In 2008 third party and write-in candidates received 38,000 votes a figure that amounted to roughly 1% of the total vote; by 2012 those fractional factions received 60,000 votes. There's a very real possibility that Democratic turn out will be down this November. If a strong democratic leaning independent or Green Party candidate were to make a serious run, third party and write-in totals could exceed 100,000 votes. Either of these factors alone could hurt the Democrats, but if both happened it would be game over. With that said, is Virginia (with all of our coal mines) the canary in the Democratic coal mine?

I live in a very rural, conservative part of Virginia. President Obama got trounced by large margins in many of the sparsely populated areas similar to where I live. President Obama's victory was a result of dominating high density urban areas like Richmond, Petersburg, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, and Norfolk. I've lived in Richmond and Norfolk. I travel to northern Virginia a few times a year; I would be shocked if northern Virginia and my former neighbors in Richmond and Norfolk came out and supported Bernie or Hillary with the level of enthusiasm they had for president Obama. The 20% African American population of Virginia will decide who gets our 13 electoral votes- whether we want this responsibility or not.

In the last week Hillary and Bernie received strong criticism from powerful figures inside the African American community: Michelle Alexander and Charles Blow. Their critiques were met with opposition inside the campaigns, and vitriol by some of their supporters, but in reality, the two articles were a microcosm of the kinds of (barber shop/ beauty salon) conversations that don't get media attention. Michelle Alexander wrote a thought provoking article that was published in The Root questioning whether or not Hillary Clinton deserves the black vote. Without being nasty she asked a few serious questions about the Clintons: Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization and the disappearance of work?

Michelle's questions carry weight with people who read and respect her work. Hillary's supporters have to understand that this line of questioning is fair. Hillary's staunchest supporters are similar to President Obama's staunchest supporters in that both groups have a knee-jerk reaction to defend criticism without engaging it. If Hillary is going to excite younger black voters she has to, in an authentic way, engage these types of questions forcefully. Like it or not, the three decades of attacks on her character have caused some people to view her as calculating and manipulative.

Charles Blow published a New York Times Op Ed piece titled Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters in it he writes: Tucked among all this Bernie-splaining by some supporters, it appears to me, is a not-so-subtle, not-so-innocuous savior syndrome and paternalistic patronage that I find so grossly offensive that it boggles the mind that such language should emanate from the mouths — or keyboards — of supposed progressives.

In my opinion, this sentiment is what John Lewis was channeling when he made his statement about never seeing Bernie Sanders in the midst of the civil rights movement- a statement he's since softened. While some of our progressive allies are hoping for a utopian shift in our economic and political system, the black experience is rooted in the reality that change, even small shifts, is the result of fighting for a cause over a protracted period of time. More pre-Civil War abolitionist died trying to get emancipation than ever saw it come to fruition. This doesn't mean progressives should avoid trying large scale projects, but it does mean we have to come to grips with the reality that our role in progress may be to build a solid enough foundation for the next generation to finish the work. In some ways Bernie's rhetoric diminishes the steps President Obama has made. None of the gains made by the left have been the result of immediate actions.

I don’t think either candidate can win Virginia. I hope I’m wrong. If Hillary wants black voters in the 18-35 demographic to vote for her she’s going to have to do more than “whip and Nae Nae” If Bernie wants that demographic to come out for him he’s going to have to measure his tone as it relates to his criticism of president Obama. This slice of the electorate has watched the first black president be viciously disrespected by his political opponents for the last seven years. I don’t think it behooves Bernie to engage in this new progressive pastime of being let down by President Obama. That doesn’t mean he should avoid legitimate criticisms of the president and his policies, but he can’t continue to negate his accomplishments either. Virginia and North Carolina are very similar in some respects. President Obama narrowly won in Virginia in 2012; that same year he lost North Carolina by 2 points. The electoral map could change faster than our suburban and metropolitan progressive allies can order their next Grande Skim Milk No Foam Latte.

This Election Is About More Than Fear

One minute you were sitting quietly in a cafe eating a croissant and enjoying the Kenny G inspired serenity when, out of nowhere, the corner of heaven you found was violated by the repeated firing of a semiautomatic rifle. The silence wasn't the only thing disturbed by the gunshots; bullets ripped through your flesh tearing your vital organs as they passed through your body. You were weeping, gasping for air, and looking for answers when your executioner yelled  ALLAH AKBAR! Milliseconds before being hit by a blast of energy you saw the brightest light you'd ever seen; you wondered if this is the bright light people who've had near death experiences talked about. This was supposed to be an ordinary day. You left the house with a list of goals to accomplish and none of them included dying in a terrorist attack. 

The odds that anyone reading this will meet their demise under such circumstances are astronomically minuscule, yet we have people in our country who've been conditioned by politicians and the media to be more afraid of this kind of subjective violence than the objective and systemic violence that are constitutive parts of our everyday life. The reality is: more Americans will die from the side effects of industrial pollution than terrorism; far more Americans will be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nationality than die in a hail of bullets; more of us will suffer a prolonged illness that ravages our bodies and assets than face beheading in an American city. We know this, but many of our fellow citizens could care less. As a nation we have more people afraid of abstract statistical anomalies than the concrete realities of our time. This fear is pervasive in the "home of the brave". 

The Conservative call to take back their country is rooted in this fear. I've watched people hem and haw their way through some basic questions associated with the notion of taking the country back. Who are you taking it back from? When did you lose it? How far back are you trying to go? Hiding among the throngs of alpha males who attend militia meetings, gun shows, and Trump rallies are beta males who aren't sure of their place in a rapidly changing America. Most of us know some of these angry Americans; some were Democrats until 2008, some were Libertarians, and others waved Gadsden flags at Tea Party events. Many of them have embraced Donald Trump's mantra of making America great again. They say they're mad, but rarely do they admit their fear. If you push them hard enough they'll say they're afraid of the direction the country is headed, but even that admission comes with a qualifier: they say they're afraid for their children. I don't dismiss the rational fears a parent has for their children, but I question that fear when structurally nothing in our society has changed enough to lessen or intensify it. I can't think of one thing a parent would be afraid of today that they wouldn't have been afraid of ten or fifteen years ago. If someone can help me with this I'll listen, but the threats of terrorism and random acts of violence have been part of our lives since 911. The fear of radical Muslims, Black thugs, and illegal Immigrants has caused too many to lose sight of the systemic economic violence that is at the core of their hardships.

This election (like so many in the past) will be decided by fear, and, depending on what you're afraid of, there's a candidate for you. If you're afraid of subjective violence then vote for one of the hawks in the GOP. Electing Donald Trump or Ted Cruz won't decrease your odds of  being the victim of gang violence or terrorism, but you'll be able to sleep better - even if your chances of dying at the hands of Ahmed, Tyrone, or Juan are statistically the same as they are now. If Ted Cruz's promise to, "find out if sand glows" excites you then cast your vote for him. The fear that's become part of the political rhetoric on the right has allowed people to casually call for genocide. If the Republican strategy is, to in the words of Donald Trump, "bomb the hell out of them" they have two choices; they can take half measures that decimate cities and almost guarantees the rise of a new generation of fighters, or they can do what they say and commit mass genocide throughout the middle east killing everyone in their path. Those are their choices. There's no path to the security they're selling that doesn't involve the mass murder of concrete people or the betrayal of our stated principles, yet this is what passes for a viable foreign policy platform. As progressives we have to make them admit their plans in specific terms. We need to ask them who digs the mass graves for their victims? Will our soldiers have this duty, or will one of the private sector defense contractors get the job? We have to match their rhetoric with questions that have equally brutal answers.
  
I'm afraid of the threats I face from systemic violence. Too many Americans will lose their homes due to economic factors outside of their control, more people will be pushed into bankruptcy because of medical bills, and too many people will lose their job based on market analysis and shareholder's demands. These are the terrors underlying so much of the fear I see, yet they don't inspire people the way a 1 in 20 million chance of dying at the hands of a terrorist does. This divide is what separates us. I don't know if it can be bridged.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are talking about these issues, but I'm worried about the growing tensions among progressives and centrist Democrats. In hindsight I think it would have been better for the party if Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, or Martin O'Malley had been a more formidable candidate. Having more of the Democratic support split between a larger group early on could've made it less contentious between Bernie and Hillary supporters now. Iowa didn't get us any closer to a nominee. It intensified the growing distrust inside our party. Yes we need robust debate, but we also need to keep in mind that either candidate would be leaps and bounds better than what the Republican party is offering. We should avidly support our candidate, we should vent when our candidate isn't treated fairly, and we should engage in vigorous debates about the issues, but it  become socially acceptable for the left to savage itself. In reality: the far left is responsible for holing on to many of the gains progressives have made over the years, and centrist Democrats at every level of government have won races progressives couldn't have. We've needed each other. Centrist Democrats are the only electable Democrats in many areas of Virginia. If we want to take back the House in 2016 we need to drop our ideological purity test come election time. The systemic violence I'm worried about needs votes to be counteracted; let's not forget why we're here.