To Be in the United States During a Pandemic

By Jasper Smith (April 9, 2020)

To be in the United States during a pandemic:

– People without homes are told to stay home.
– People without clean water are told to wash their hands.
– People lose their job and with it their healthcare.
– Most people don’t have enough savings to cover two weeks of lost income to quarantine without paid sick leave.
– Hospitals overflowing with sick patients lose money and threaten to close because they have to cancel elective surgeries.
– People must risk their lives to work and even to vote.
– Kids without internet and computers are told to do school online.
– The market drives up the price of essential consumer and medical supplies.
– Scammers target vulnerable people to cheat them out of what little they have.
– Current and historic inequities compound the losses in communities of color.
– Gun sales surge and some people fear getting shot if they wear a mask for safety.
– Women and children suffer abuse in their homes.
– Politicians vilify immigrants even when a third of our doctors were born in other countries.
– Environmental regulations are suspended to compound the impeding climate crisis.
– Members of Congress use access to information to buy and sell stocks and enhance their wealth.
– Misinformation is more prevalent than information.
– Leaders see a financial crisis and pass a stimulus bill for the wealthy rather than a health crisis needing relief for those in need.
– The president fires the independent oversight for $2 trillion in spending.
– We waste time developing our own test that doesn’t work when functioning tests from other countries were available.
– The president hawks an unproven drug in which he and his allies have financial interests after having previously disbanded the government’s pandemic response team.
– For two months the president tells us there is nothing to worry about and now we lead the world in the most cases and will soon lead in most deaths.

I Live in a Country that Invests in Violence; Why Can’t It Meet the Needs of Justice?

By Jasper Smith (January 7, 2020)

I live in a country that used the military and militias to kill and forcibly remove people from their ancestral lands after tens of thousands of years of living here so the government could give that land away for free to white people to have homes and farms and so oil, timber, and mining interests could profit from “free” land for a quick buck.

I live in a country where 100 million acres of land was given away by the government for free to private railroad companies who sold the land at a profit to build houses and cities.

I live in a country where five white landowners own 9 million acres of land and all African-Americans, over 40 million people, combined own 8 million acres.

When we say the government can house people who are homeless and provide affordable housing in exchange for a third of people’s income, it should sound like a small thing, not a big thing, for this country to do.

I live in a country where for 250 years, it was legal to own another human being based on their skin color and force them to work for no wages and own no property to benefit the land owner.

I live in a country where today, workers lose more money in wage theft by business owners than all the robberies, burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, and larcenies combined. Wage theft is rarely prosecuted, but if it were, it carries only a $1000 fine.

I live in a country where Apple, which has 2-3 times more cash on hand than the US government received $500 million in government subsidies and Google, one of the most profitable businesses on the planet, received $600 million in government subsidies.

I live in a country that just gave away $1.5 trillion in tax breaks and encouraged overseas tax shelters for billionaires and corporations.

When we say the government should tax people and corporations fairly, and spend money on human needs for housing, safe drinking water, health care, education, income and social supports, it should be an easy thing for this country to do, not a hard thing.

The government redistributes wealth all the time. Instead of concentrating wealth for the few which is destroying our communities and the planet, we need to use our government to meet the needs of the people and invest in equity and justice.

Is Our Democracy Even Legitimate?

By Jasper Smith  (January 23, 2017)

 

Representative John Lewis recently raised questions about the legitimacy of the new president. For me, this raised a larger question about the legitimacy of our democracy and elections. There are international standards for what constitutes a free and fair election that have been agreed upon by the countries of the world and to which our country asks other countries to abide. If we apply these standards to ourselves, how well do we do? As I will outline below, not well.

Access to the ballot and the poll– There are inadequate protections to ensure our constitutional right to vote. Many states have implemented voter suppression efforts that have repeatedly been found to disproportionately impact already disenfranchised communities. These measures include voter identification requirements, restricted access to polling stations particularly in urban areas, restrictions on early voting, and scrubbing of voter registration rolls. We do not have a national system of voting by mail, which would increase access. Election Day is not a national holiday so many people have to work full days then when they go to vote may have to wait in line for hours due to an inadequate number of polling places. If after working eight hours and waiting in line for another seven hours as happened in Florida or five hours as happened in Arizona, you finally get to vote only to have your vote invalidated by a broken or malfunctioning voting machine. Long wait times and broken polling machines have been found to be disproportionately in predominantly urban African-American and Latino districts. Even properly functioning voting machines have not met minimal standards for security in many states. The average wait time for Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona in this election was four hours. For predominantly white voters in suburban and rural districts, the average wait time was less than 15 minutes. Minority voters are six times more likely than white voters to wait over an hour. Additionally, over four million US citizens have no voting representation in Congress because they live in Puerto Rico, Washington DC, or other territories. That is a population the size of my home state of Oregon and a number larger than the population of more than twenty other states. Again, this is disenfranchisement of predominantly African-Americans and Latinos. Both Puerto Rico and Washington DC have voted overwhelmingly for statehood in popular referendums. In many states, people with a past history of a felony conviction and people who are incarcerated are denied voting rights. In a country that has by far the highest rate of incarceration in the world and has for decades, and whose history of incarceration has shown gross racial inequity and discrimination, this is a significant number of people. To add to this injustice, the incarcerated population of people who can’t vote counts towards the representation in the districts where the jail or prison is located which is largely rural predominantly white districts leading to their over representation. Many countries have automatic or mandatory voter registration to ensure equal access to the ballot. Some countries even have mandatory voting to ensure equal representation. The US has grossly inadequate protections to allow access to the ballot and to the polling booth.

Equal Weight of Vote– International standards require that each vote has equal weight. In the United States, the least populous 25 states could control the Senate by representing merely 15% of the US population. The least populous 30 states could have a filibuster proof majority representing less than 25% of the population. This inequity translates into overrepresentation in the Electoral College which led to the situation we just had where the president was elected by the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes and garnering support from only 26% of eligible voters. Gerrymandering has led to the drawing of districts that allow a minority of voters to have a majority of representation which thwarts the will of the voters and gives unequal weight to each vote. The US has developed no enforceable national standards to ensure fair representation in the drawing of districts and many have been found to be grossly unfair and to disenfranchise primarily African-American and Latino voters. Gerrymandered districts are based on census data and can lock in inequity for a decade before new census data becomes available.

Equal Opportunity– The US does not guarantee equal access to being a candidate on the ballot, particularly for third party candidates. We do not guarantee equal access to media and allow our elections to be dominated by those who contribute the most money. A recent Stanford study showed that decisions by Congress are determined by the will of the donors not the voters. The interests of donors are represented a majority of the time and the interests and will of the voters have virtually no discernible impact on the decisions of Congress. Top donors have virtual veto power in Congress. They get about half of what they want and none of what they don’t want. Many countries comply with international standards through the public financing of campaigns. In the US, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court gives virtually unrestricted influence over our elections by donors, including foreign donors who don’t get to vote in our elections. In most jurisdictions, our elections are administered by partisan elected officials rather than neutral and impartial administrators as required by international agreements. In the US, the interests of the wealthy elites are well-represented in our government but there is little access to representation for the will of the majority.

We may have been leaders and innovators in democracy over 200 years ago, but the sad truth is that we have not kept up with the times and we do not have a legitimate democracy under international standards. Many countries have surpassed us and can make a more legitimate claim to being the most democratic country in the world. Even our early experiments in democracy were deeply cynical and skeptical of democracy and we have baked into our system many protections for slavery that still serve the interests of white supremacy and wealthy elites, but do not serve the interests of democracy or the people. If we want to have legitimate democratically elected leaders in the future, we will need to shore up our democratic processes for elections.

Movements make change, not leaders: Election 2016

By Jasper Smith (November 8, 2016)

As we hold our noses and vote yet again, I remind myself that we need to be the change. If a president or politician is elected, the system is working well enough for that candidate. It is their job to run the government, and the government does some good things for disadvantaged people that must be maintained. It also serves monied interests that must be challenged. It would be wonderful if a president could lead change for the better, but it has rarely been that way in this country. The institution of slavery changed under Lincoln, but he did not lead it. The abolitionists led and pressured the government to follow.

Abraham Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

Just as there was no real abolitionist candidate, there is no real Black Lives Matter candidate now. The movement must move the leaders whoever they are, but some are more moveable than others.

Trump or Clinton? Either Way, the Oligarchy Wins

By Jasper Smith (September 28, 2016)

Either way, the oligarchy wins. In Clinton, they get an able and capable administrator who is solicitous of their interests and gives them the security and stability that they and their markets crave. Banks and billionaires are lining up to support the Clinton brand that brought us the Crime Bill, Welfare Reform, NAFTA, and militarism. They consistently prioritized war over the poor with staggering military budgets and declining domestic spending. She will ably maintain the status quo of injustice and increasing inequality with enough of a human face to forestall any genuine revolt or revolution. The Democrats chose not to offer a change candidate in a change election. Elizabeth Warren might have been a better match and mobilizer of the mood of the electorate. Still, Obama showed us how only minimal incremental progress is possible within the two party system. I look forward to a bolder, less constrained Obama as ex-president. 

Trump is more the change candidate the electorate is calling for. They don’t care that he is a lying incompetent hate-monger. They just want someone to blow up the system and don’t care if he gets blown up too. Voters understand the system is too entrenched to change with business as usual. Trump is not the same old same old. Voters hope we will rebuild new and better after Trump’s devastation. They don’t seem to understand that the oligarchs hold all the cards and though they do not relish the cost of cleaning up the mess, they will use crisis as opportunity to perpetuate greater injustice and inequality and roll back gains we have made like they did with the Great Recession, the Great Depression, and with every war and imagined enemy. Andrew Jackson is an apt historical parallel for a Trump presidency. He mobilized the disaffected to allow him to empower the powerful and enrich the rich.

Voting third party at this point is mere protest and not building a change movement. Neither Libertarians nor Greens are on the verge of challenging to be a major party. They need to build at the local level first. If the social libertarian right in the Libertarian Party could join in a new synthesis with the libertarian left in the Greens, there may be a chance to eclipse the Republicans as a second major party that was anti-military, anti-big business and anti-big government, anti-trade deals, and pro-immigration and social freedom and justice.

In sum, not much hope for this election, but hopefully Hilary will inspire many young girls and women who will lead us in the future riding a wave of demographic change and local community activism into a brighter future of greater justice and equality when the US chooses to be a modern nation that is more peaceful, compassionate, and equitable.