RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Here's What We Learned About the Far Right From Donald Trump's Presidency Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57066"><span class="small">Christopher Vials, Jacobin</span></a>   
Monday, 16 November 2020 14:18

Excerpt: "It looks like Trump is on his way out the door. Fingers crossed. But it doesn't take an expert to notice that Trumpism is not going anywhere, at least not anytime soon."

Supporters react as U.S. president Donald Trump holds a campaign rally. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)
Supporters react as U.S. president Donald Trump holds a campaign rally. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)


Here's What We Learned About the Far Right From Donald Trump's Presidency

By Christopher Vials, Jacobin

16 November 20


Despite his authoritarian tendencies, Donald Trump never came close to dragging us into fascism. But he did drag us further toward a xenophobic, anti–working-class, right-wing-populist abyss. Those forces will continue to destroy American and global politics — if we don’t take them on and defeat them.

t looks like Trump is on his way out the door. Fingers crossed. But it doesn’t take an expert to notice that Trumpism is not going anywhere, at least not anytime soon.

Whether we want to call it Trumpism, white nationalism, right-wing populism, neofascism, or all of the above, it’s clear that toxic stew is now mainstream. But we also now know that it is not invincible. Here’s what we’ve learned from four years of Trump in office.

1: Trump’s Authoritarian Personality Is Electable.

To be sure, the United States never “went fascist.” That is to say, the federal government never became a fascist state, as some feared in 2016. Trump was far too undisciplined and politically clumsy to fully overturn deep-seated, liberal-democratic norms (though he did plenty of damage). Nor did he even seem to have a consistent road map in his own head.

But some of us who study fascism have seen plenty of disturbing echoes in Trump’s words and in his temperament. Trump was not a military man like the historic fascist dictators of Europe; unlike Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini, military glory was never central to his identity. And fortunately for all of us, his deep-seated elitism toward the military alienated way too many of the folks commanding the deadliest of guns.

But the grammar of fascism — strength, race, nation, violence, action — drove his rhetoric and carried with it all the necessarily authoritarian impulses, apocalyptic inflections, and historic targets of fascisms, past and present. Economics bores fascists and their followers. If one watches his full speeches at his events, it’s uncanny what this Republican candidate hardly mentions: taxes, liberty, freedom, democracy.

We now know that seventy-two million Americans are ultimately fine with that, at least in the absence of a more compelling alternative.

2: Trump Never Built a Coherent Neofascist Movement. But Stay Alert.

Trump was never disciplined enough, nor a skilled-enough tactician, to build a unified neofascist movement around his colossal ego. His early career as a confidence man for his father’s real estate empire did not equip him with the skills or the inclination to organize his middle-class base into sustainable, local institutions, however much he was able to get them to the polls. In his abilities and in his public image, Trump was more Berlusconi than Mussolini: a media playboy turned politician whose best talent was playing a rich man on TV. We’ll see if, like Silvio Berlusconi, he’s led away in handcuffs right after his term ends.

As a playboy, his narcissistic, authoritarian personality demanded (and got) adoring crowds at rallies, but he never took the time to organize those crowds into a cohesive network of cadres like we saw with the successful fascist leaders of the past. We have Proud Boys and Boogaloo Boys, Oath Keepers and QAnon, Bikers for Trump and a galaxy of other right-wing armed groups and spooky conspiracy cults. All of them are dangerous, and none of them are a joke.

But at the same time, we have no mass paramilitary of the magnitude of the SA of Weimar Germany (the Brownshirts) nor Mussolini’s Arditi (the Blackshirts) of prewar Italy. The SA not only eclipsed all rival right-wing militias by 1932, but also, as a paramilitary, it had a clearly outlined if not always a stable relationship to the Nazi Party.

History never repeats itself exactly, so we shouldn’t look for an exact repeat of the SA or Franco’s Falange. But we should be very vigilant lest those atomized militias congeal into something unified, and with a clear relationship to the Republican Party.

3: The Next Month Is Crucial, but Not for the Reasons We Assumed.

Before the election, there were fears of a literal civil war breaking out between the Left and Right in the aftermath of the results. This now looks very unlikely. And it’s hard to imagine that Trump will be able to undermine democratic institutions in the next few months any more than he has already done.

But Trump is currently testing the waters of an authoritarianism so blatant and so vast in scope that it outstrips anything he has done so far in office. He’s pursued the “rigged election” narrative in the courts, and now that it’s not working, he has apparently weighed the option of getting Republican state legislatures in states that voted for Biden to flip the electoral college in his favor. And what was he planning with his last-minute leadership reshuffle in the Pentagon, anyway? And was the “rigged election” narrative supposed to set the stage for the flipping of electors, with the new Pentagon loyalists on hand to crush any dissent?

Even if there was an authoritarian playbook, nothing seems to be going according to plan. But we should closely watch how much of the Republican leadership and base goes along with such moves. It lets us know how many of those seventy-two million people who voted for Trump are truly and thoroughly authoritarian. It will also show us how much damage Trumpism has done to basic democratic values.

4: American Authoritarians Don’t Need To Reject Democracy.

There’s a common belief that fascism explicitly rejects democratic principles. If you look at the autobiographies of Mussolini or Hitler, this was certainly the case. They claimed that parliaments were just a bunch of bickering politicians who never got anything done; Italians and Germans needed a strongman to come in, drain the swamp, and do what was needed themselves.

Much of this sounds familiar. But Trump hasn’t taken the final step and rejected elections on philosophical grounds. Rather, he claims they’re “rigged” and tries to reverse the results with lawyers, not militias.

In the United States, liberal democratic values are common sense, so it would be difficult for the majority of Americans to swallow a rejection of elections in principle. Instead, what we’re seeing now with the “rigged elections” claim is something that American neofascists have pushed since the 1930s.

In the late 1930s, Father Charles Coughlin’s pro-fascist newspaper Social Justice defended Franco’s coup d’état in Spain by claiming that extralegal violence on the Right was necessary there because the political left had come to power through fraudulent elections. Such arguments allow Americans to preserve their self-image as upholders of democracy — as they go about destroying it.

This has always been a necessary move in the United States where constitutional liberalism is ingrained into the national ideal, and thus is indispensable to any nationalist. A paradoxical faith in the Constitution has always been something that’s given American fascism its distinctly national hue.

5: Finding Another Trump Won’t Be Easy — But It’s Not Impossible.

Trump was a unique kind of celebrity, and those are not easily replaced. And as we saw in 2018, Trumpism didn’t do too well without Trump on the ballot. It’s not every day that a party can find a celebrity “un-politician” who can effectively campaign on hard-right populist and even white nationalist politics. And to find a Trump better than Trump — a charismatic, neofascist leader who also commands shrewd tactical abilities — would be an exceptionally hard task.

But we can’t lull ourselves to sleep by thinking it’s impossible.

6: There Is a Place for People of Color in Neofascism.

To be sure, there appears to have been an incremental uptick in nonwhite support for Trump. But the presence of people of color in the Trump coalition should remind us there has always been far more to fascist politics than white supremacy. We have plenty of global examples of nonwhite fascisms and crypto-fascisms, including imperial Japan, Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its RSS paramilitary in India, Rodrigo Duterte’s regime in the Philippines, and Jair Bolsonaro’s election in the officially multiracial state of Brazil.

Take away white supremacy, and we find that fascist and neofascist movements still have plenty to offer their (mostly male) followers: militarism, the thrill of violence, anti-communism, authoritarian patriarchy, religious bigotry, xenophobia directed at national minorities, and more.

There’s more than enough racism in Trumpist politics to justify the term “white nationalism” for now, but we may need to rethink our labels in a demographically changing United States.

7: The Rich Are Okay With White Nationalism.

The activist backbone of fascist movements has always come from the middle class, not the working class or the rich. It confounded a lot of commentators that in 2016, many Trump voters were “whites without college degrees” who, at the same time, had incomes above the national average. The Trumpian base, much like the base of fascist movements across the twentieth century, is strongest in what is sometimes called “the old middle class.” Occupationally, it is less often white-collar professionals or office workers (“the new middle class”) and more often small business owners, independent contractors, and skilled workers.

Hitler and Mussolini arose from this middle class. Trump didn’t. But there have been fascist movements with aristocrats and other elites at the helm, as with Francisco Franco in Spain, Oswald Mosley in Great Britain, and, more recently, Martin Sellner of Austria, the de facto leader of the identitarian movement in Europe.

More to the point, fascist movements never go anywhere without elite complicity and enablement. And according to a New York Times exit poll, those making over $100,000 a year were the income bracket most likely to support Trump. We don’t know yet why that is the case, though we know they certainly benefited most from his tax cuts. We also know that racism and misogyny is not a deal-killer for them, just as they weren’t a problem for fascism’s elite enablers in the past.

8: Antifascism Is Most Effective as a Big-Tent Coalition.

Sadly, the Democratic Party offers the most likely vehicle for opposing fascism at the level of federal electoral politics, as even the Communist Party USA realized in the second half of the 1930s. (Though this doesn’t foreclose other vehicles at the state and local levels.)

With that in mind, the Left cannot ignore people who don’t identify as leftists or progressives but are willing to fight the Right. But the Democratic Party also can’t afford to ignore AOC — and the latter is what establishment Democrats are naturally inclined to do. Without supporting the demands of millions who showed up to save democracy, yet again, there is nothing really standing in the way of Trump 2.0.

Shaping the contours of a Popular Front is our most urgent political task. It’s one that will take many of us to get right, and it’s difficult to offer a blueprint in advance. In 1936, an attendee at the American League Against War and Fascism’s national convention said, “Whether or not America goes fascist depends on who gets organized first.” This is as true now as it was in 1936.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Corporate Democrats Are to Blame for Congressional Losses - So Naturally They're Blaming Progressives Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 16 November 2020 12:33

Solomon writes: "Corporate Democrats got the presidential nominee they wanted, along with control over huge campaign ad budgets and nationwide messaging to implement 'moderate' strategies. But, as The Washington Post noted, Joe Biden's victory 'came with no coattails down ballot.' Democratic losses left just a razor-thin cushion in the House, and the party failed to win a Senate majority. Now corporate Democrats are scapegoating progressives."

Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Reuters)
Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Reuters)


Corporate Democrats Are to Blame for Congressional Losses - So Naturally They're Blaming Progressives

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

16 November 20

 

orporate Democrats got the presidential nominee they wanted, along with control over huge campaign ad budgets and nationwide messaging to implement “moderate” strategies. But, as The Washington Post noted, Joe Biden’s victory “came with no coattails down ballot.” Democratic losses left just a razor-thin cushion in the House, and the party failed to win a Senate majority. Now corporate Democrats are scapegoating progressives.

The best members of Congress are pushing back — none more forcefully or eloquently than Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan congresswoman who just won her second term in one of the nation’s poorest districts. She was the most outspoken against an anti-progressive pile-on during a Nov. 5 conference call of House Democrats. And she continues to hold high a shining lantern of progressive principles.

Tlaib has pointed out that “Democratic candidates in swing districts who openly supported progressive policies, like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, won their races.” And she refuses to retreat.

“We’re not going to be successful if we’re silencing districts like mine,” she told Politico days ago. “Me not being able to speak on behalf of many of my neighbors right now, many of which are black neighbors, means me being silenced. I can’t be silent.”

Politico reported that Tlaib was “choking up as she expressed frustration” near the end of an interview as she said: “If [voters] can walk past blighted homes and school closures and pollution to vote for Biden-Harris, when they feel like they don’t have anything else, they deserve to be heard. I can’t believe that people are asking them to be quiet.”

In an email to supporters, Tlaib was clear: “We’ve got to focus on working class people. We are done waiting to be heard or prioritized by the federal government. I won’t let leaders of either party silence my residents’ voices any longer.”

Tlaib offers the kind of clarity that should guide progressive forces no matter how much “party unity” smoke is blown in their direction: “We are not interested in unity that asks people to sacrifice their freedom and their rights any longer. And if we truly want to unify our country, we have to really respect every single voice. We say that so willingly when we talk about Trump supporters, but we don’t say that willingly for my black and brown neighbors and from LGBTQ neighbors or marginalized people.”

When Rashida Tlaib talks about “pushing the Democratic Party to represent the communities that elected them,” she actually means what she says. That’s quite a contrast with the usual discourse coming from dominant Democrats and outfits like the Democratic National Committee.

Let’s face it: Most of the nearly 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are not reliable when corporate push comes to shove, assisted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. What has been startling and sometimes disturbing to entrenched Democrats is that Tlaib — along with House colleagues Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna and some others — repeatedly make it clear that they’re part of progressive movements. And those movements are serious about fundamental social change, even if it means polarizing with Democratic Party leaders.

Anyone with a shred of humane values should be aware that Republican lawmakers are anathema to those values. But that reality shouldn’t blind us to the necessity of challenging — and, when feasible, organizing to unseat — elected Democrats who are more interested in maintaining the status quo that benefits moneyed interests than fighting for social justice.

While satisfying their impulses to blame the left for centrist failures, corporate Democrats and their mildly “progressive” enablers — inside and outside of Congress — are striving to paper over basic fault lines. The absence of a functional public-health system, the feeble government response to the climate emergency, the widening and deadly realities of income inequality, the systemic racism, the runaway militarism and so many other ongoing catastrophes are results of social structures that constrict democracy and serve oligarchy. Those who denounce the fight for a progressive agenda are telling us that, in essence, they don’t want much to change.



Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: It's Time to Say Goodbye to Gina Haspel Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 16 November 2020 12:33

Kiriakou writes: "There are about six weeks left in this administration. And Haspel must live in a dream world if she thinks that the same Democrats who voted against her in the Senate would suddenly change their minds and cast votes in her favor in the unlikely event that Joe Biden decided to keep her on."

John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)


It's Time to Say Goodbye to Gina Haspel

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

16 November 20

 

he CIA’s director, “Bloody” Gina Haspel, appeared to be in the hot seat last week, with rumors rampant that she’s lost the support of her patron, President Donald Trump. After rumors hit CNN and the Washington Post that Trump was unhappy with Haspel and was thinking of firing her, the scrappy bureaucratic survivor took to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican leaders and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to shore up her support.

I wondered why she even bothered. There are about six weeks left in this administration. And Haspel must live in a dream world if she thinks that the same Democrats who voted against her in the Senate would suddenly change their minds and cast votes in her favor in the unlikely event that Joe Biden decided to keep her on. Remember, the deciding factor in Trump’s decision to name Haspel CIA director in the first place was that she supported the George W. Bush-era torture program, she headed one of the torture sites, and she was the CIA’s senior officer at Guantanamo when prisoners were being tortured there. Trump liked that.

So why has Haspel’s admiring boss suddenly turned on her? According to CNN, “Some Trump advisors believe Haspel has been ‘insubordinate’ to both the President and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, arguing that she routinely circumvents the chain of command to further her own agenda and that of the CIA.” Specifically, she apparently has gone to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress “on internal executive branch discussions before the President or Ratcliffe had come to a final decision. She did this without asking other principals involved what they were thinking. It was an attempt to pressure the White House toward a certain outcome that she wanted,” according to an unnamed source familiar with internal White House discussions.

I can tell you from my 15 years of CIA experience (and another two years at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) that if Haspel did indeed brief members of Congress on internal executive branch deliberations, that is a fireable offense. From an officer’s first day at the CIA, management at every level stresses the “chain of command.” You never, ever go above your boss’s head or around him or her to somebody else. That she would go to the oversight committees and speak out of school about the White House, if that is what she did, would mean a certain trip to the unemployment line. I remember once when I was a junior officer saying to a colleague that it must be nice to be in the Senior Intelligence Service, the CIA’s top leadership cadre, where you can run the show and do what you want. “I don’t know,” he responded. “I think the bigger they are, the harder they fall.” He was right.

Trump also is angry with Haspel because the CIA director has pushed back—hard—on Trump’s quest to declassify documents related to alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Trump has long sought to prove that the Russians had nothing to do with his victory over Hillary Clinton. But the CIA just won’t play ball and release the documents that Trump wants. In fact, this isn’t unique to Haspel. No CIA director wants to declassify documents. Ever. Why do you think we’re still waiting for documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to be declassified after 57 years, despite the fact that we have a 30-day mandatory declassification law in this country? When I was at the CIA (I left in 2004) we were still working on declassifying—or denying the declassification of—documents related to Nazi war criminals. Seriously.

To tell you the truth, I don’t care why Trump wants to fire Haspel. I just want him to go ahead and do it. Gina Haspel should never have been the CIA director in the first place. Her actions in the torture program should have disqualified her. The message of her appointment was simple: Engage in war crimes, in crimes against humanity, and get promoted. You might even become director. Don’t worry about the law. Don’t worry about ethics or morality. Go ahead and do it anyway. We’ll cover for you. And you can destroy evidence of torture, too.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Donald Trump was dead wrong to hire Gina Haspel three years ago. He was wrong to keep her at the CIA all this time. But now he wants to fire her. He’s finally right. And that is what we should celebrate.



John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Refusal to Concede Is Just the Latest Gambit to Please Republican Donors Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 16 November 2020 09:18

Reich writes: "Leave it to Trump and his Republican allies to spend more energy fighting non-existent voter fraud than containing a virus that has killed 244,000 Americans and counting."

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Trump's Refusal to Concede Is Just the Latest Gambit to Please Republican Donors

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

16 November 20


Millions who should be ranged against the American oligarchy are distracted and divided – just as their leaders want

eave it to Trump and his Republican allies to spend more energy fighting non-existent voter fraud than containing a virus that has killed 244,000 Americans and counting.

The cost of this misplaced attention is incalculable. While Covid-19 surges to record levels, there’s still no national strategy for equipment, stay-at-home orders, mask mandates or disaster relief.

The other cost is found in the millions of Trump voters who are being led to believe the election was stolen and who will be a hostile force for years to come – making it harder to do much of anything the nation needs, including actions to contain the virus.

Trump is continuing this charade because it pulls money into his newly formed political action committee and allows him to assume the mantle of presumed presidential candidate for 2024, whether he intends to run or merely keep himself the center of attention.

Leading Republicans like the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, are going along with it because donors are refilling GOP coffers.

The biggest beneficiaries are the party’s biggest patrons – the billionaire class, including the heads of the nation’s largest corporations and financial institutions, private-equity partnerships and hedge funds – whom a deeply divided nation serves by giving them unfettered access to the economy’s gains.

Their heist started four decades ago. According to a recent Rand study, if America’s distribution of income had remained the same as it was in the three decades following the second world war, the bottom 90% would now be $47tn richer.

A low-income American earning $35,000 this year would be earning $61,000. A college-educated worker now earning $72,000 would be earning $120,000. Overall, the grotesque surge in inequality that began 40 years ago is costing the median American worker $42,000 per year.

The upward redistribution of $47tn wasn’t due to natural forces. It was contrived. As wealth accumulated at the top, so did political power to siphon off even more wealth and shaft everyone else.

Monopolies expanded because antitrust laws were neutered. Labor unions shriveled because corporations were allowed to bust unions. Wall Street was permitted to gamble with other people’s money and was bailed out when its bets soured even as millions lost their homes and savings. Taxes on the top were cut, tax loopholes widened.

When Covid-19 hit, big tech cornered the market, the rich traded on inside information and the Treasury and the Fed bailed out big corporations but let small businesses go under. Since March, billionaire wealth has soared while most of America has become poorer.

How could the oligarchy get away with this in a democracy where the bottom 90% have the votes? Because the bottom 90% are bitterly divided.

Long before Trump, the GOP suggested to white working-class voters that their real enemies were Black people, Latinos, immigrants, “coastal elites”, bureaucrats and “socialists”. Trump rode their anger and frustration into the White House with more explicit and incendiary messages. He’s still at it with his bonkers claim of a stolen election.

The oligarchy surely appreciates the Trump-GOP tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks and the most business-friendly supreme court since the early 1930s. But the Trump-GOP’s biggest gift has been an electorate more fiercely split than ever.

Into this melee comes Joe Biden, who speaks of being “president of all Americans” and collaborating with the Republican party. But the GOP doesn’t want to collaborate. When Biden holds out an olive branch, McConnell and other Republican leaders will respond just as they did to Barack Obama – with more warfare, because that maintains their power and keeps the big money rolling in.

The president-elect aspires to find a moderate middle ground. This will be difficult because there’s no middle. The real divide is no longer left versus right but the bottom 90% versus the oligarchy.

Biden and the Democrats will better serve the nation by becoming the party of the bottom 90% – of the poor and the working middle class, of black and white and brown, and of all those who would be $47tn richer today had the oligarchy not taken over America.

This would require that Democrats abandon the fiction of political centrism and establish a countervailing force to the oligarchy – and, not incidentally, sever their own links to it.

They’d have to show white working-class voters how badly racism and xenophobia have hurt them as well as people of color. And change the Democratic narrative from kumbaya to economic and social justice.

Easy to say, hugely difficult to accomplish. But if today’s bizarre standoff in Washington is seen for what it really is, there’s no alternative.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How to Actually Help the Georgia Senate Runoff Elections Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57061"><span class="small">Katie Way, VICE</span></a>   
Monday, 16 November 2020 09:14

Way writes: "Where to put your time, money, and energy between now and January 5, according to organizers on the ground."

Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Jon Ossoff (L) and Rev. Raphael Warnock (R) wave to supporters during a 'Get Out the Early Vote' drive-in campaign event. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Jon Ossoff (L) and Rev. Raphael Warnock (R) wave to supporters during a 'Get Out the Early Vote' drive-in campaign event. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)


How to Actually Help the Georgia Senate Runoff Elections

By Katie Way, VICE

16 November 20


Where to put your time, money, and energy between now and January 5, according to organizers on the ground.

ou voted; you pushed your “not really into politics”-ass friends to the polls; you phone banked; you donated; you boosted activists on the ground; you even opened the occasional Nancy Pelosi email—and now, the election is over! Except where it isn’t: Georgia, where two Senate seats will be decided in runoff elections on January 5 thanks to a special state rule that says a candidate must earn more than 50 percent of votes before they get elected.

These seats will determine whether the Republican party maintains control of the Senate (so far, it has 50 seats and Democrats have 48), which will have a direct impact on the success of the Biden administration. That means these two races are kiiiind of a big deal. Activists working to engage Georgians, combat voter suppression, register young voters, and increase turnout in the Peach State are asking for all hands on deck to help as many people vote in January as possible.

According to the organizers VICE spoke with, these next few months of work will require more than just an army of phone bankers and monthly “set it and forget it” donations. (Although those are great, too!) Here are all the other ways to plug in and keep fighting.

Give resources to groups supporting the community in the long-run.

There are so many organizations doing so many different types of work to boost voter turnout on the ground in Georgia, so it’s worth taking some time to research exactly where you want to spend your energy. (Check out this spreadsheet, which puts the spotlight on BIPOC-led efforts, like S.)

Even just the small slice of groups whose members VICE spoke with all have divergent missions, with their own unique routes toward accomplishing them: SONG Atlanta works to expand voter access in Fulton County Jail; the Black Male Voter Project targets non-voters who sat out both of Barack Obama’s elections; the Georgia 55 Project holds registration drives at MARTA stations, food banks, and popular takeout spots; and the People’s Uprising gets out the youth vote with Lil Baby concerts. And of course there’s Stacey Abrams’ org, Fair Fight, which has been getting well-deserved attention for supporting voter protection work and mobilizing voters statewide. Basically, there are a lot of great options, so finding an org whose goals you gel with is definitely worthwhile.

If you're considering orgs other than the ones above or in the linked spreadsheet, it's important to do your homework to make sure the organization you want to support is doing the kind of work Georgians need even when it’s not an election year, so you don’t waste your time—or, more importantly, theirs. Look for orgs with boots on the ground, where members are interacting directly with and are a part of the community, versus bigger groups (cough, cough, Lincoln Project) parachuting in.

“During the election cycle, we often see folks rushing to support key races, but failing to support on-the-ground organizing efforts and no actual investment in our long-term organizing fights around policy and culture,” Jade Brooks, organizing lead for SONG, told VICE. “Before jumping to support, folks outside of Georgia should consider the current organizing landscape, and if they are contributing to people-driven work long-term.”

Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, echoed the advice to support grassroots organizations, especially those using less conventional tactics. “If it looks like traditional campaigning, if it sounds like traditional campaigning, it's probably responsible for traditional results. Traditional results did not deliver us Georgia,” Robinson said.

A little of the aforementioned research can also help you determine whether organizations are soliciting straight up cash donations, or looking for material help in other ways, like this PPE Amazon Wishlist from the New Georgia Project aimed at equipping volunteers with the necessary protective gear.

Know that likes and retweets are actually helpful.

Yes, you read that right: Grassroots organizers in Georgia need all the online love they can get, especially from people looking to help out from afar. I am hereby granting you all permission to Post.

“Social media played such a strong role in this past election,” Julius Thomas, chairman of the People’s Uprising, told VICE. “It helped keep the energy of early voting and the energy of people getting registered to vote. When Georgia’s trending, that energizes young people and people of color. It helps us stay engaged because it’s constantly on their mind.”

Following, retweeting, and sharing information to help drum up enthusiasm for the work these orgs are doing doesn’t take a ton of effort on the part of any individual user, but it makes a big difference.

“People are not aware of the power of social media and its direct correlation to fundraising,” the four co-founders of the Georgia 55 Project told VICE in an email. “[But] we see our donation accounts get a bounce when a post gets traction. So, don’t downplay that share; spreading the word is how we make our money to support voters.”

Reach out to the people you know personally in the state.

If you know anyone in Georgia, especially someone who you don’t think is an active voter, reach out and try to call them in. “Contact your relatives in Georgia, your friends in Georgia, and just say, ‘Hey, make sure you get out there and vote,’” Thomas said. “Keep that accountability in your circle.”

Georgia 55’s co-founders also suggested reaching out to people you may feel more tenuously connected to, just in case. “People tend to downplay their personal connections,” they wrote. “One woman here in Atlanta had a friend in Portland, Oregon, who was part of a food truck coalition. Because that woman in Atlanta reached out to that one friend, the Portland food truck vendors contacted us to [help] support food truck vendors here in Georgia to provide food to voters. We all know someone.”

Sign up for organizations’ newsletters or communication channels to catch volunteer opportunities.

Hate talking on the phone? Strapped for cash? That doesn’t mean you can’t be helpful. Robinson stressed how many different skills a successful organizing project requires.

“There's so many things that volunteers or voters bring to the table, and they don't think are applicable skills, because they're not political skills,” he said. “If you have social media skills, organizations like mine need your help. If you have skill with office management, if you are an accountant, if you are familiar with the filing information as it pertains to FEC regulations… most skills that voters have are relatable in some sort of way to a campaign.”

If you’re not sure where you fit in, try plugging into an organization’s Slack channel or signing up for their emails to keep an eye on when they’re soliciting volunteers—eventually, you’re bound to fit the bill.

Listen to organizers.

The question of whether canvassing (physically knocking on doors in order to talk to potential voters), especially by out-of-state volunteers, will be a good strategy in Georgia has loomed large on social media since the runoff elections were announced. Not all of the groups VICE spoke with conduct canvassing of their own, but they all agreed that COVID has changed the way that canvassing has to happen, and advised people thinking about making the trek down south to take that into account.

“In this time and age, we prefer the digital and the outreach support, whether that’s through monetary donations or through spreading the word with phone banking, or joining us on Instagram,” Thomas said.

“An influx of outside manpower can bog down an organization,” Georgia 55’s co-founders wrote. “The desire to come to Georgia and help certainly comes from a good place. We have a legacy of grassroots organizing, are incredibly good at it, and have been pounding the pavement for years.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 Next > End >>

Page 287 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN