Today’s post was inspired by this article in the Washington Post Democrats seek stronger social media presence to guard against potential Russian interference in midterms as well as the uptick of posting I’ve seen on Twitter by Democratic leaders. What I’m writing today is Twitter-specific, although most of it should translate easily to those who still use Facebook. As we gear up for the mid-terms, it’s helpful to consider how we, as individuals, can also gear up our messaging on behalf of the Party and the candidates we support. As per usual, I write, not as an expert, but as someone who has observed and learned over the years.
Not my books, but I recognize this style of decorating.
I read. I read a lot. On a scale of 1-10, I’m probably a 7.5-8 in terms of time spent reading. For the most part, I read non-fiction, mostly history of some sort, and since I started doing Tuesday posts, my reading has provided an invaluable resource for information and inspiration. When I start feeling bogged down and in need of self-care, I turn to mysteries, some cozy, some not. Ngaio Marsh and P.D. Marsh are my all-time favorite mystery writers, the Brother Cadfael mysteries by Ellis Peters are my favorite historical mysteries (thanks, Rugbymom for turning me on to them), and Diane Mott Davidson writes my favorite cozy (culinary) mysteries. I mentioned to my daughter a few weeks ago that I was feeling overwhelmed and depressed by all of the history I’ve been reading, but I wasn’t sure I could take a break and leave myself topic-less for these posts. She suggested I read some mysteries written by persons of color, and Diana in NoVa suggested an author that I might find interesting and want to start with. So from now on, when you see “Book Break!” in the title, you’ll know I’m taking an emotional breather and that the kudos belong to The Kiddo and Diana.
Last week I mentioned that I was reading a book on the history of lynching, which resulted in more than a few folks expressing trepidation about my next post. Fear not! The post is here, and I should point out that technically, the book, On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-First Century by Sherrilyn Ifill is not a history as much as it is a call for restorative justice. In her 2007 book, she focuses on two lynchings and several averted lynchings which occurred on the Eastern Shore of Maryland during the 1930s, as well as numerous references to lynchings elsewhere in the country. Today’s post, using her book as a template, will focus on white silence and complicity then, the ongoing impact of that silence, and what reconciliation can look like.
For the past two weeks, I’ve been discussing Lochner v. New York, the opinion, and the dissents. This week it’s time to take on the some analysis; both the once-prevalent view that, “Aside from Dred Scott itself, Lochner v. New York is now considered the most discredited decision in Supreme Court history” (A History of the Supreme Court by Bernard Schwartz, Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 190) and more recent efforts to “rehabilitate” Lochner.
Last week, the background leading to the Lochner v. New York lawsuit was discussed, as well as the decision of the majority which reversed the holdings of the county court, the New York Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals. (Part One) Initially, the vote was 5-4 in favor of upholding the New York law, and Justice John Harlan wrote the draft opinion, while Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the draft dissent. Somewhere along the way, however, one justice changed their vote (most sources suggest it was Chief Justice Melville Fuller), and the opinion of Justice Harlan, with Justices Edward White and William Day concurring, became the dissent. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a separate dissent.
The true predecessor of Janus is Lochner v. New York, “the notorious 1905 decision that turbocharged the court’s pro-business interventions into health, safety, and economic regulation.”https://t.co/Q4hUsv5OwS
Like most non-lawyers, I struggle to understand the nuances of Supreme Court decisions, and I rely heavily on SCOTUSBlog (found here) to explain decisions in terms that I can understand. When the Janus v. AFSCME decision came down, followed by Justice Kennedy’s retirement announcement, I heard a lot of people talking about a return to the Lochner era. I had a vague recollection of the decision, but that mostly consisted of Lochner = bad. Today’s post is my IANAL attempt to provide an overview of the 1905 Lochner decision.
I’m taking the easy way out this week and letting political cartoons do the talking for me again. I have plenty of topics I want to write about, but they’re all research- and writing-heavy, and with this week being incredibly busy at work, I just don’t have the time I need to complete everything. I will be around today, but sporadically and as my work allows.
Willis C. Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot meeting shortly after the signing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
If you’re like me, the Smoot-Hawley (sometimes called Hawley-Smoot) Tariff Act is a vague memory from high school history class and a less-vague memory from this scene in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off:
Since tariffs have been in the news lately, I thought this would be a good time to review the most infamous tariff act in United States history, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.
As usual, I present this post with the caveat that I am neither a scholar nor a specialist in this field; I’m merely providing an overview for those who wish to have a cursory explanation and enough information to enable continued research on one’s own. For the parenthetical part of the title of this post, I chose the less-common, but contemporaneously-accurate, reference to the Chinese Restriction Act, although today it is most often called the Chinese Exclusion Act. This was a conscious choice, guided by my desire to show the fluidity and evolution of the immigration restrictions directed at the Chinese, and later other Asian immigrants.
Father Time Overcome by Love, Hope, and Beauty (1627, oil on canvas)
Today’s inspiration came from this song by Vienna Teng about a nascent activist, as well as Rebecca Solnit’s book Hope in the Darkness: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities.
So what is this “hope” of which I speak? Solnit says it best:
It’s important to say what hope is not: it is not the belief that everything was, is, or will be fine. The evidence is all around us of tremendous suffering and tremendous destruction. The hope I’m interested in is about broad perspectives with specific possibilities, ones that invite or demand that we act. It’s also not a sunny everything-is-getting-better narrative, though it may be a counter to the everything-is-getting-worse narrative. You could call it an account of complexities and uncertainties, with openings. “Critical thinking without hope is cynicism, but hope without critical thinking is naivete,” the Bulgarian writer Maria Popova recently remarked. And Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, early on described the movement’s mission as to “Provide hope and inspiration for collective action to build collective power to achieve collective transformation, rooted in grief and rage but pointed towards vision and dreams.” It’s a statement that acknowledges that grief and hope can coexist. Source:Hope in the Dark by Rebecca Solnit, pp. xiii-xiv
Grief and rage when I see this:
SERIOUSLY? WTH?
“The Democrats are not making any of this easy. They’ve decided it’s more fun to be the resistance than to do their job and help us govern the country.”
Mitch McConnell, who spent 8 years obstructing Obama and blocked Merrick Garland pic.twitter.com/fHBysL3z9T
— Indivisible Network (@IndivisibleNet) June 10, 2018
Set your hope on fire/action item
Call your senators, particularly if you have D senators, and encourage them to vote against cloture on all of 45*s judges; Senate comity has been abused (blue slips, anyone?) by the Republicans, and it’s long past time to fight back with all the tools we have.
Grief and rage when I see this:
The Trump administrating is arguing in court that the ACA’s requirement to cover people with pre-existing conditions should be thrown out. This would be a return to pre-ACA insurance practices. Here are some reminders of how that worked.
Set your hope on fire/action item
Call your House member and senators, and let them know that this is a deal breaker; demand that they make a public statement, so that voters will know their position. Supporting a D candidate for the House or Senate? Contact them, and demand that they address this issue loudly and proudly.
Grief and rage when I see this:
top Trump economist Hassett refers to Trump pledge not to touch Social Security and Medicare as a “short-term” commitment to “prioritize” cutting taxes
New reports show that Trump’s deep tax cuts haven’t just failed to deliver on any growth – they’re depleting funds for Medicare and Social Security even faster https://t.co/66innW4s8Ppic.twitter.com/A3Uh2J2Mwa
Set your hope on fire/action item
See that tweet above? Those are your beginning talking points. Now get on the phone, and let your righteous anger loose.
Grief and rage when I see this:
A U.S. Senator asked for a tour of an immigration detention facility in Texas. Then the police showed up. pic.twitter.com/hxITQImiBL
Southwest Key Programs has issued a statement saying the organization regrets turning away Senator @JeffMerkley who attempted to tour the facility in Brownsville on Sunday. https://t.co/eTfBOfaGLJ
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) June 7, 2018
Set your hope on fire/action item
“I’m also pressing for a simple one-sentence law that says it is the policy of the United States not to separate children from their parents,” Merkley said. (Southwest Key Programs regrets denying Sen. Merkley entry ) Your action item in one sentence.
Grief and rage when I see this:
Canada is slapping tariffs on $12.8 billion of US goods — here are the states that stand to lose the most https://t.co/dKzz83l0fJ
They’ll be getting bargain basement prices. I’m wonder if there’s an accessible registry of LLC’s that have been doing the buying on the foreclosures? And how many are Trump shell companies? https://t.co/E0mWOL9Jchhttps://t.co/E0mWOL9Jch
Set your hope on fire/action item
Given the botched and frankly, inhumane, response to the crisis in Puerto Rico, a foreclosure moratorium should be the minimal response. #CanceltheDebt is another ask, as is a repeal of the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the “Jones Act”) which place such a burden on Puerto Rico.
With the rampaging destruction being carried on by the Republicans, this diary could be never-ending. But while we’re all helping in some form or another to make the Blue Wave happen in November, I wanted to illustrate that hope isn’t a state of being; it’s a series of actions that we take today. Preparing for November is, sadly, not enough. We must be working the phones, educating our friends and neighbors, and committing to act now. While no one person can do all of the work, together we create the ripples which will lead to the wave.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here
Today’s post was inspired by this article in the Washington Post Democrats seek stronger social media presence to guard against potential Russian interference in midterms as well as the uptick of posting I’ve seen on Twitter by Democratic leaders. What I’m writing today is Twitter-specific, although most of it should translate easily to those who still use Facebook. As we gear up for the mid-terms, it’s helpful to consider how we, as individuals, can also gear up our messaging on behalf of the Party and the candidates we support. As per usual, I write, not as an expert, but as someone who has observed and learned over the years.
