Populism and Meritocracy

Pundits – paid to assess politics and society – who cannot tell the difference between Bernie Sanders’ economic populism and that of Donald Trump are proof of the lie of meritocracy. They are dumb and lazy and paid handsomely to write or say dumb and lazy things about society and politics. If we were any more cynical, we’d say it’s intentional misinformation.

Let’s rewind to talk about meritocracy for a bit. Because the top 1% wealthy amass a not insignificant amount of wealth and income, but not because they merit it.

The share of income going to the top 10 percent of income earners—those making on average about $300,000 a year—increased to 50.5 percent in 2015 from 50.0 percent in 2014, the highest ever except for 2012. The share of income going to the top 1 percent of families—those earning on average about $1.4 million a year—increased to 22.0 percent in 2015 from 21.4 percent in 2014.

One tenth of the people in the United States now take how more than one-half of the income in the entire country. Consider that as we move closer to the top, the numbers only get more staggering. If that 1:5 ratio isn’t disconcerting, what about the 1:22 ratio of the top 1%?

In the 1980s, at the dawn of Reagan’s Trickle Down Economy, the number for the top 1% was closer to 8% of total wages. But now, 1% of families in the US take home the income of twenty-five families – significantly more if we want to compare to the bottom quarter. Is it because they work twenty-five times harder, or that their work (if it’s to be called that) is worth twenty-five times more than their typical employee? 

The disparities rise even more so with the top 0.1%, who take in 3/4ths of that 22% all by themselves. So, to recap, the average person at the top 1/1,000th makes as much money every year as a random sampling of 155 of the rest of the population. Not because their work or value is 155 times better than those other dupes. But because the rest of us are being systematically, daily duped to believe that these wealth-mongers are 155 times more valuable and important than the rest of us.

President-elect Donald Trump is not only high within that 1%, he is a symptom of that 0.1%. Contrary to popular rhetoric, he is not a game-changer in denying capitalism or trickle-down economies. Trump is the end result of the Trickle Down. He will not bridge the wealth gap. He IS the wealth gap. So he has a vested interest in protecting himself and investing in his class. If you doubt it, you can check his tax plan, in which the top 0.1% would see a tax break of 7.3 points and the bottom 3/5ths would average a one percent tax break. The difference will be known in the drastic lack of social supports for the working and lower-middle class, let alone those experiencing homelessness and hunger, those needing chronic medical attention, and others on the cusp.

In this light, if Trump is promising to bring economic prosperity back to the middle and working classes absent any form of wealth redistribution from the top back to the bottom, where does he propose that income will come from? Who is holding it? Who is competing with the (specifically White, Anglo) working classes? Trump’s answer is intentionally and dangerously distinct from Bernie’s – and that makes all the difference in the world.

sanders-crowd

Trump may not have specifically stated it, but those that followed his word salads picked up on his undeniable wolf whistles. His voters either it figured out or conveniently ignored his scapegoat: The immigrants who occupy the bottom 5% of income earners are somehow hoarding all the goodies. Other white followers heard other messages, such as blaming Black families who, on average, hold 10% of the wealth that white families do.

In some perverted logic, agricultural, restaurant and other industry leaders want to pay white, native-born Americans (nevermind the obvious irony of ignoring if not attacking the Natives who’ve lived here a few thousand years before European colonialism and its chattel slavery) livable wages; it’s just that they can’t when there are so many immigrants who will work for lower pay. Pobrecito Millionaires! Ignore the fact that such logic is ludicrous – capitalism desires or at least needs a permanent underclass and the underclass needs to be occasionally vilified if not scapegoated.

The xenophobic, racial and religious scapegoating is a tool of this economic and political goal. They must appear to be criminals, rapists, plunderers – despite the very obvious fact that it is the top 1% and 0.1% that have done the pillaging and plundering. Similarly but in a different form of logic, Trump and his people have been targeting Black communities under Law & Order rhetoric, which since the times of post-slavery down to Nixon through Reagan and then down to Bush I and Clinton has been specifically anti-Black. The rhetoric against Muslims and Middle East refugees is clouded in internment and deliberately exclusionary language, where any child is pictured as a potential threat to democracy and Our Way of Life. Talk of restructuring trade deals with a China (like most of these racial discussions, far removed from reality) are also deliberately antagonistic and coded in racial terms and tropes about weak-willed Asians.

Purely for economic and political reasons, this campaign has decided to alienate people of color. This racial alienation is a last resort, creating insider/outsider groups when the people have come to understand the economics of scarcity. Two-thirds of Americans felt that the American economy was in bad shape, and Trump handily won those voters. Dishonestly, and by placing the blame and responsibility on non-white people, but handily.

Trump’s die-hard followers can talk about “division” now, even as they are practicing and endorsing it. It’s Newspeak that gets neo-fascists into the White House and running the country for the ultimate benefit of the 0.1%. For it’s not People of Color, unions, or activists that are dividing us – it’s the 0.1%, White Supremacists, and hyper-misogynists. And, ultimately, it’s those of us that accept their indoctrination and normalize their behavior and positions of power.

However, we are not a scarce nation. Bernie Sanders understood this even as the Clinton campaign was fatally ignoring the need to address the issue. And while his populism wasn’t without its own set of problems, he was on the right track, drawing poor communities of color and poor white people together towards a semblance of political solidarity.  To ignore the issue of widespread poverty – and the fear of poverty – in healthy, imaginative, and cross-cultural ways leaves the people with the lesser option of addressing poverty fears through disastrous, dull, and nativist ways such as cutthroat competition with any and all deemed outsiders. Being a capitalist and a real estate developer in the most cutthroat fields, Trump was acutely aware of this if nothing else.

This isn’t a gripe post. We don’t seek to complain about what could have or should have been. What we hope to do at Occupy the Democrats for People Power is seize momentum to leverage power that benefits the 99% by raising critical consciousness and encouraging people to band together. We believe that this will also benefit even that 1% whose lives seem to have little meaning but to keep their riches.

False Binaries

If there are two sides, it is of the oppressors and oppressed. Yet we do not live in such a simplistic, binary world where everything can be Yes or No, Black or White, On or Off. Even among the oppressors and oppressed diagram, there are overlaps, nuances, complexities, oppressions and liberations – there are organic movements and complex mechanisms and Schrödinger’s cat-like relationships that do not fit into these binary mechanisms. Oppressors are often abused and the subjugated often suppress. But, especially in regards to politi-social conflicts, we are inundated with Both Sidesism. Both Sidesists alert us to the fact that both Democrats and Republicans, both liberals and conservatives, both Whites and Blacks, and both immigrants and natives are wrong. Each side of whatever conflict is currently under the microscope, BS says, is equally to blame.

The most obvious and overheard comparisons of recent were between the two main contenders for the United States presidency who, according to Both Sidesists, are of equal evils. Yet while both have their deep flaws and both involved in social and economic actions that are hurtful to the most poor and vulnerable, to say that one is as deeply flawed as the other (“Sure, Donald Trump has bragged about sexual assault and is being credibly accused of sexual abuse of minors even as he’s threatened intimate violence and detention against Muslims and Latinx immigrants, but Clinton has emails!”) is completely disingenuous as well as functionally inoperable. How can we have a society that works if we can’t tell the difference between a qualified candidate and a woefully unqualified narcissist? Additionally, it not only misses the needed critiques of Clinton (neocon interventionalism, neoliberal fusing of government and corporations through nonprofit sectors including her own, and support for hyper-criminalization of black and poor people) for fake ones (BENGHAZI!), which makes it harder to move forward with progressive actions for liberation.

Democratic apologists are also guilty of this False Binary rhetoric, though in an altered way. By removing the Clintons and Obama from critique on economic and immigration issues because of how much worse “the other side” is – and thus arguing that the Obamas and Clintons are on the ‘right side’ and shouldn’t be protested against, often conflating the *right* or *wrong* side with racial and gender essentialism – they have decided to use working class and Latinx populations and their pressing needs as political footballs.

On a fundamental level, binaries simplify and squash substantial distinctions. It is impossible to have an honest conversation with those who accuse Black activists of the same levels of violence that White people have committed against Black and other People of Color. The Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter groups are thus reduced to violent reactionaries on par with the KKK, despite the very fact that the BPP and BLM operate as constructive ways for dispossessed people to resist systemic racist violence of the state. Whereas the KKK was born of the violence of enforcing racial codes. They may be related, but they are not at all similar.

Additionally, false binaries place the accusation of violence upon the recipients of violence. It allows sexual and domestic abuse survivors to be blamed as if they are willful participants in their victimation. Completely ahistorical and groundless equivalencies are not without precedent themselves. Then-governor of California Ronald Reagan and FBI Director J Edgar Hoover called the Black Panthers “Enemy Number 1.” Previously, Hoover had put Martin Luther King, Jr. under heavy surveillance and tried to intimidate him to commit suicide. These were both in the era of the Ku Klux Klan and the *nicer* White Citizens Councils.

black_and_white_squares

Grossly, Both Sidesism allows participants to pretend that they care about violence enacted upon oppressed communities, allowing the oppressed – or at least some of their allies – to believe that they may have sympathetic ears. Because, you know, they agree that the KKK are racist killers. But then the other shoe drops. False Binarism is an entrapment scheme of the most dishonest order.

Finally, False Equivalences allow us to make calls for one-sided unity, whereupon the oppressed and the oppressors must meet under the terms and conditions of the oppressors. We are told to unite behind a  misogynistic, bullying, White Supremacist, ego-maniacal capitalist in his fake bid to become president simply because – against his own odds – he became president. Does it matter that such calls of unity come at the price of the death of our own selves, our friends and communities, our souls? Rather, these pleas of uniformity compile the worst that America has to offer and compel us to normalize them whole, to accept the genocides and humans-as-property apologia that America was founded on as the natural and right order of things. We must resist, for the sake of our individual and collective souls.

Do not demand or acquiesce to unity. Demand and practice solidarity.

Jill Stein & Hillary Clinton: Allowable Pandering and Political Tokenization

Much has been made of Green Party’s Jill Stein and her take on vaccinations. The criticism is not without warrant. The fear-based and anti-science anti-vaccination (“anti-vax”) movement throughout the United States is creating a public health crisis particularly for people with autoimmune deficiency. This is a problem of course for anyone who claims universal healthcare. Additionally, anti-vax claims have been aiding the stigmatization of autism. Stein uses language that seems to neither support nor deny the anti-vaxx movement, saying, for instance that they have brought up legitimate questions that have not been answered. One could argue that Stein is taking a necessarily tact-based approach to dealing with anti-vaxxers, but there is also the charge that much of the Green Party faithful is of a privileged demographic (White, upper middle class, liberal) to which the anti-vaxx population belongs, and that she is trying to not lose that base. So these are legitimate criticisms, however….

However, what is interesting is that this and this alone is Stein’s chink in the armor. No Democrat who brings up the anti-vax waffling also brings up Stein’s other points of salience or her vision for America. The same Democrats argue that we shouldn’t harshly judge Hillary Clinton by one, two, three, eighteen relevant and critical points of criticism.* These same liberals complain about Purity Politics and the neglect of Hillary over valid criticism. They seem to ignore that despite multiple efforts to correct Clinton’s support of the Crime Bill and her use of the term “superpredators” to define poor black men (and thus harm their families), she still pandered to the pro-police movement four times in her acceptance speech before even mentioning – tepidly and in a manner that centered the police rather than families hurt by racist & militarized policing – police reform.

Is militarized, racist policing and mass incarceration not a public health issue? Is toxic air, water, and land not a public health issue? The lack of universal health care – which Hillary claimed we would never, ever get? The glut of living wage jobs in black, brown, and rural communities? The fact that 45% of children in the US live in poverty is not a public health crisis? Homelessness and housing insecurity? For that matter, supporting coups and despots while destabilizing regions and assassinating entire families throughout the world through the US military and State Department is also a public health and safety issue.

jill_stein1-e1351287169625-1280x960

Credit: AP/Elise Amendola via Salon

These are all issues that Jill Stein talks about and supports but because she is not part of the oligarchical two-party system, she is silenced and only one issue – a non-issue since she will not negatively effect vaccination rates, really, even if she were to become president – is talked about.

Are these not issues that disproportionately affect and harm People of Color and the working class? Poverty rates for African Americans and LatinX children are three times higher than those of white children. Three times as many unarmed black and Native people are shot and killed by the police as white people – though in general it happens more often in poor communities.

And maybe that’s the point. These issues are not talked about because the realization of them would drastically improve material living conditions for the working class and people of color. To keep them silent is to limit our collective imagination and political dialog, which means we can stick with the least amount of political power possible for the people. While the Republican Party has its heart set on turning us into the mole people, living underground and being afraid of the light, the Democratic Party seems content with merely tokenizing us for our own votes in a cynical ploy of cheap Identity Politicking.

We need to occupy the Democratic Party for collective people power. And that may mean taking our votes elsewhere until they are not taken for granted and we are no longer tokenized.

——————————————————–

*It’s important to note, because people are confused due to a two-party system, that not supporting one major party is not the same as supporting – tacitly or otherwise – the other main party, even in an effectual two-party system. But we’ve already said this. So, no, we do not support sexist, racist fascist fuckhead Donald Trump, nor do we support rightwing criticisms of Hillary Clinton, particularly their misogyny and xenophobia)

 

Will Democrats Fight After Brexit?

The overriding narrative of the past month from the Democrats is that Donald Trump is someone to be reacted to. His is the kind of message that needs to be fought via Twitter Wars to be memed by the Occupy Democrats page.* Twitter is something to be won and the American people are either with us, to be ignored, or to be mocked.

But Brexit, a false campaign led by the worst kind of fear-mongering (the same kind trunked by Trump – that of xenophobia and extremely vague notions of fixing the economy) just narrowly ousted Britain from the European Union – and may in turn see an exit of Scotland and Northern Ireland from the UK itself.

Meanwhile in the US, we are acting as if what happened in our colonizer will happen to us. That we will allow uninformed and xenophobic voters (not always the same thing) to remove us from the rest of the world and plunge our currency over a shambles. It maybe could happen to us. It’s unlikely to if we make the right decisions and head these fears off, if we confront what could kill us now.

The white working class has been ginnied-up to fear the barbaric, thieving Other Mexican and Muslim who means to steal their culture, communities and health. The common calling card of the anti-immigrant since at least the late 19th century has placed its ire not squarely on immigrants, but those perceived to be such: undocumented Mexican citizens of the US, Mexican-Americans, child refugees from Central America, Muslims, Arab Americans, Persian Americans, Indian Americans…

Unfortunately, Democrats are not really assuaging these fears. They seem incapable of giving working class and impoverished people a better life with a working social safety net or livable wages. Rather, they are feeding into these fears of the Other.

While they are not promising to “build a wall” between Mexico and the US, Democrats are still empowering ICE to tear apart migrant families and sending to Mexico adults and teens who have not lived there since before they could talk. While not detaining all Muslims in the US, they commit to a gun control sit-in that centers on terror watch lists and call Republicans “soft on terror” – both detrimental to Muslim communities here while ignoring White racial terrorists. Trump would block Middle Eastern immigration; meanwhile Democrats send drones and help to destabilize the regions through military intervention.

It’s not an issue of who is better or worse here. Obviously Trump would be cataclysmically, apocalyptically awful for the United States, for international relations, for workers, for women, for people of color, for poor people, for middle class people, for anybody not Trump. Check that, probably for Trump himself. He’d likely be better off under a Clinton presidency.

But the Democratic Party’s playbook in the face of such a world-turning event has largely been one of derision. Democrats have become conservative in the fact that they do not offer any bold visions but rather react and capitulate – allowing Republicans to dictate the terms and the debate. The GOP has been controlling the ball for the whole game and Democrats are frantically playing defense, hoping for a slip up. And then giving the ball back to the Republicans and resetting the clock.

MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

Sooners V Hurricane via Wiki

There are many citizens and would-be voters out there who are waiting to be courted, who remain on the sidelines because they are losing hope in either political party. Many who are actually considering Trump because they figure he can’t be all bad. And many who are severely marginalized by society and feel left out of the democratic process altogether.

Things should not be this close. We need a new playbook that will rally the troops, protect them, encourage them, and welcome them on the field to advance the People’s Agenda for People Power.

 


*No affiliation whatsoevr.

Alvarez & Foxx and Restorative Versus Incarceral Justice

When Kim Foxx beat out the anti-Black Lives Matter State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez yesterday to become Chicagoland’s top prosecutor, she did so partly on a campaign that heavily touted restorative justice. Restorative justice is a practice whose time has come – and in this BLM period – is at hand. Any talk about police and prison reform that does not center on restorative justice is not true reform; it can only best serve as wasteful if not cynical.

Restorative justice is the practice of restoring people who have done wrong to themselves, their communities and – hopefully, but not always possible – to those they wronged. Restorative justice is a method of reducing and preventing violence by allowing people to own up to mistakes they have made and giving them opportunities to 1) make them right; 2) seek reconciliation; and 3) learn other methods to deal with and resolve conflict.

RestorativeJustice

From Celia Berns. H/t to Crosscut

It is a way of restoring when mass incarceration is only concerned about destruction. Restorative justice is to peace-building what incarceral justice is to warmongering.

In incarceral justice – the practice of jailing and imprisoning those who have or are alleged to transgress the law – youth and young people are sent away from their communities and schools to be detained and punished. Nothing more. It has the double effect of removing young people from the communities and institutions that need their youth and people, and communities from the young people that need their grounding and care.

Incarceral justice unduly punishes and criminalizes black people for perceived infractions and doubles down on them in the name of restoring “safety”. It effectually depletes black communities of resources (including people) and then monetizes off of them – a core neoliberal principal.

Incarceral justice may lock up the abuser for a period of time, but then return that person back to the people, the families that they victimized without concern for the safety of those within their realm. It refuses to believe that there is a higher power than retribution, and so what to make of the person who abuses? That person ends up believing that the abuser position is theirs to live in indefinitely and that it is right to be in a state of perpetual retribution. Restorative justice instead looks at the options, and what is best for the family. It looks at people as people, rather than as simply abusers and abused, or husband and wife, or parent and child and seeks to restore the person who has done the abuse as well as the ones who have been abused. It seeks to protect them all through holistic steps, rather than merely warn, imprison, and finally send back the provocateur without safeguards for the family.

Incarceral justice practices from school detention* to solitary confinement and the death penalty target and destroy black, brown and poor families and communities. It eviscerates schools, students, and community institutions. It tells black, brown and poor kids that they cannot make mistakes, that the price of being human and black, brown, and/or poor is being held in captivity. And it gives them no options for what happens when they are faced with choices but to make more mistakes. It is a form of ‘justice’ where nothing is just, as there is no right, no way out but extreme nihilism.

Restorative justice gives hope to these same communities and families. Restorative justice puts the wrong-doer into the community with safeguards, with limitations, but says that there is hope. It gives the person who did wrong and the community in which they did the wrong the necessary space and tools to make corrections for past, present and future.

Restorative justice is also phenomenally cheaper in the long and short run than incarceral justice. Where the latter robs, the former invests. Where the latter costs the community in terms of housing and guards and beds – not to mention the human costs of depriving sun, soul, friendship and family from human beings – the latter allows the person to continue to hold their jobs, allows them to maintain familial relationships and nurturing they need to survive, and to give them tools to thrive, to manage conflicts with winning strategies, to make things right. Where incarceral justice takes human capital (workers, care providers, parents, renters, owners, students and scholars) and economic capital (fines, public funds, work hours) from the community, restorative justice incorporates and gives them the opportunity to improve, even.

Incarceral justice cannot make the wrongs into rights because all it does is punish and remove. It cannot give. It has no power to give, but only to take. Incarceral justice is by nature unjust.

Restorative justice gives power to the people. Restorative justice is people power. It is time to make restorative justice the central piece of criminal justice reform, perhaps of the American judicial system.

—————-

*One of the first steps of the school-to-prison pipeline

Random readings on Restorative Justice

How Pittsfield, NH schools are practicing restorative justice

Peace Hub Fact Sheet

Restorative Justice: Umoja Student Development Corp, Chicago

Fania & Angela Davis on Restorative Justice