Connect with us

An Election Day Plea

Published

on

It’s the day of the election. You’re probably tired of reading yet another post about why it’s so important that every one of us eligible voters vote in this election. Several excellent bloggers have already told you why on this site, and I risk repeating some of their points.

But on the off chance that you think it doesn’t matter, or that it’s in the bag (don’t you dare!), or that one more vote will never make a difference, or whatever reason you’ve come up with to write it off, please take one more minute to reflect, and rethink.

If you care about women, either because you are one, came out of one, or love one, consider the loss of autonomy—literally, the loss of rights. Because reproductive rights are fundamental rights. Maybe you’re not in the childbearing demographic, maybe you’re queer and rarely or never need birth control, maybe you’re set for life and feel it doesn’t concern you. Think about other people, and stick up for them. Especially if you’re queer because damn it, other people have stuck up for you, including a helluva lot of women. It’s time to pay up. Some of us know well the term “fragile and reversible”. That’s what hard-fought rights are, and that is what’s on the line today.

If you still don’t get just how badly reproductive rights have been under attack, just look at one basic statistic, the image above.

 

Election after election, we wonder how it can get any worse, and then it does. No matter what you thought of 2000 or 2004 or 2008, this is not politics as usual. You’ve seen the gif going around about remembering to set your clocks back Sunday, but on Tuesday “be careful that you don’t set the country back 50 years”? Don’t laugh. The movement in the Republican Party that believes people have their places is strong; and for women, that place is to serve the natural superiority of men. We like to think we’re way past that. We’re not. There is no other reason for so many GOP politicians to claim so earnestly that they they’ve struggled with it, but when the sperm meets the egg, the resulting multiplications immediately take precedence over the body housing that communion. Regardless of how they got there. Bodily autonomy simply doesn’t matter, no matter what those politicians say.

Don’t look for lies, because these people believe what they’re saying. For the most part, they do not believe they’re disrespecting women’s autonomy. They believe they’re respecting women’s dependence. The double standard (“but what if it was you?”) is unfathomable, and therefore inconsequential. It’s un-American to deprive citizens of their individual autonomy, but they don’t see it that way because, well, liberalism offers them that pesky public/private sphere loophole. We have yet to accept fully that what happens in the home is political, too. So we keep fighting these battles that waste our energy and resources, but to give up is to lose basic rights, or to lose the ground we’ve fought so hard to gain. I imagine this is an unthinkable prospect to anyone who cares about women’s rights and LGBT rights.

The autonomy they want to deprive women of bleeds through to gay rights, make no mistake. The conservatives gunning for power want to be able to tell people how to live their lives, including what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Trying to deprive women of the right to abort, or of the right to the contraception of her choice is directly related to queer rights that allow sexually similar bodies to commingle. They’re the same people who want to repeal gay rights, bring back Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, and cut funding for HIV programs. Justice Scalia doesn’t believe the Constitution covers abortion or private sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex (to be clear, that liberalism loophole is all about heteronormativity). They’re not too crazy about the Civil Rights Act, either. Want to deprive African Americans of the right to sit at the counter of your diner? Rand Paul thinks maybe, yeah, since you know, it’s your diner. They want to legislate morality, and the morality they want to legislate just so happens to be theirs. Yes, laws are linked to morality, but they are not one and the same. And laws are supposed to protect those who are not like the majority.

So who needs protecting: the business owner, or the African American coming for a cup of coffee? Maybe we’re not in immediate danger of the Rand Pauls rolling back civil rights to that degree, though I sure don’t want to find out. But the woman who absolutely will not, no matter the obstacles and risks, carry to term the fetus that she never intended on having? The man whose partner died and whose family is challenging the custody of his children? The woman who cannot be at the hospital bedside of her partner because she’s not “family”? These events continue to happen today, and if the GOP gets in the White House, you can look forward to more of it. SCOTUS is on the table. Romney has made it clear, in words and actions, how he feels about gay parents. They’re not legit. And he’s made it clear that despite his own wife’s illnesses, he doesn’t think gay people should have the same rights his marriage afforded him. The man has no empathy because he doesn’t think gay people are covered under the “all men are created equal” concept the country was founded on. I don’t care what he has said in the past. He’s made his position on these particular subjects clear enough in this campaign.

This is where, though I’m not normally into shaming, I have to say that both Log Cabin Republicans and GOPRoud need therapy for the degree of self-loathing they’re exhibiting. If they’re so into protecting their pocketbooks, they’d be smarter about which candidate provides the best chance for a recovering economy. But even if they honestly believe the Romney/Ryan economic plan, such as it is, would benefit everyone, it doesn’t matter when you’re rights are taken away from you or your loved ones. We’ve been aware of this at least since Vito Russo chastised gay Republicans decades ago. If you’re still in doubt, read this excellent post by Kergan Edwards-Stout on why he got to the point of defriending those voting against his rights.

You want the truth? Don’t look to Romney, because his track record of lies is never-ending. Don’t look to the GOP, because they can’t handle the truth. They are still pushing the tired, debunked trickle-down theory that Reaganites used to justify tax breaks, and when non-partisan research comes out proving that they only help line the pockets of the already-rich, they suppress it. It’s a travesty and we should be outraged. But then again, so is their flouting of conflicts of interest when it comes to who owns voting machines in swing states. It won’t be the first time they’ve boasted that they will “deliver” the state to their candidate through such means. Why are we standing for this? Why are we standing for a candidate who lies about sending jobs overseas and who, in the midst of those lies, benefits so hugely from corporate welfare and from the same bailout he criticizes? If you’re still unconvinced, perhaps Reagan budget director David Stockman’s assessment of Romney’s job eliminations will help.

Let’s face it, both parties can play dirty. It’s politics, after all. Best not to ask how laws and sausages are made. I lived in Chicago for several years, and I’ve seen polling locations switched on Election Day when the incumbent suspected he’d lose, among other voter suppression maneuvers. It’s not a myth that when a ward didn’t deliver an election, some streets didn’t get potholes fixed or snow plowed. Those were just the realities of living in a machine-run city, and they’re not even particularly egregious examples of shady Chicago politics.

But what we’ve seen in the last four years is not politics as usual. For me, the most obvious evidence is the abuse of the filibuster. Complain all you want that Harry Reid is ineffective. The fact is, the Senate Republicans have engaged in a conspiracy to grind its business to a halt. Legislation that should require passage by a simple majority now requires a super majority—every single one, or it will be filibustered. They have effectively held the Senate hostage in opposition to how the founders had intended the houses of Congress to work, and that is quite clear. It is unprecedented in the history of the United States, and it is the overriding reason that the art of bipartisan politicking has gone out the window. It is not because of the Democrats. It is because of the Republicans, and it’s your country and your rights that are stake. They are not interested in protecting the rights of the minority. They have ostracized the moderates in their own party, to the point that group think is a requirement. Their behavior implies that they’re not big believers in democracy.

The second most obvious way politics has overtly changed for the worst is the acceleration of voter suppression strategies in swing states, from voter roll “purges” and lying (or not) about requiring voter IDs (which hits Democrats particularly hard) to shortening voting days and hours. If you’re curious about these developments, tune into The Rachel Maddow Show. She’s been covering this story for months. It is so blatantly undemocratic that it’s hard to believe these people consider themselves proud Americans. (I know. It’s not, really, but it should be.)

Obama is by no means perfect, but considering the brick wall he has been up against, he has been remarkably effective. I do not agree with all of his policies, and have to laugh at those who insist he’s a Socialist. But I didn’t expect miracles, because it quickly became clear what he was up against in the last presidential election. He has shown real spine in the face of a party full of racists who are not content until his every move is thwarted, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for that. The GOP is wholly uninterested in cooperation, and has stated as such. One cannot judge the effectiveness of the administration without taking into account the GOP’s radical use of the filibuster. I believe that if Obama manages to win re-election (despite voter suppression), and if we can fix the broken filibuster, he might accomplish great things for the American people in the next four years. For me, it’s that, or it’s turning the clock back to the 1950s. If that prospect doesn’t scare the hell out of you, you’re not paying attention. The choice has never been clearer.

So if you’re reading this on November 6th and haven’t voted yet, what are you waiting for?

Joanne Kalogeras grew up outside of Chicago. She studied political philosophy at the University of Chicago before engaging in various and sundry other occupations, including a long stint in software development. San Francisco is her home, but she is currently residing in London where she is finishing her doctoral thesis on cosmopolitan theory at the London School of Economics’ Gender Institute.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Fear Small Crowds?’: Trump and Team Mocked as ‘Snowflakes’ for Inauguration Move

Published

2 days ago

on

January 17, 2025

By

When Donald Trump raises his right hand on Monday to swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution as America’s 47th President, he will do so not as most Presidents have done, outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., but inside. Amid forecasted temperatures in the mid-20s, Trump has decided to move the proceedings inside, a decision that was quickly met with mockery and prompted speculation about crowd size concerns.

Washington, D.C. suffers from — or boasts, depending on personal preference — a wide range of temperatures. In January, temperatures in recent years have ranged from a balmy 80 degrees (2024) to a frigid 5 degrees (2015). And while temperatures in the mid-40s are average for January, 24 degrees, the forecast for Inauguration Day, is not especially unusual.

“Due to the dangerously cold temperatures expected Monday, President-elect Trump’s inauguration is moving indoors. Expect Trump and Vance to be sworn in inside the Capitol Rotunda,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported Friday. A short time later she added: “Trump confirms it’s moving inside, citing the danger posed to attendees by the cold. He says guests will be brought inside the Capitol.”

READ MORE: Biden Sparks Legal Battle by Declaring Equal Rights Amendment Is Now ‘Law of the Land’

Trump posted a dramatic explanation: “January 20th cannot come fast enough! Everybody, even those that initially opposed a Victory by President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Administration, just want it to happen,” he claimed.

“It is my obligation to protect the People of our Country but, before we even begin, we have to think of the Inauguration itself. The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows,” Trump also claimed.

“There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!),” he wrote.

“Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also because of very cold weather. The various Dignitaries and Guests will be brought into the Capitol. This will be a very beautiful experience for all, and especially for the large TV audience!”

The temperature during Reagan’s second inauguration was 7 degrees, with a windchill making it feel like -40, Fox News reports.

The decision surprised many.

“It was 28°F when Barack Obama was sworn in at noon on January 20, 2009 before a crowd of nearly two million people,” observed Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff to U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). “NOT INCLUDING THE INSANE WIND CHILL!!”

Susan Rice, a former top advisor to both Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, mocked Trump and team: “SNOWFLAKES,” she snarked, using the common derisive term occasionally leveled at Democrats by the right.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens FBI Office, Alleges ‘Corruption,’ Demands They ‘Preserve All Records’

Some critics suggested the issue was not weather but attendance — just like when Trump was inaugurated before a small crowd in 2017, only to make his first White House Press Secretary’s job to denounce those claims and declare, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period,” he emphatically and infamously insisted — reportedly at Trump’s direction.

“Moving the inauguration inside due to freezing temps takes crowd size ‘off the table’ as Trump’s second term begins,” CNN’s Brian Stelter, citing his colleague Dana Bash, noted.

Sam Stein of The Bulwark suggested that President-elect Trump has been trying to get more people to show up: “Trump has been running twitter ads to get folks to come to the inauguration. If they’re now moving it indoors, you have to imagine folks who booked travel will be left distraught.”

David Axelrod, senior advisor and chief campaign strategist to President Barack Obama, also mocked Trump.

“In ’61, John F. Kennedy was Inaugurated on the Capitol steps, in windchills of 7 degrees. It was almost as cold for Obama in ’09. In fairness, Trump IS more than 3 decades older than JFK & Obama were. Or did he just fear small crowds?”

Former Obama Deputy White House Press Secretary Bill Burton, offering a history lesson, suggested there aren’t a large number of people interested in attending Trump’s second inauguration. He wrote “Tell me you have a crowd size problem without telling me you have a crowd size problem. It was colder for Obama’s and JFK’s inaugurations and JFK didn’t even wear a coat.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘My Eyes and Ears’: Trump Names Ambassadors to Hollywood, Critics Question Motives

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Biden Sparks Legal Battle by Declaring Equal Rights Amendment Is Now ‘Law of the Land’

Published

2 days ago

on

January 17, 2025

By

President Joe Biden, just days before he will exit the White House, announced on Friday that the Equal Rights Amendment, which would enshrine in the U.S. Constitution equal rights for women, is now the 28th Amendment and “the law of the land.” Although he has some legal scholars backing this declaration, experts say there are still legal hurdles and a legal battle to overcome.

“Today I’m affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” President Biden wrote. “I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years and have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex. We must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all.”

“On January 27, 2020,” President Biden explained in his statement on the White House website, “the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens FBI Office, Alleges ‘Corruption,’ Demands They ‘Preserve All Records’

“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”

CNN calls Biden’s announcement “a last-minute move that some believe could pave the way to bolstering reproductive rights.”

“It will, however, certainly draw swift legal challenges – and its next steps remain extremely unclear as Biden prepares to leave office.”

The news network also credits U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) with “making a major push for certification, saying in a memo to interested parties that it would give Biden a way to ‘codify women’s freedom and equality without needing anything from a bitterly divided and broken Congress’ in the aftermath of the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.”

In 2020, after Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, the necessary requirement of three-fourths ratification may have been met.

As The Brennan Center for Justice noted just days later, “there are still hurdles in the ERA’s path. The ratification deadlines that Congress set after it approved the amendment have lapsed, and five states have acted to rescind their prior approval. These raise important questions, and now it is up to Congress, the courts, and the American people to resolve them.”

READ MORE: ‘My Eyes and Ears’: Trump Names Ambassadors to Hollywood, Critics Question Motives

Congress could try to waive the deadline and try to ignore the states that rescinded their ratification.

President Biden did not order the National Archivist to certify the ERA as the 28th Amendment. Some have suggested neither has the legal authority to do so at this point.

But some have also suggested the deadline was unconstitutional.

The Associated Press called President Biden’s declaration “a symbolic statement that’s unlikely to alter a decades-long push for gender equality,” and “unlikely to have any impact.”

“Presidents do not have any role in the amendment process. The leader of the National Archives had previously said that the amendment cannot be certified because it wasn’t ratified before a deadline set by Congress,” the AP added. It noted that the National Archives said, “the underlying legal and procedural issues have not changed.”

READ MORE: DeSantis’ Rubio Replacement Seen as Trump Loyalist and MAGA Culture Warrior

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Trump Threatens FBI Office, Alleges ‘Corruption,’ Demands They ‘Preserve All Records’

Published

2 days ago

on

January 17, 2025

By

Just days before he will be sworn into office, President-elect Donald Trump is alleging the FBI has been engaging in “corruption,” after learning the Bureau has shut down its “DEI Office,” officially the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The FBI has a lengthy, ongoing investigation into the January 6, 2021 insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol. It also conducted an intensive investigation into Trump’s removal and refusal to return classified documents, including top secret national security materials, and executed a lawful search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence to retrieve some of those documents.

“We demand that the FBI preserve and retain all records, documents, and information on the now closing DEI Office—Never should have been opened and, if it was, should have closed long ago. Why is it that they’re closing one day before the Inauguration of a new Administration? The reason is, CORRUPTION!” Trump alleged, offering no proof or evidence, in a social media post Thursday evening.

Trump pointed to a report from Mediaite: “FBI Shuttered DEI Office Ahead of Trump’s Inauguration.”

READ MORE: ‘My Eyes and Ears’: Trump Names Ambassadors to Hollywood, Critics Question Motives

“While on the campaign trail, Trump stated he would end ‘wokeness’ and ‘leftist indoctrination’ by dismantling diversity programs and imposing fines on colleges ‘up to the entire amount of their endowment,” the Mediaite report reads. “More recently, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) sent a letter to outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray stating the agency’s DEI practices ‘endanger Americans.’ Blackburn made those comments shortly after the New Year’s Day terror attack in New Orleans.”

The Bureau’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion “was created in 2012 to provide guidance and implement programs that promote a diverse and inclusive workplace that allows all employees to succeed and advance,” according to an archived version of its website. That page, which stresses, “Different backgrounds. One mission,” appears to no longer be accessible from the FBI’s website, and instead forwards to the main page.

“The FBI’s efforts to diversify are crucial to creating an inclusive workforce and to being increasingly effective and efficient in our investigations and keeping the American public safe,” FBI Chief Diversity Officer Scott McMillion said in a quote on that page.

READ MORE: DeSantis’ Rubio Replacement Seen as Trump Loyalist and MAGA Culture Warrior

Apparently baseless accusations against DEI abound.

The New Republic notes that the “FBI came under fire recently as many on the right openly blamed the deadly truck attack on New Year’s Day in New Orleans on the agency’s DEI policies.”

“The priority of the last four years has been DEI, not IEDs,” New York Republican Representative Dan Meuser had told Fox News,” TNR reported.

“The ODI office isn’t closing because of corruption,” TNR added, “like Trump is claiming in all caps on Truth Social. It’s likely closing for the same reason Walmart, Meta, McDonald’s, and others are reneging on DEI policy: Trump is back.”

READ MORE: Trump Ran on Promise to Lower Grocery Prices — Few Americans Now Believe He Will

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.