I came to Netroots Nation this year with vague goals. I wanted to know what I could do to help progressive candidates get elected, to help President Obama to be re-elected, and to meet more kossacks than I did last time I attended, in 2009. I also wanted to learn about policy in any number of areas, though even then it was not clear in which area I would concentrate. Well, there's one exception here: LGBT issues, since those affect me personally. I also wanted to contribute to the Netroots for the Troops effort in a substantial way, because I wanted to do something with a potential for lasting value.
So below the doodle-thingie you will find a digest of the 20 pages of notes I compiled from the sessions I attended, as well as accounts of experiences and impressions from the whole convention. (I need to admit here that my notes are surely incomplete and not completely accurate. Any errors and omissions found below are my own.)
So, what did I learn?
1. When your enemies attack, don't back down.
My first panel was the one entitled "Inside the Activists' Studio: What to Do When the Right Comes After You." The panelists were Tracey Conaty of AFSCME, Cecile Surasky of Jewish Voice for Peace, and Heather Holdridge of Planned Parenthood, with Will Valverde moderating. Each panelist gave an account of the attacks they had to deal with for each of their organizations.
From Tracey Conaty, we got an account of the attacks public sector unions have been under, and how these attacks stepped up in many states after the 2010 elections. For years now, the right wing has been seeding envy and contempt in the general public for government workers because they have many benefits, such as decent healthcare and old-fashioned defined benefit pension plans, now unavailable to most workers due to the cutbacks in workers benefits made in the private sector. After the 2010 elections, 22 state governments managed to achieve a GOP trifecta: majorities in both lower and upper houses of the statehouse, and the governorship. It was no surprise that there was an increase in attacks on unions, but it was a surprise at how brazen these attacks were. Scott Walker in Wisconsin got most of the attention, but attacks on unions were happening elsewhere as well, particularly in Ohio and Michigan, though these did not attract as much media attention as did Wisconsin. Walker got the most attention because he went to extremes with his unilateral actions, as well as trying to pit fire and police against other public employees. While the recall on Scott Walker was lost, it has nonetheless become clear that there is a price to pay when workers are attacked. We must push back. The law passed in Ohio that did away with collective bargaining rights of workers was shot down in a referendum in 2011. We must take back some statehouses in future elections if we're going to protect workers' rights long-term. [This topic cuts very close to my own life, as I am a member of a public sector union which is under attack from both my governor and some local state politicians.]
Heather Holdridge told us about the recent travails at Planned Parenthood, how it is faring in the War on Women, and how Planned Parenthood counters the attacks. Again, as with the attacks on unions, the attacks on Planned Parenthood increased in scope and audacity starting in January 2011. Things came to a head when the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced that it would no longer be funding breast exams at local Planned Parenthood clinics. Holdridge expressed the opinion that Komen itself was a victim of political operatives. Planned Parenthood never attacked Komen, but nonetheless acknowledged the anger rising among those whom Planned Parenthood had benefitted. Planned Parenthood had put up a petiton regarding the cessation of Komen funding, and the response was phenomenal: 20 times greater than the response to any previous petition. Supporters started their own tumblr: Planned Parenthood Saved Me, where many women shared moving stories. Eventually, Komen reversed its decision.
This is not the end of the attacks, of course. Holdridge pointed out that there are approximately 2000 bills in various statehouses targeting women's health in general and Planned Parenthood in particular. Among these was the Virginia mandatory ultrasound bill. Again, once word got out about this legislation, activists went nuts, and an on-line petition opposing the bill was signed by 30,000 people within 3 days. Holdridge said that Planned Parenthood really didn't create any of the grassroots efforts that sprang up to fight off the anti-woman legislation, but they try to support these efforts wherever they appear. Holdridge reminds us that Romney opposes Roe v. Wade, and is on record opposing birth control for married couples. This year's election is an important one, and if we lose, we could see 50 years of progress in reproductive rights disappear.
Cecile Surasky gave an account of standing up to threats for just expressing the opinion that peace ought to be fostered between Israelis and Palestinians, and that Palestinians should have civil rights and rights to their land. According to Surasky, there are many Jews who hold such opinions, but voicing such opinions in public, even at a family gathering, could spark a firestorm. Playwright Tony Kushner had an honorary degree from CUNY withdrawn because he expressed such an opinion. So people who favor peace and a two-state solution keep silent. Jewish Voice for Peace allows a place for Jews to express such opinions, and supports those who do. When 60 Minutes planned to air a segment on the effects of the Israeli occupation on Palestinians, some groups tried to prevent the segment from airing at all. When it did air, 60 Minutes received 29,000 e-mails of protest from Jewish and right-wing Christian groups. Jewish Voice for Peace was able to rally 36,000 people to send thank-you e-mails to CBS for airing the segment.
In summation, when the right-wing attacks, they often overreach, and that overreach can be used to our advantage. Always argue with the facts. Often the attack comes from an organization with a generic name, and it's tough to fight a faceless organization. It's necessary to find out who is really behind the organization. Find a face to attach to the organization, the less sympathetic, the better (the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, etc).
2. Polling data can be analyzed and applied to target specific groups of persuadable voters.
I attended the panel entitled "Winning Smarter: Using Data to Transform Elections." This panel presentation and discussion involved some fairly heavy slogging into the weeds of polling and data mining. The panel consisted of David Mermin, David Radloff and Tim Lim. Darcy Burner moderated.
First, Mermin described how, through various surveys, it is possible to identify persuadable voters. It is necessary to identify such voters since sending advertising to non-persuadable voters is a waste of energy and money. Further, the message must be tailored to the particular group of voters. Also, the group of persuadable voters is not going to be the same all the time for all candidates or issues in all elections. One of the more interesting discoveries that Mermin told us about was that independents who lean toward a particular party have more in common with strong partisans for that party than they do with weak partisans, and thus leaning independents are more persuadable than weak partisans. He also described the process of iterative mail testing, whereby mailings with different messages are sent to persuadable voters until the desired response is achieved. Knowing what sort of message is effective for a particular group of voters makes such advertising more efficient.
David Radloff talked about using the survey data to create a model for the electorate in any race. Such models are also based upon historical data of individual voters. The models make it possible to predict (referencing back to Mermin's contribution) which voters are persuadable by which message, which voters are in greater need of GOTV activity to get to the polls, etc.
Tim Lim then described his regime for highly specific targeted web-based political advertising. Such specific targeting assures that resources are not wasted, since the voters most persuadable to the message are the ones being targeted. It is possible to essentially saturate the target audience with these ads, which are targeted not at websites, but at particular people. (At one point, he talked about something called a cookie pool, which sounded delicious.)
Darcy Burner concluded the presentations by emphasizing that this approach was maximally cost effective. Advertising has to be better than scattershot for it to produce the needed voters in the numbers needed to win elections.
3. What sex has to do with politics.
Next I attended the panel entitled "Liberate Your Ass: Why Sexual Freedom Is Key to Fighting the Right." Really, with a title like that, how could anyone resist? The panel consisted of Elizabeth Fernandez-Kimmel, Kierra Johnson, William Winters, Favianna Rodriguez and Charlie Glickman. Jenifer Fernandez Ancona moderated.
Glickman specializes in sex education. He stated that the goal of sexual freedom is safe and consensual pleasure, and that we must not forget that sexual freedom includes the freedom not to have sex, if that's what is desired.
Rodriguez is an artist whose work centers on her experience as a Latina immigrant and a sexually adventurous and politically active woman. In describing her journey, interspersed with images of her work, she spoke about how she had to overcome not just the oppression of the dominant Anglo society, but also the Latino-Catholic culture she grew up in, where slut-shaming is prevalent.
Winters has come out as polyamorous. He told the story of how, while living in his home state of Louisiana, he came upon the book The Ethical Slut, by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy, which opened the door to considering non-monogamy for himself and his partner. After moving to the San Francisco Bay area, they have been able to explore this world more fully. However, one takes a risk declaring oneself as polyamorous because of the stereotypes that come to mind. One risks alienation form family and job loss.
Johnson works with poor and minority youth. She points out that sex for women, queer sex, and sex for the poor are all stigmatized in society. She also observed that the only way a woman can obtain and wield power in our society is to de-sex herself. [At this observation, I suddenly recalled the media brouhaha over Hillary Clinton's cleavage, barely visible in one of her outfits when she was running for President.]
Frenandez-Kimmel is a law student who grew up queer in Puerto Rico. An open sexual life seemed impossible to her until, as an undergraduate student, she came across the work of Annie Sprinkle.
Moderator Ancona then put a series of question to the panel. The first of these centered on the long-standing conflict between feminists and women who, of their own choosing, are sex workers on some level. Fernandez-Kimmel observed that sex workers do not embrace feminism. Johnson issued a familiar plea: "Can't we all just get along? We're all fighting for body autonomy." In New York, mere possession of more than 3 condoms can be used as evidence against a woman that she is a sex worker. Isn't the persecution of sex workers also a legitimate feminist cause? Glickman brought up the old saw that "A slut is a woman who is having sex with more men than I do." He further stated that many women like to have sex, while others have sex as an obligation. We have to trust what women tell us; if a sex worker tells us she enjoys her work, maybe she is not being exploited.
The next question had to do with how we call certain policy measures "health policy" when at least to some extent, they involve sex. Ought we not be more open about this? [After the firestorm wrought upon the Limbaugh following his tirade against Sandra Fluke, maybe we can be more honest about sex? Or are we still too puritanical as a nation?] Winters observed that it's pretty clear that political organizations are afraid to talk about sex in any open way. They're not even terribly effective at combatting the canard that sex education leads to promiscuity. Johnson described how she discovered why poor girls don't carry condoms: slut-shaming. If anyone discovers condoms in her purse, she is viewed as the sort of girl who comes prepared to have sex, i. e., a slut. Weirdly, they are less desirable to their boyfriends for the same reason. When youth sex is stigmatized and we teach them lies (abstinence-only), it puts these youth at risk for pregnancy and STDs. Rodriguez stated that this is a particular problem in the Latino immigrant community because nobody talks about sex. "Latinos are disempowered from their bodies." Glickman cautioned: "Don't call it "abstinence-only education" because it is not education. It's propaganda. Honest people came up with this strategy to try to fix a problem, but only managed to make the problem worse.
Next question: Would we be doing better as a progressive movement if we were having more sex? Winters speculated that the amount of sex was not the issue. The issue is our attitudes toward sex. We must be sex-positive. Rodriguez noted that the Right has a clear and consistent framework around sex: i. e. no sex until marriage, and monogamous sex after marriage. The left has no such consistent frame. Sexual exploration ought to be encouraged as part of transformative experience. Glickmen contributed that good old quote: "If I can't fuck, I don't want to be a part of your revolution."
The next question had to do with the relations between feminism and the LGBT movement. Johnson said that we must bring all our identities into the room and build the necessary coalitions. "We're getting it." Winters said there was still a lot of room to grow.
Next question: How can we get young men to act more responsibly? Why can't young men be prevailed upon to bring the condom, rather than have the young woman risk slut-shaming? Rodriguez blamed patriarchal society, that young men were simply utilizing their patriarchal privilege. Fernandez-Kimmel suggested that young women simply drop boyfriends who do not accord them with sufficient respect to use condoms. Johnson countered that this isn't just a problem with young women, but with women of all ages. They would say "I want my partner to know that I love him, and I want him to love me." We have to work on the messages sent to women from society; they don't encourage healthy behavior. Glickman noted that some condoms feel better than others due to fit, and it's good to try out a few different types to see what works best. He also recommended the book What You Really, Really Want, by Jaclyn Friedman, aimed at young women, but with a wealth of information for everyone.
Next question: What are we doing that works? How can we move the needle? Rodriguez offered the influence of art and culture to change attitudes, both in being created and in being eperienced. Fernandez-Kimmel recommended putting money into comprehensive sex education programs, such as the on-line question answering educators at Northern Arizona University. We have to get creative with how to get accurate information into the community. All panel members encouraged openness and active advocacy. Do not let people shame you.
The last question in my notes (I don't recall if there were others) was: We're under siege. There is no unified front for being sex-positive. What can we do about it? Rodriguez and Winters pushed for positive images in art and culture to change attitudes. Winters noted how the TV show "Will & Grace" changed the attitudes of many toward gay people. Rather than taking a defensive crouch, as usual, we need to be more pro-active. Johnson stressed the need to find a sex-positive frame, and to push progressive organizations to respond to sex-related wedge issues (e. g. abortion). And, again, all the panelists stressed the need for all of us to tell our stories openly.
4. There is significant movement currently on a number of LGBT issues, mostly in a positive direction.
I attended the panel titled "Marriage Equality: Past, Present and Future" on Thursday, the Marriage Equality caucus on Friday, and the LGBT caucus on Saturday. It seems most efficient to combine the notes from all of these events in one place.
The issue receiving the greatest attention--almost all of it, actually--are the marriage equality related ballot initiatives in four states. In Minnesota, voters will decide whether or not to approve an amendment to the State Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In Maine, Maryland and Washington, the ballot measures are for the purpose of approving marriage equality, that is, making it possible for marriages between same-sex couples to be recognized by these respective states.
At Netroots Nation 2009, there was great excitement over the Maine ballot initiative that year. We were convinced that 2009 would be the year that voters would come through and hand us our first victory against the bigots. I can not describe to you the disappointment I felt about the defeat in Maine on the 2009 ballot measure. It was even worse than Prop. 8 in California.
Now we have the chance to reverse that error, as well as make progress in other states. The polls look remarkably good in some of the states. But after having been burned several times, twice severely, I don't want to invest quite as much hope in these measures this time around. On the other hand, it's clear that things are different this time. We've learned some things, and the attitudes of voters have changed.
During the Marriage Equality panel, Michael Crawford of Freedom to Marry discussed the difficulty facing marriage equality proponents in waging a ballot initiative campaign, since it is necessary to do public education during the campaign. In addition, there is often not much time between the approval of a ballot measure and an election, reducing the likelihood of a campaign being effective. we need to broaden our targets for persuasion. We need to concentrate on people of color. In the past, we've ceded communities of faith; increasing numbers of such communities stand with us now. Even when we lose, public education efforts have a positive effect in the long run. But we must find a way to counteract the "harms kids" message that was so effective in California and the Prop. 8 loss.
David Fleischer of the LGBT Mentoring Project, also on the panel, pointed out that among persuadable voters are 20 % of the Democratic base, and they can be thrown to the other side by an effective television spot. This is what happened during the Prop. 8 campaign, when the pro-Prop. 8 side aired the "Princes" ad. Fleischer showed a clip of an interview with a persuadable voter in the San Fernando Valley, who started out supporting marriage equality at a scale of 9 out of 10. The interviewer then showed her the "Princes" ad, and her support dropped to 5. But he then showed her a second ad whose argument is simply that some people are born gay, and that they are otherwise no different from others. Her support for marriage equality went to 10 out of 10 after viewing this commercial. What this says is that provocative, effective ads from the other side, such as "Princes," can be countered if the messaging is right. Further, Fleischer sharpened the truism that those who know someone LGBT is more supportive of LGBT rights. In fact, it is those who know someone LGBT and have had a conversation with that person about LGBT issues that will vote for us. This means all LGBT people must take it upon ourselves to communicate with our straight friends to make them true allies, the kind that will vote for our rights rather than against.
Richard Carlbom of Minnesotans United for All Families, who was present at both the panel and the marriage equality caucus, talked about the level of coalition building that has happened to oppose the proposed amendment. The coalition is bipartisan (oh that word) with over 400 members, including diverse faith communities (Episcopal, Lutherans (6 synods), Jews, Methodists, and lots of Catholics (though not the Church itself, of course)). The Governor's two (straight) sons had set up a $200,000 matching fund before the fund-raising deadline of June 12 in order to defeat the amendment. [Sorry I'm a tad late, but this is a big diary.] Carlbom noted the importance of involving young voters in this campaign, since they will have to live with the consequences of the vote. He further stated that while more than 16,000 individuals and groups have contributed to the campaign against the amendment, only 7 have contributed to the other side [and we can guess who some of those 7 contributors are]. If that weren't enough, the law in Minnesota dictates that ballots where no choice is made on a ballot measure are counted as "no" votes, which Carlbom estimated could result in about a 2 % advantage for the good guys. It looks like this fight is winnable.
The Washington state effort was represented by Dustin Lambro of Washington United for Marriage at the panel, and by Josh Cohen at the caucus. Lambro gave a brief history of the movement in Washington state, where first an equal rights law was passed, and then domestic partnerships were approved. Public opinion has been moving in our direction during all these changes. Currently, marriage equality polls at 54 % in favor in Washington. More than 240,000 signatures were turned in on June 6 all but guaranteeing that the referendum (74) will appear on the ballot in November. Washington United for Marriage is running an aggressive public education campaign to make sure that voters understand the issues involved, and to advocate for the referendum's passage.
I somehow managed to miss the name of the young woman representing the Maryland effort at the marriage equality caucus. I'm going to assume that she represented Equality Maryland. Unlike the referenda in Washington and Maine, Maryland's referendum is a veto referendum. If a majority of voters vote "yes," the law passed by the Maryland State Legislature and signed by Governor O'Malley granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would be repealed. Making sure that Maryland voters understand this is crucial. Polling looks good; the most recent poll shows 57 % in favor of marriage equality, with a large movement in black voters, probably due to the President's statement of support for marriage equality.
I also did not catch the name of the representative for the Maine ballot initiative, but I will assume he is part of Equality Maine. There has been tremendous movement in the outlook of voters since the ballot initiative of 2009. Then, the Catholic Church spent a large amount of money to approve the initiative. This time around, the Church has publicly declared that it will not be actively campaigning against the measure.
So, how can we help to make sure that each of these initiatives has the outcome we want? We can give money to organizations promoting marriage equality, of course, but we can also personally contact individuals we know in each of these states, share our stories, and ask for their support. That's what I'm going to do. I was born and raised in Baltimore, and I still have many friends and family in Maryland. I will write to each of them and appeal for them to vote "No" on Maryland's ballot measure.
The LGBT caucus was presided over by Mike Rogers. He had us perform an initial exercise where we interviewed someone we didn't know sitting next to us. One objectives was to discover something surprising about this other person that might be shared with the rest of the people in the room. I ended up interviewing Laura Kiritsy of GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders)--not to be confused with GLAAD. It turned out that GLAD was one of the forces behind the Constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the First Circuit, which recently upheld the decision to hold it unconstitutional. Laura, in her role as manager of public education, wrote blog posts describing behind-the-scenes developments of the DOMA case. I thought that was pretty exciting. In the end, one of the surprising facts from my group was my experience 30 years ago in losing in tic-tac-toe to a chicken, twice. The most salient of these "interesting fact" was from a documentary maker who, after randomly asking people walking around the conference, determined that 80 % of Netroots Nation attendees didn't know what ENDA was! Could it be that even 80 % of our allies in the progressive movement don't know what the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is? If so, we have more work ahead of us than even I thought.
After brainstorming on ways to improve LGBT events at Netroots Nation, we welcomed Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland for a question-and-answer session. Senator Cardin has a 100 % rating on LGBT issues, and is supportive of our objectives on all fronts. Frankly, I can't recall any of the questions, but it was something of a love-fest anyway. I later got to shake his hand, and to tell him that I did, in fact, vote for him during a brief period in the '90s when I was living in Baltimore again.
5. Public education is in serious danger of being commoditized by big business.
I attended the panel entitled "What Progressives Can Do to Stop the War on Public Education," with panelists John H. Jackson of the Alliance for Excellent Education, Diane Ravitch of New York University (a former Assistant Secretary of Education during the Bush I administration, and former advocate of the ideas behind No Child Left Behind before experiencing a sea-change), and Kenneth Bernstein as moderator (teacherken). There has already been at least one diary published on the topic of this particular panel, by angelajean, which raised certain frustrations about the topics dominating the discussion, and I consider her criticisms valid. However, here, I simply want to review what was discussed. While much of it may have been old hat to angelajean, much of it was new to me.
The principal theme here was that there is currently a war being waged on public education by moneyed interests. The message we get is that public schools are no good. The teachers are all bad, and their unions protect them from being fired. The solution being pushed is to let the private sector in to do the job more efficiently, you know, the way they did with health care. Their real objective is to make a profit (duh). The education of public school children becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold. The only educational objective will become maximizing the performance of students on standardized tests, which will become the only measure of any significance (indeed, this has already come to pass, for the most part). Teachers, with their unions destroyed, will be subject to being fired on a whim. None of these changes proposed by the private sector will actually improve education. The right-wing says it's educational policy is research-based, but that's not so. Finland and other countries reformed their educational systems using research that was done in the US (and it wasn't through charter schools or high-stakes standardized testing); now Finland's educational system is among the best in the world.
The demographics of the US population are shifting. There are more babies of racial minorities being born now than white babies. Now that the majority of urban public schools are not white, they must be broken up. But the real problem with urban public schools is the poverty of their students. It is common to say that obtaining a good education is a way out of poverty, but in fact, poverty makes a good education difficult to obtain. Poverty creates an environment in which it becomes very difficult to learn. Where does one study or do homework when one is homeless or hungry? Financially poor students may have unaddressed medical or dental problems that interfere with learning. Yet nobody in educational policy wants to talk about poverty, and indeed will counterattack, accusing those raising the issue of stating that poor children can't learn.
Presumably, the right-wing would replace the current system of public education with corporate charter schools. In the interest of making a profit, all attention in such schools will focus on getting high grades on standardized tests. Anything beyond the basics will be dropped (e. g. foreign languages, science). Further, charters can always boost their scores by not admitting students with a history of low achievement. A cyber-charter corporation is currently trying to take over New York state schools; cyber charters have a 50 % drop-out rate. That said, discussion about charters can get lop-sided. In reality, while 60 % of public education discussion is about charter schools, only 3 % of students actually attend charters. Further, not all charter schools are alike. Community-based non-corporate charter schools can and do manage to educate their students well. But charters are not a systemic solution to the problems with public education.
We can't fix public education without addressing poverty. US public schools where the student poverty rate is below 10 % rank as the best in the world. The first federal education bill, under Lyndon Johnson, was part of his anti-poverty legislative package. Now, nobody talks about poverty anymore. Republicans don't want poverty to end. They only want to make a profit. The poor are a potentially inexhaustable supply of expendable soldiers.
Public education can and does work in its current form; ask any parent of students in any white, suburban school. Whenever school vouchers come up for a vote in a ballot initiative, they always lose. Voters know what they want, and they can't be bought, unlike legislatures. Ohio voters turned back the attempt to end collective bargaining. We will never out-resource the right. As such, we have to use our bodies. We have to organize and disrupt the system. An ACT-UP action is called for. The current mindset on public education must be broken.
6. The Supreme Court is extremely conservative and may burden society with its bitter fruit (even more of it) for years to come. But there are things we can do to sway the Court.
I attended the panel entitled "Big Decisions: A Discussion of Recent and Upcoming Cases." The panelists were Dahlia Lithwick (!) (legal affairs reporter second only to Nina Totenberg in my book), Debo Adegbile of the NAACP, and Lani Guinier (!!) of Harvard University Law School. Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice moderated. This was my favorite panel, by the way.
G. W. Bush essentially succeeded in achieving the right-wing goal of packing courts with right-wing acolytes. Of the 43 Justices that have served on the Supreme Court since 1937, 4 of the 5 Justices rated most conservative are serving right now (Kennedy is # 10 in that list). Conservative Justices openly fundraise for conservative political organizations. The Supreme Court's approval rating is currently at a record low. Bush succeeded in seating more than a third of the judiciary with young conservatives, and Obama's appointments have been blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Coming down this year will be decisions on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Arizona immigration law. Next year, it's likely that the Court will decide cases on Proposition 8, the challenge to DOMA, challenges to abortion rights, and a possible revisit to the Citizens United decision. It's likely to be a bumpy ride.
Lithwick broached the topic at the top of everyone's list by saying that no one really knows how the Court is going to decide on the ACA case, but she did note that there appeared to be 5 votes to at least strike down the individual mandate, and Justice Kennedy, the fulcrum of the current court, during oral arguments, appeared to support repealing the entire law. The individual mandate went from the conservative solution to the healthcare problem in the US to a Constitutional abomination in record time (two years).
Adigbile listed the important cases the Court will be deciding on very shortly. First, there was ACA, of course, though he noted that, rather than ACA being a challenge to liberty, as claimed by conservatives, healthcare is necessary for liberty to be possible! There was the "Papers, please" Arizona immigration law; the federal question is, can a state enforce a federal law, particularly one with racial implications? Next year, there will be a higher education diversity case from Texas. Also next year, there will be a challenge to the Voting Rights Act from Alabama, on the topic of "preclearence" of proposed congressional districts by the Justice Department. The conservative majority on the Court may be ready to strike down that provision, arguing that, since we've made enough progress that we now have a black President, the provision is obsolete. This would be a major step backward.
Using a parable, Guinier described the state of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the general public. In fact, the public, even lawyers, doesn't really understand what's going on in the Court. The process of argument and decision-making appears to be an inscrutable pantomime. What can the public do to put pressure on the Court? It is possible to do. The Court is not immune from current events. One challenge is to demonstrate to the Court that provisions such as the higher ed. diversity case in Texas benefit everyone.
Lithwick brought up challenges to the current law on abortion that will almost certainly make it to the Court in the near future. Many states have either proposed or enacted laws that violate the current interpretation of the law (Roe and Casey), and are clearly attempting to make the environment even more restrictive. For example, the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas mandatory ultrasound law when challenged on the basis of the free-speech rights of physicians. Also, the challenge to DOMA, after being struck down in the 1st Circuit, will almost certainly be heard in the Supreme Court. The Prop. 8 case from California is another possibility, though it's imaginable that the Court will decline to hear it, the consequence of which is that same-sex marriage will again be legal in California. The last case she mentioned was the challenge to the Citizens United decision from Montana, which has had its own state law limiting campaign contributions. The Supreme Court was poleaxed (Lithwick's word) by the public reaction to Citizens United. Kennedy's opinion was factually wrong. Despite the fact that the decision was a recent one, the Court may be ready to revisit it.
A member of the audience brought up the Shell Oil case regarding atrocities committed in Nigeria. Aron requested that Mira Edmonds, sitting nearby, clarify what the case was about. The question had to do with whether or not the Alien Tort Act applied to acts committed abroad by a corporation. If not, this could mean that atrocities committed abroad by corporations are perfectly legal.
Another audience member asked whether the Solicitor General's performance in oral arguments before the court in the ACA case would seriously affect the outcome. Adigbile replied that the Solicitor General stumbled at first, but managed to make his argument when he hit his stride. While most of the case resides in the legal briefs, the oral arguments do matter. The Justices talk to each other through the questions they ask. He assured the audience that it's very hard to keep your feet under yourself as you're being bombarded with questions. Lithwick commented that lawyers arguing before the Court need to be prepared for the "gotcha" questions (such as Scalia's "broccoli" question), and the Solicitor General failed on that point. A later questioner pointed out that both sides of the political spectrum did not like the individual mandate in the ACA. Lithwick commented on how bad a job the Administration did of communicating the contents of ACA. As a component of such communication, they ought to have sold it's Constitutionality. Guinier said that it wasn't just the Administration that was to blame. Voters must remain mobilized and engaged in the process of law-making after the election to make sure that the product law is what we want. It's what conservatives do.
In answer to another question, Guinier stated that in the history of the Supreme Court, the only period in which it seemed to consistently follow the rules it is compelled to follow was during the Warren Court. So perhaps the Court is reverting back to form? The Court can be pushed in a particular direction by changing the conversation among the Justices. Consider ERA as an example. Though ERA failed, it started a conversation among the Justices that changed their opinions regarding women's rights. This can happen on other issues, too.
Aron concluded the panel by saying that the next election is extremely important with regard to the courts. In addition to the Supreme Court itself, there is also the problem of Obama's judicial nominations stalled in the Senate. Further, as emphasized by Guinier, we must remain engaged after the election as well.
[As I was getting up to leave the panel, I caught a glance of the name tag of the man sitting next to me: Armando. Who knew?]
7. It's a pleasure to work on the NFTT team!
In 2009, it was my hope to help pack the care packages for the troops organized by Netrots for the Troops, but by the time I got there, they were finished, a mere 45 minutes after they were scheduled to start. Well, this time I volunteered to staff the NFTT table at particular times. I also helped with staging, and packed 5 boxes. And I met and got to knw a lot of the NFTT team who have been doing this for years: TexDem, velovixen, CA Berkeley WV, angelajean, Eclectablog and his wife, and several others whose handles escape me right now. (I'm sorry. I blame my increasingly leaky memory.) While I was sitting at the table, Congresswoman Masie Hirono stopped by and shook my hand. I wasn't aware of who she was at that point, but learned later at the Keynote on the War on Women later that day.
The NFTT table was right next to Sara R's booth for community quilts. I remembered seeing her quilt on display in Pittsburgh and thinking how beautiful it was. This time I got to meet her, and her sister. Others hanging out there were Horace Boothroyd III and triciawyse. Others as well, but memory is failing me again. In any case, one of the quilters' quilts was being auctioned for the benefit of NFTT. Well, guess who got the winning bid? I outbid Terryl Clark (Democrat opposing Michele Bachmann in MN-06) for it. Here it is currently in our living room, on the futon couch. I feel bad about sitting on it, though. My partner has suggested that we could hang it for display, but we don't have a lot of free wallspace.
In all, I made a lot of new acquaintances, and I felt like I did something significant for those putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan.
8. The Keynote speakers were well-chosen--all of them inspiring us to act.
The Thursday evening Keynote was MCed by comedian and former Onion contributor Baratunde Thurston. After warming up the audience, he introduced Angel Tavares, Mayor of Providence, who welcomed us. Raven Brooks (Executive Director of NN) also welcomed everyone, and then Adam B (Chairman of the Board of NN) accepted a plaque from the union of the workers at the Westin Hotel for the support NN gave to the workers when management tried, unsuccessfully, to destroy the union. Next was Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, who talked about the struggles they had endured since the 2010 elections, and the struggles yet to be faced. Next was environmentalist Bill McKibben who talked about environmental challenges facing the world, principally climate change. Then came my favorite speaker of the evening, Lily Eskelsen, Vice President of the National Education Association, who talked about the attempt of corporatists to take over every aspect of government services in order to break them down and make a profit. Next came Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who is running for the Senate; if she wins, she will be the first ever out lesbian elected to the Senate. She was followed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who repeated the welcome, and spoke to basic Democratic values. Finally, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman stoked up the crowd by talking about building transformational movements, and how now is the time to develop a new progressive one.
At lunchtime on Friday, the Keynote was entitled 2012 and the War on (and for) Women. The speakers were Darcy Burner, candidate for Washington's 8th Congressional District, Congresswoman Masie Hirono, candidate for the Democratic nominee for the Senate from Hawaii, and Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for the Senate from Massachusetts. Amanda Terkel of the Huffingtom Post moderated. Burner gave a talk that described the different forms of power that we all have access to, and how they can be used to achieve our political goals. A particularly inspiring moment came when she asked members of the audience who had had an abortion to stand up, and then all those who support those women to stand up as well; no one I saw was still sitting. Hirono gave a personal account of her upbringing and the influence of the strong women in her life, and contrasted herself with her opponents. Warren, despite being hoarse, gave a barn-burner of a speech on economic justice. The panelists then sat down for a discussion.
I did not attend the Keynote on Economic Austerity on Saturday morning--I was helping out with staging for NFTT. So sue me.
The lunchtime Keynote on Saturday was entitled Criminal Justice in America: How Race and Fear Undermine Our Communities and Our Movement." The panelists were Nicole Austin Hillary of the Brennan Center for Justice, and Jakada Imani of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Rashad Robinson of ColorofChange.org moderated. The program began and concluded with performances by rapper Jasiri X. Robinson started the session by reviewing the terrible state of criminal justice for young black men in the US today, and then introduced the panelists. Hillary, with whom I immediately fell in love, detailed war stories of fights joined by the Brennan Center on the "Stop & Frisk" policy in New York City, on the racially disparate sentencing for drug violations, and on racial profiling. She encouraged us to "give voice to the voiceless" by telling stories of racial injustice in our own communities. Imani detailed the disaster that is the criminal justice system from the point of view of young black men, a disaster that has touched his own family. A discussion followed.
The Closing Keynote was on Saturday evening. The MC was Elon James White, who had the audience in stitches. What was even funnier from where I was sitting, brillig, who was at my table with her hubby mik, seemed to be channeling White. It was she that shouted to White "I wanna see that!" when he conceived the idea of Raven Brooks in hip-hop chic. And then she said "Fuck diversity!" mere milliseconds before White said it. Now that was funny!
On to the serious stuff. Congressman David Cicilline (RI-01) lamented the gridlock paralyzing the federal legislature, and proposed ways to solve the problem, first and foremost being counteracting the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Chuck Rocha, Executive Director of Latino Power, then took the stage and shared his Mexican red-neck good humor and enthusiasm. Then Arshad Hasan, Executive Director of Democracy for America, came up to announce that he was engaged to his boyfriend (he had already done that at the marriage equality caucus), and to fundraise for Netroots Nation. The various boardmembers circulated around the room to collect the donations. Apparently, there was a contest among them; I saw Adam B move faster than I ever imagined he could. Continuing with the speakers, Rhode Island Sate Representative Theresa Tanzi encouraged all of us (that means you too) to run for public office. (I'll have more to say about Rep. Tanzi further down.) Then Howard Dean took the stage, fresh from posting his first tweet. Senator Whitehouse then came up to thank us for coming to Providence. Whitehouse was followed by Ben Jealous, President of the NAACP, who contrasted the promises made in the Pledge of Alligience to the fact that these promises, by and large, remain unfulfilled for African-Americans. The Keynote culminated with Van Jones telling us what we have to do in the upcoming election. These tasks are not straightforward. First, we need to make sure that Obama is re-elected President, all the while holding him to uphold progressive values. Second, we have to fight a second battle immediately after the election is over, because all the budgetary compromises and extensions that have been enacted to get us this far expire at the end of December.
9. Chairman's Pub Quiz. Crazy!
This was the first time I had witnessed the Pub Quiz. I didn't actually play on a team, but it was fun to try to see how many answers to questions I could come up with. I actually knew more of the answers in the second and third rounds than in the first round. That was some crazy behavior, though. Was Poland better than Burma, or worse? Or was it Myanmar? There was a group that actually got up and started a protest over the whole Poland thing. And what was it with the propeller beanies and the damned vuvuzelas?
10. I met lotsa people this time!
Let's see...
From the Top Comments crew, there were brillig and mik, commonmass, Ed Tracey and sardonyx. From Netroots for the Troops, there were TexDem, Velovixen, CA Berkeley WV, Elclectablog, angelajean, preregrine kate, lulu57, Horace Boothroyd III, Cedwyn, Floja Roja, Chacounne, and many others whose names/handles have slipped through my fingers. Among the LGBT blogging set, there were commonmass (again), legendmn, Scottie Thomaston and Scott Wooledge. And of course Bill in Portland Maine and Common Sense Mainer. I even signed the kiddie pool, though I don't often make it to C&J. Among other random people I met were Sara R, UnaSpenser, side pocket (and Mrs.), PoliSigh, Arenosa, and my roommate Donkey Hotey (see below). And I had a nice chat with Laura Clawson, the only kossack I knew in another context before coming to dailykos. (There may be others, but I don't know who you are...)
Among the people I wished I had met were GreyHawk, jim in IA and Melanie in IA, TrueBlueMajority, cskendrick, belinda ridgewood, and a thousand other people whose handles I would recognize, but I didn't know they were there.
And to all those I forgot (and that list may be longer than the ones I remembered), I apologize.
11. Some random observations.
From Thursday morning until Saturday evening, I ate only the free food provided by the various sponsors. I did not go hungry, though at both lunchtime Keynotes, I ended up picking up a vegetarian lunch, even though I was aiming for something else. Go figure.
As I was late attempting to obtain housing, and downtown hotels are pretty expensive, I ended up getting a room at a hotel in East Providence, literally a stone's throw from the Massachusetts line. (Actually, my partner reserved the room on Priceline for a song.) In an effort to use less gas and save on parking fees, I decided to take the bus between hotel and convention center. My first ride on the bus was going back to the hotel, and I didn't know where to get off, and so ended up taking the bus to the end of the line, and then paid a second fare to get back to where I should have gotten off in the first place.
I managed to snag a roommate in one of the Mojo Friday diaries before the convention: Donkey Hotey (not to be confused with DonkeyHotey, the person who does the caricatures). It turned out that Donkey Hotey had her first ever recommended diary at NN when she spotted some Breitbart acolytes hanging around the convention.
Leaving the convention center on Friday night, I wanted to go to the block party (more free food!), but no one I asked knew where it was. Somewhat discouraged, I started walking to the bus stop. But then a vivacious young woman in a green dress waved at me and others with our orange lanyards still visible, and told us to follow her to the block party. Cool! It turns out this was Theresa Tanzi, the young Rhode Island State Rep. who would speak at the closing Keynote. Along our way, I saw her at one point go out into the street to pick up a piece of litter and dispose of it properly. To me, this was a demonstration of how dedicated she is to civic-mindedness. I will not be surprised to hear of her rise in the political ranks in time.
At the block party, I (quite literally) ran into Kathy Boockvar, who is running for Congress in Pennsylvania's 8th CD. Now, in the most recent redistricting, I have been gerrymandered into PA-05, which will stay red until the Rapture, so it seemed to me not to be a bad thing to promise her some support. After all, if the Democrat running in my district has no hope, I can at least help another Democrat in my state who actually does have a chance. So she called me today, we chatted, and I gave her some money.
Waterfire was lovely, but I honestly wonder whoever got the idea to light piles of wood on fire in the middle of the water. I also visited the State Capitol during a break on Friday, and it too is lovely. I really like Providence.
12. We have our work cut out for us.
We need to give. We need to communicate effectively. we need to make phone calls. We need to wear out some shoe leather. We have a lot of work ahead of us to do what Van Jones properly said we need to do: Re-elect Obama and hold him to progressive principles, as well as pressure our legislators to do the right thing in the upcoming December budget battle. We also need to do what we can, wherever we can, to keep the Senate under Democratic control, and to throw out the Republican leadership in the House and replace it with a Democratic one.
Almost more important than that, we need to keep our eye on the ball after the election. We need to ride our Representatives' asses to make sure they deliver what we ask of them, or at least let them know our thoughts on issues. It's exhausting to do. I know I lose track of what's going on because there are all those other aspects of my life that don't involve politics directly. But we have to stick with it and make sure they deliver. Otherwise, we will be perpetually stuck in the current gridlock, or, worse yet, heading in exactly the wrong direction.
LET'S GET GOING!