Please don't mention Colin Kaepernick in the same breath as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
One was a legendary civil rights leader who was assassinated for his ability to bring people together and effect change. The other took a knee, donated some money and lost his job because he couldn't keep the offense on the field.
To be fair to Kaepernick, he donated a lot of money and brought awareness to many great charities and causes. But, charity, while indispensable to the cause, is not activism.
When I moved back home after college, I couldn't find two books, one of which was MLK's Why We Can't Wait. It contains his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and also describes his process for determining where the Christian Leadership Conference would go and their decision making process. He talks about the strategies and tactics they use and the consequences of those decisions.
Colin Kaepernick ain't do nothing but sit his black ass down on the bench
Colin Kaepernick did no such planning because he wasn't planning on being an activist. Kaepernick didn't think the United States was living up to the promise of the National Anthem, so he decided to sit down. Nobody even noticed for two games. Then after someone reported on it he started getting flak from conservative America. Kaepernick responded to the criticism by meeting with a Green Beret, and choosing to kneel instead of sit. Conservative Americans continued to lose their shit because that's what they do.
To be clear, those who criticize kneeling during the anthem as disrespectful are just plain wrong. Kneeling has never ever been considered a disrespectful act. It has always been considered a position of reverence. No woman has ever thought it was disrespectful when their boyfriend finally got on one knee and made an honest woman out of her. My grandmother used to say get on your knees when you pray so you don't fall down.
Activism isn't about being right, though. It's about effecting change. Too many leftist activists hear "by any means necessary" and think it means to do whatever you want. Instead, it means to do what is necessary. If the young activist must stand during the National Anthem to build rapport with his audience, he will do it.
Kaepernick captured the nation's attention and we have nothing to show for it. Another problem with Kaepernick's tactic is that it targeted the wrong actor. Nobody felt any pressure from Kaepernick kneeling except for the NFL, who doesn't have much to do with police brutality. The NFL would've done anything to get Kaepernick to start standing, but Kaepernick wouldn't stand until he felt that black people were no longer oppressed in this country.
When Kaepernick started all of this, the joke was that he was creating this media attention in order to keep his job. I do believe Kaepernick is earnest in his beliefs and convictions, but it blows my mind that people think NFL owners need to collude to keep a quarterback out of the league who can't complete 60% of his passes and pisses off a sizable portion of the NFL's fan base. Tom Brady could masturbate during the National Anthem and he would still have a job in New England. Aaron Rodgers just got his coach fired. Drew Brees will be canonized as an actual saint in New Orleans when it's all said and done. Here in Tampa, Jameis won one game and people started to forgive him before we started sucking again. Everybody loves the quarterback when he wins.
I didn't have much of an opinion on Kaepernick's until it came out that he didn't bother to vote in the 2016 elections. I wanted to scalp him. Even if he was dumb enough to believe that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton, I am sure that there was a District Attorney, or Sheriff, or Attorney General on his ballot who could make a meaningful difference for his cause. GQ Magazine was straight up wrong to call Kaepernick the "Citizen of the Year." Aristotle tells us that a citizen is someone who can hold office and vote. Kaepernick shirked that latter duty. It is not enough to donate money or use your voice to draw attention to a cause, because even non-citizens have that right.
Too many leftists do not give enough attention to electoral politics when trying to effect change. I have even seen one activist say that we should not mention voting when celebrating Dr. King. However, Dr. King would respectfully disagree:
"When we planned our strategy for Birmingham months later, we spent many hours assessing Albany and trying to learn from its errors. Our appraisals not only helped to make our subsequent tactics more effective, but revealed that Albany was far from an unqualified failure. Though lunch counters remained segregated, thousands of Negroes were added to the voting-registration rolls. In the gubernatorial elections that followed our summer there, a moderate candidate confronted a rabid segregationist. By reason of the expanded Negro vote, the moderate defeated the segregationist in the city of Albany, which in turn contributed to the his victory in the state."
People really need to stop treating Kaepernick as if he some messiah being crucified by the NFL. Travis Scott doesn't need his blessing to perform in the Super Bowl. If you want to boycott the Super Bowl in support of Kaepernick and his cause for racial equality, that's your business. But eventually, activism is more than drawing attention and raising attention, and about effecting change. Leftists from Kaepernick and Black Lives Matter to Occupy Wall Street will have to learn that lesson eventually, or nothing will change.
If you agree or disagree, feel free to leave a comment. Also, be sure to follow so you can get an update whenever I sporadically post a blog. And feel free to share to all your friends and family.
Why can't we pay attention to what the president of the United States of America says regarding the constitution AND vote?
I have seen too many people say to ignore Mr. Trump's promise to end birthright citizenship and go vote. I do not see why the two should be considered mutually exclusive.
Mr. Trump is the Head of State, Head of Government, Commander and Chief, and the de facto leader of his party. He is important, to say the least. What he says matters. People listen to him and act upon what he says.
We know from the past that Mr. Trump has not handled the writing of Executive Order well enough to do what he claims he intends for them to do, but perhaps he is more able and learned than some give him credit.
I am not sure where people get the idea that the three branches of government are "coequal." I know it is not a Lockean idea; and honestly, I see it as self-evident that where there is privilege, there is superiority. Hopefully, if it comes to be, the Supreme Court will interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as it is plainly written, but conservatives are clever gaslight-ers and have no shame in judicial activism when it suits them. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump reveres President Andrew Jackson, who is reported to have said after the decision of Worcester v. Georgia, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
I listen to Ezra Klein's podcast on occasion and he sometimes likes to remind his listeners that this time is neither the 1960s nor the 1860s. I am not wholly convinced we will make it to 2060, given the current path we are on, and it does not take much to start a constitutional crisis.
Even if our institutions and the people who serve in them hold strong, as I hope they will, these things take time to settle and only the Lord knows what will happen if and as we go through the midst of it. Whatever you are feeling right now, your emotions are valid and you have a right to express them.
In conclusion, midterm elections are in some ways a referendum on the president, though he is not on any ballot. I hope that those who can will exercise their right to vote with the intentions of perfecting our union and not destroying it.
"It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains." - Assata Shakur
Legitimate government draws its power from the consent of the governed. Our country was founded on that principle. Our country was also founded on the idea that the bonds that unite citizens are not eternal, and that if government is ever destructive to its ends, the people may revoke their consent and revolt against their government. John Locke writes that citizens unite for "the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates." He puts emphasis on the word "preservation," but "mutual" is the operative word. The social contract in America is failing black people in regards to fulfillment of this purpose. They do not live as long as their counterparts and are more likely to die at the hands of the state, they are more likely to be imprisoned, and more likely to live in poverty. Why then should they consent to be governed in a country that has systematically oppressed them?
In his treatise on The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau quips that "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." In the state of nature, a priori to civil government, people exist in a state of perfect freedom and equality. In it, one is free to do as he wishes, so long as he does not violate the law of nature: the golden rule which is self-evident to people across cultures. Each person is equal in jurisdiction and dominion. Locke writes that "every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature."
While the state of nature is one of liberty and equality, it is not a state of security. Though Locke differentiates the state of nature from the state of war, unlike Thomas Hobbes who calls the state of nature a war of all against all, Locke admits that each cannot enjoy the freedom and power one has in the state of nature for they are "constantly exposed to the invasion of others." For the protection of their property, people come together to form governments in want of three things:
"an established, settled, known law"
"a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law"
"power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution."
Subsequently, each gives up their perfect freedom to do whatever they wants for his preservation and satisfaction, in accordance with the law of nature, to live under the laws of government. In addition, "the power of punishing he wholly gives up," granting the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
I do not write about the state of nature and the social contract to suggest that it was a historically accurate process. Rather, social contract theory should be seen as a thought experiment that determines the legitimacy and purpose of government. Historically, the creation of governments and the relationship between the government and the governed are much messier. For many Americans, their lineage is a story of their ancestors leaving a land of oppression seeking opportunity for themselves and their posterity; whereas, African-Americans have a peculiar history - even within the diaspora - as they were brought here to serve the ends of others and continue to live in the land of their oppression. The history of African-Americans is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the infringement of their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
They came to America, not by choice but by force, chained together in conditions so decrepit that millions never survived the voyage.
As colonists fought for their right to self-governance, blacks were stripped of their language, history and religion and treated as property whose purpose was to fulfill the desires of their oppressors.
Their very existence contributed to the political clout of their oppressors, as slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes, but given zero-fifths of their God-given rights.
In the Antebellum South, they lived under violence to the worst degree, in order to keep them subjugated.
Their families were split up as fathers, mothers, sons and daughter were sold like cattle, and African-American women were raped by their oppressors.
A new nation was formed, in rebellion, declaring it a lie that all are created equal and that the negro's natural and normal position is slavery. Even after its defeat, monuments to this unnatural and illegitimate cause litter the country.
Upon their emancipation, African-Americans still lived as second class citizens in a separate and unequal conditions while under the threat of extra-judicial lynchings and terrorism.
In disproportionate numbers, African-Americans took up arms to fight for the liberation of others across the globe in two Great Wars, only to come home to their continued subjugation.
They migrated north to escape the lynchings, bombings and demonstrations of the Klu Klux Klan, only to live in inadequate slums and to find a racism of a subtler variety.
When they stood up to demand equality, they were met with violence at the hands of the police and their leaders were assassinated.
After achieving de jure equality, a generation of African-Americans was lost to death, addiction and imprisonment as the government introduced crack cocaine to their ghettos while simultaneously starting a war on drugs.
In today's political climate, one party does everything to prevent African-Americans from voting and attracts the vote of those who hate them, while the other party takes their support in bloc for granted.
African-Americans face housing and job discrimination, are even treated differently than their peers by their doctors, and disproportionately live in sickness and poverty.
And, they are denied due process and equal protection as the police disproportionately kill them with impunity.
Some may say that the election of Barack Obama proves African-Americans "have no more excuses," as if the success of one man washes away the sins of generational and institutionalized racism. However, Barack Obama has his own claim peculiarity. While black people across the globe have had to endure racism and colonialism, President Obama is not the descendant of African-American slavery. The dreams he got from his father are different than the dreams I got from mine.
This is neither a call for revolution nor the dissolution of political bonds between African-Americans and their fellow citizens. Although, precedent shows that doing so is justifiable. The aforementioned grievances are neither light nor transient. However, as President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, "There is nothing wrong with America, that cannot be fixed with what is right in America," but one must question how much longer African-Americans will patiently suffer such a long train of abuses and usurpations. It is their right, it is their duty to fight for their freedom. Like Thomas Jefferson, "Most blessed of the Patriarchs, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just[,] that his justice cannot sleep forever." It is their duty to win. The American government should heed Samuel Adams's advice to Governor Gage and "no longer insult the feelings of an exasperated people." They have nothing to lose but their chains.
During the Summer following my Freshman year, several I got to attend the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education (NCORE) with several other students, and faculty and staff, on behalf of Rollins. I've slept a lot since then, so I don't remember too much of the conference. I do remember learning that Tim Wise was white when he came on stage to deliver the keynote address. I thought for sure the guy who wrote a book defending affirmative action had to be black.* Despite its name, NCORE doesn't only examine race and ethnicity; it looks at social justice as a whole in academia. Before the conference actually started, I sat in a pre-session module on social justice training. I don't remember much from it because, again, I've slept since then. But, I do remember purchasing a book from the instructor on teaching social justice to people from privileged groups. I thought it would be really useful for my next three years at Rollins.
Confession: I never read it. I maybe read like the first couple of pages before forgetting about it. It was like reading a 200 page lit review and quite frankly not something I wanted to read in my spare time.
For years I never read it, until a couple of months ago. The incoming freshmen at Rollins read Ta-Nehisi Coates's book, Between the World and Me, and I was invited to come back and lead a discussion based on the book, my experiences at Rollins, and the work I've been involved in since graduation. Coates was on tour for his new book, and couldn't fit it in his schedule and apparently I was their second choice, probably a lot cheaper too. While I definitely appreciated the opportunity, I don't think I've ever been more nervous to speak in my life. College freshmen, specifically from Rollins, wasn't exactly my number one ideal audience to speak with about social justice. I worried about getting too much resistance and not responding effectively to that resistance. At last, I had finally found the motivation to read the book by Dr. Goodman.
From Promoting Diversity and Social Justice, I learned some tactics to make sure I was well-received and effective. I made a joke at Berkeley's expense to let students know this was a safe place, established goals and tied them in to the school's mission, and taught them some rhetorical and style tricks that would help them in writing and speaking in academia. In retrospect, I wish I had been more proactive in making the discussion more interactive and involving the students, since it was supposed to be a discussion. Overall though, I'd give myself a solid B/C+ and I owe that in part to Dr. Goodman's book.
One idea I gleaned from the book useful in social justice training and applicable to political organizing is that of social identity development. This theory advanced by Rita Hardiman and Bailey W. Jackson in their chapter in Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook, posits that social identities develop through five stages.
In the first stage, people are naive or have no social consciousness in regards to identity, privilege and oppression. Hardiman and Jackson reserve this stage largely for children, and as they grow more aware of the world they move into the acceptance stage, which can be sub-classified as either passive or active. In passive acceptance, people may simply accept the world for what it is without giving it much thought, whereas people in active acceptance might attempt to rationalize and justify people's oppression. Beyond the acceptance stage is resistance, which can also be passive or active. As the name suggests, "the resistance stage is one of increased awareness of the existence of oppression and its impact on agents and targets," and is characterized by increased hostility towards norms, behaviors, and beliefs that uphold systems of oppression. For some, resistance might appear as the logical final stage of social identity theory. However, people move from the resistance stage into redefinition when they focus "on creating an identity that is independent of an oppressive system based on hierarchical superiority and inferiority." Still not done, people move into the internalization stage where "the main task is to incorporate the identity developed in the redefinition stage into all aspects of everyday life."
It is important to note that while these stages can be neatly defined on paper, in real life, people are much messier. People may be in different stages for different identities, and their behavior may differ if they are part of a privileged or underprivileged group. For example, a white feminist may be in resistance or redefinition in regards to gender oppression, but may be in either passive or active acceptance of racial or class oppression. Also, a person may exhibit signs of multiple stages at the same time.
Hardiman and Jackson go into greater detail than what I've summarized, and their work is worth the read for those interested in social justice training. I want to focus on Dr. Goodman's observation on social justice educators and social identity development theory. Goodman makes some paradoxical points regarding educators in the resistance stage:
"At this stage people often want to help others "see the truth" and to rally support for social change. Thus, they are motivated to be educators. Resistance is probably the most common stage of social identity development of social justice educators and is the most challenging one from which to do work. Someone from a dominant group who is in resistance may glorify people in the oppressed group and excuse their inappropriate behavior, yet have little compassion for people from their own group. They may feel particularly punitive toward those who are in acceptance and lack an understanding of the oppression or a commitment to address it.They may project their own feelings about themselves as a privileged-group member onto others from their group. Because most would prefer to be with people from the oppressed group, they may not want to deal with people from their dominant group, especially if those people are not at a similar stage of consciousness.
"These feelings are likely to be even greater for educators from a subordinate group. They tend to be highly invested in having people 'get it' and may become overly emotionally involved in class discussions or in student outcomes. Such educators will often be perceived as having their own agenda or a chip on their shoulder. They may find it hard not to stereotype or dehumanize people from the privileged group ([e.g.], "those White men") or to value any aspects of the dominant group's culture. It is particularly difficult for educators in active resistance to have patience with the educational process and to maintain respect and empathy for people from the privileged group."
As you can see, Goodman has some harsh criticisms for social justice educators from both privileged and underprivileged groups who are still in the resistance stage. Likewise, she offers caution for people still in the acceptance who she feels are not yet up to the challenge of social justice education.
"Educators who are primarily in acceptance are not ready to be teaching about social justice. They have not yet developed a critical consciousness about power relationships and institutional oppression or the ability to offer more equitable alternatives. People in active acceptance are firmly committed to our present social relations. People in passive acceptance are less aware of how they perpetuate systems of oppression and maintain the supremacy of the privileged group. 'Good liberals' are generally in passive acceptance and might teach about diversity with good intentions. Nevertheless, they will tend to point to individual reasons for inequities and imply that people from the oppressed group should be more like those in the dominant group. Even if this is not the educators' predominate perspective, they may still hold beliefs indicative of this stage. They need to continue to deepen their awareness of this form of oppression and make conscious efforts to check their assumptions about the privileged and oppressed groups. Students in acceptance may feel very comfortable with an instructor who is also at this stage. However, the educator is unable to offer sufficient challenge or contradiction to facilitate the participants' growth and may instead reinforce the status quo. She or he may lose credibility with and frustrate the people who are in resistance or redefinition." (emphasis added)
I don't share Goodman's criticisms to disillusion people from social justice education. Rather, I want to remind people that being woke is a process, and many people are not as woke as they think they are, or at least still have further to go. I also don't want to make it seem like I am writing from some enlightened or elevated state. As a black person, I'm concerned with living my best life and not defining myself through neither a racist nor anti-racist lens. However, in other areas, especially where I have privilege, I still need to get better. Although I co-sponsored legislation to attempt to have some gender-neutral bathroom options on campus and I call trans people by the names and pronouns they wish to be called, I still swipe left on trans women and immediately un-match them when we do accidentally match. This would put me somewhere between resistance and acceptance on trans issues.
In order to move forward in the process, people from dominant groups who are still in acceptance need to develop more empathy for those who are less fortunate, and it would serve them well to examine more carefully why the world is the way it is vis-a-vis systems of oppression. People from marginalized groups still in acceptance need to develop a hope that the-world-as-it-is is not the same as the-world-as-it-should-be and a self-confidence that they can be part of the catalyst to move from the former to the latter.
When people in the resistance stage get frustrated with the pace of "the movement" or others' inability to "get it," they need to remember they were once not as woke as they are now. Perhaps more importantly, they should also realize that whatever worked on them to go from acceptance to resistance might not work as well for another person. While people in resistance have tons of empathy for marginalized people, and some for their allies, they often have little to no empathy for people from advantaged groups. Developing empathy for others, regardless of their status, and even when those people do not share that same empathy for others, will help them move from resistance to a worldview that is not defined by conflict.
In a way, this process reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In The Republic, Socrates describes to Glaucon a group of people living underground in a cave, in order to juxtapose Socrates and Glaucon's disposition in regards to education to the disposition of those who are not educated. In the cave, these people are prisoners, shackled in place and can only look forward. Behind them is a fire which casts shadows on the wall in front of them. The prisoners erroneously think that these shadows are things themselves as opposed to mere shadows of things, because how could they know anything else? Eventually a prisoner is freed and Socrates explains the discomfort he experiences as he realizes his world was not what it seems. He cannot even bear to look at the fire because he only known the darkness of the shadow it cast.
Eventually, the freed prisoner exits the cave and experiences the almighty power of the sun, to which the fire in the cave pales in comparison. As he adjusts to daylight, he develops a better understanding of the relation between light, objects and shadows. He even develops knowledge of day and night; seasons; and years, things that would mean nothing and be completely unknowable in the cave.
Preferring his literal enlightenment, and feeling sorry for what counts for knowledge and wisdom in the cave, he returns there to share with the others that which he has learned. Immediately, he finds that he cannot see in the darkness of the cave because he has become adjusted to daylight. Nevertheless, he proceeds to find the other prisoners, before readjusting to the darkness and tell them of what he has seen and learned. Instead of agreeing with him on what is objectively true, he is met with debate, mockery and ridicule. And, because he once could see in the cave and no longer can, the prisoners determine that it is better to remain in the cave and see than to leave the cave and not see. In conclusion of the allegory, Socrates asks Glaucon, "And if they can get hold of this person who takes it in hand to free them from their
chains and to lead them up, and if they could kill him, will they not actually kill him?" To which Glaucon, perhaps prophetically, responds, "They certainly will."
If social justice warriors want to experience more success than Socrates, instead of learning more statistics about how oppressive the world is, which helps further their disdain for those who benefit from and maintain systems of oppression, they would be better served by learning more about the art of rhetoric and pedagogy. I realize that rhetoric is largely the study of old white men talking to other old white men. However, it is my experience that tonality, rhetoric and diction matter when one wants to effectively convey a message, as opposed to merely express one's self. In an interview for a sales position, I was asked if I thought I was persuasive. I replied yes, and said that the adviser for the debate team wanted me on it, and I got good grades on papers, and gave speeches, and blah blah blah. I didn't get the job. It wasn't until I actually got some sales experience that I began to understand the difference between argument and persuasion. I was really good at making ironclad logical arguments, and pointing out the errors in other people's arguments. This persuaded people to get pissed off and not want to talk to me.
In conclusion, the story of el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz best ties together social identity development and Plato's cave. Most people probably recognize him by the name "Malcolm X." However, I sometimes think it is as disingenuous to refer to him by that name as it is to call him by his birth name, "Malcolm Little," or "Red," as he was commonly referred to during his street hustler days. He changed his name to Malik when after he was excommunicated from the Nation of Islam, he converted to traditional Sunni Islam, and made his pilgrimage, or Hajj, to the holy city of Mecca. In Mecca, he congregated with Muslims from all over the world and developed a new understanding of race and ethnicity. He returned to America, more open to the idea of integration and began exposing the lies of the Nation of Islam, before he was assassinated by those who were not yet ready for what he had to share. We can think of the boy Malcolm Little as being in the naive stage or of having no consciousness. Red, the criminal, was in the acceptance stage. Malcolm X and most of what he is known for exhibits the resistance stage. Lastly, Malik el-Shabazz was somewhere between redefinition and internalization, before he was tragically taken from us.
Of his criminal past, Malcolm X once said, "To have once been a criminal is no disgrace. To remain a criminal is the disgrace." Likewise, there is no shame in being in whatever stage of social identity development we are in, but we must trust the process and continue to grow. And, we must not shame others for being in whatever stage they are in. Instead, we must continue to be patience and empathic, and continue to exemplify the change we want to see in the world.
If you agree or disagree feel free to leave a comment. Also, be sure to follow so you can get an update whenever I sporadically post a blog. And feel free to share to all your friends and family.
*Picture it: Winter Park, 2010. I'm in a class called "School and Society." It's a sociology course, can count for a gen ed requirement at the time, and is a required course for the education minor I was then, but eventually stopped, seeking. So, people are taking the course for a variety of reasons. In a class of maybe 15 students, there's two other black women, so at Rollins, we're actually over-represented in this classroom. One of the assigned books was Tim Wise's Affirmative Action. As we're going over the book in class, most of, if not all, of the white students proceed to go on about reverse discrimination and affirmative action on campus. Mind you, Rollins explicitly had no affirmative action, and even if it was not explicated on the application, it was self-evident, because there was no fucking black students there. This book is one of the most well-cited books I have ever read and lays bare empirical evidence showing racial discrimination in this country. One kid who was considered a douche by most regardless of the topic, proceeds to tell us that's not how this country is; my father does such and such and says blah blah blah. To which I responded, and I'm paraphrasing a little but not as much as you may think, "Fuck what your father says. Your father pays tens of thousands of dollars for you to go here. The least you could learn is that empirical evidence is greater than your anecdotal experience." He never quite came around, but I was really good at persuading him to shut the fuck up. Nonetheless, because of this experience, I thought for sure the author of Affirmative Action had to be black.
"They ain't teachin' taxes in school. It don't even matter I was actin' a fool" -Chance the Rapper
I always laugh to myself when people complain about not learning something in school, because I feel as if most people don't pay attention in school to begin with. I doubt taxes will captivate the attention of the average high schooler any more than learning that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. Also, to do someone's taxes you have to be a CPA, which requires a professional degree, or at least a certified tax preparer which also requires additional education. Most people don't know this, but I actually did become a tax preparer prior to last tax season. I did not file anyone's taxes, in part because the company wanted me to show up in December and spend all day in the office and only clock in if someone came in to file their taxes with their final pay statement of the year. Most people file with their W-2s that they don't get until January or February. So, they wanted me to come in and not get paid and I wasn't for that. I also thought we were overcharging people to have someone who replied to a Craigslist ad do their taxes, when they could do it for less with Turbo Tax and low income people can have their taxes done for free through organizations like United Way. For me, filing taxes is largely about putting the right information in the right boxes and following instructions. But, that's also how I see everything. I'll never forget when a philosophy professor said Mitch Verboncoeur were like robots. Given people's general anxiety about filing taxes and the reaction to House Republicans new tax plan, I'm beginning to think maybe it is worth charging people so much to do their taxes.
If you look at form 1040, the way our tax system works, in lines 7-22 you list your income. This includes wages and salaries, refunds from state and local taxes, money from contracts, business gains or losses, capital gains or losses, gambling winnings, and just about all other forms of income. From this, you can deduct certain expenses, such as moving expenses, student loan payments or contributions to a retirement savings account, to determine your adjusted gross income. From this you subtract either the standard deduction ($6350 if single or married filed separately, $12,700 if married filed jointly, or $9300 if filing as head of household) or you may itemize your deductions; you may not do both. Then you subtract the exemption of $4300 for yourself, your spouse if married filed jointly, and your first four dependents. This determines your taxable income which is then applied to our progressive tax (more on progressive taxes later). We also have an alternative minimum tax to prevent wealthy people from having so many itemized deductions that they reduce their tax burden too low. From this we apply non-refundable tax credits, such as the child tax credit, which can reduce your tax burden to zero, but not below; additional taxes such as the insurance mandate penalty; and refundable credits, such as the earned income tax credit, which can reduce your tax burden below zero so that the government owes you money. You subtract your tax burden from any taxes you've already had withheld and the government either gives you a refund or you pay the government your additional taxes owed. Simple enough.
For real people, the GOP's tax plan does several things. First the number of tax brackets is reduced from seven to four. It also reduces the tax rates for these brackets except for the highest. The plan eliminates the $4300 exemption and many deductibles for AGI, and many itemized deductions. However the plan increases the standard deduction from $6350 in 2017 to $12000 for single people and those married filed separately, and from $12700 to $24000 for those married filed jointly. I haven't seen anywhere what the standard deduction will be for those filing as head of household, but presumably they will see an increase as well. The plan also eliminates the alternative minimum tax, and increases the amount exempt from the estate tax, before phasing the estate tax out altogether.
Most people, because of the increase in the standard deduction, which 70% of applicants use, and the overall reduction in tax rates will pay less in taxes. For single people with no dependents, they would now deduct $12000 from their AGI, instead of $10,400 (standard deduction plus exemption). For those married filing jointly, they would now deduct $24000 from their AGI, as opposed to $20800. Because the exemption is eliminated, people with dependents will have a higher taxable income than before, but they would be paying lower taxes on that income, and the non-refundable child tax credit is increased to bring their tax burden closer to zero. It is important to note that the increase in the child tax credit is temporary in order to make the bill passable through the Senate under budget reconciliation. Republicans intend to make the increase permanent in the future, but it is temporary in the bill.
The plan will affect different people differently, depending on which deductions they normally take advantage of and to what extent they do so. It will also affect people differently during different years. For example, people will no longer be able to take advantage of the non-refundable adoption credit, but this credit only applies when you adopt a child. So you might pay more than you would have one year, or any year you adopt a child, but less in every other year. Many of the objections I've seen to the bill, are actually changes that only affect the wealthy. For example I've seen objections to the reduction in the limit one can claim on the home mortgage deduction. However, this reduction from $1m to $500k only affects people whose home was initially valued at over $500k, people who are definitively wealthy. Another common objection is to the state and local tax deduction. While 43 states have some form of state tax income tax, most people don't take advantage of this deduction because it is an itemized deduction. For some people who itemize, it might now be more beneficial to use the standard deduction.
For people filing as single. Household Quintile info from Tax Policy Center (2015)
It's disingenuous to say this bill is a tax cut for the rich paid for by the middle class. Rather, it's just a big tax cut. Yes the higher your income the greater the tax cut, but that's because of how progressive taxes work. Any tax cut at the lower level is also seen by people at higher levels. I think many people think that in a progressive tax, the more money you make the more you pay in taxes. While that is technically true, I think they believe that in the old brackets, if you make less than $9325 you pay 10% in taxes, if you make between $9326 and $37950 you pay 15% and so on and so on. If that were the case, it would be better to make slightly below the upper limit of a bracket than above it. Instead, it is more accurate to say that as you make more money you pay higher taxes on that new money. So rich people and poor people alike would pay 10% on their first $9325 and pay more only on the income that falls between each bracket. This bill will put more money in most Americans pockets. For this reason, I would not be surprised if the GOP saw their goal of 4% GDP growth, in the short term.
It's hard to argue against putting more money in more people's pockets, but this bill is still problematic. For starters, in the short-term it will increase inequality. Because of the overall tax reduction, the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, and the increased exemption from and ultimate elimination of the estate tax, the wealthy will be able to keep more money and pass it along to their scion. Also, while we may see increased GDP growth, there is no reason to expect that those gains will continue to only be realized by the wealthiest of us. This is because of the reduction in the corporate tax rate and taxes on pass through entities. While I agree only real people pay taxes, only people who have equity in businesses will see gains from the reduced corporate tax rate. We already have the worst inequality we have ever seen in this country. There is no need for the government to increase it.
Also, because this bill is a massive tax cut, it will have a huge impact on the government's ability to pay the interest on it's debt and make public investment. Due to this, the Tax Policy Center "found that after four decades, GDP would be 0.4% lower, because of the increased debt burden." This bill is part of the conservative effort for government so small you can drown in your bathtub.
I have seen some push back against this long-term argument about the debt. Their counter-argument is two-fold. First, they argue that deficit spending is good because it redistributes the wealth. Secondly, because we have a fiat currency and the money our government owes is in the same currency it prints, inflation is not high enough for it to matter if the government simply prints more money to pay its debt.
Zero understanding that the budget deficit is literally the mechanism through which GOVT delivers financial surpluses to others. https://t.co/g1Zm09wrC7
To their first argument, they oversimplify what deficit spending is. A deficit is caused by either a reduction in revenue or an increase in spending. This bill does not increase spending, it simply takes less revenue, disproportionately less from the rich. Therefore, it does nothing to positively redistribute the wealth.
To their second argument, again they oversimplify the relationship between our government and money. Because we have separation of powers, Congress taxes and spends money independent of the Treasury Department printing money and the Federal Reserve disbursing. Also, they ignore what we mean by "long-term." While it may be the case that inflation is not high now, the best definition of long-term, rather than defining it by a set period of time, is a time when conditions are different. We will see recessions in the future and the government will need to increase spending to keep the economy afloat. For this reason, I still agree with the Keynesian principle of surpluses during booms, and deficits during busts.
It is hard to argue against putting more money in people's pockets, especially when many struggle to get by. However, most Americans need a raise more than they need a tax cut. Also, I disagree witht that common notion that people know how to spend money better than the government. We all know how to best pursue our own idiosyncratic preferences, but I doubt most of us think about the macro-economy when we spend our hard-earned money. This bill increases inequality in the short and long-term, and greatly restricts our government's ability to function in the long-term and must be defeated.
If you agree or disagree feel free to leave a comment. Also, be sure to follow so you can get an update whenever I sporadically post a blog. And feel free to share to all your friends and family.
In Hillsborough County we are fighting for the removal of a Confederate statue at our courthouse. In the past three months, our Board of County Commissioners has voted to keep the statue in June, to remove it in July, and this past week to remove it on the condition that half of the money be raised privately within 30 days of their vote. We met the challenge - in one day - thanks in large part due to monied donors in the area. So, for the time being, it looks like the statue is coming down. I don't trust our BOCC as far as I can see them, so I won't hold my breath. Also, Save Southern Heritage Florida has announced that they plan to sue the county to block the decision. To my knowledge, no such lawsuit has yet been filed, but while they look for grounds to tell the county what the county can do with the county's property, they have published documents that criticize and contain the personal information, such as phone numbers and addresses, of those who spoke out against the monument during the July BOCC, myself included. This faux-study is riddled with fallacies and inaccuracies because it was not meant to educate; rather, it was meant to demonize and dehumanize us as outside agitators and lawless anarchists in the eyes of their supporters and of people who might still remain neutral. This is a classic tactic of southern white supremacists, perhaps one of the few bits of their heritage they actually know.
While the overwhelming majority of speakers were in favor of removing the statue, the majority of calls in the past few months have been against removal, because the Bastards of the Confederacy have had members call from across the country. But, someone from south Florida who is fighting the same struggle has no stake in the matter? Those of us who spoke against the statue did so because we know the history of the Confederacy and the erection of these statues. The Bastards of the Confederacy's heritage is hate. The illegal secession of the south and the consequent war was not over economics, taxes or states rights, as revisionist historians would have it told. In his Cornerstone Speech, Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it plain:
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Other primary sources such as the minutes from the Confederacy's congressional meetings and the Articles of Secession from the states themselves confirm slavery as the primary reason for the conflict. But, Jim Bob's daddy knows best.
Furthermore, the Confederate statues that sprinkle the south and even other parts of the country were not erected to commemorate the lives of fallen soldiers. SPLC has published a study showing a bi-modal timeline of Confederate tribute. Tributes to the Confederacy - in the form of schools, monuments at courthouses, and tributes at other sites - spiked twice, after Reconstruction in the beginning of the Jim Crow era, and during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. At the dedication to the statue in Hillsborough County, 'the keynote speaker, State Attorney Herbert Phillips, called black Americans "an ignorant and inferior race.' He said those who help them get jobs in the federal government were 'an enemy of good government and a traitor to the Anglo-Saxon race.'"
This narrative that those who want to remove confederate statues from public property are against or do not know southern heritage increasingly infuriates me. In Save Southern Heritage Florida's Facebook post of the documents, one of the most threatening comments comes from a man who was born in Indiana and went to high school in Hawaii, which we all know is in Kenya. How dare revisionist historians and northern transplants lecture me about our heritage?!
My maternal grandparents were from Mississippi and moved to Flint, MI during the Great Migration. My paternal grandparents were from Virginia. My grandfather was the president of the NAACP chapter in Lynchburg, VA and he and my uncle marched in the 60s. My uncle was one of the first two black students to integrate his high school. When my father attended that school, he was part of a group of students who got the school to change their anthem from one glorifying Old Dixie. My parents met and married in Atlanta, GA. I was born in Tampa and spent the first 21 and a half years of my life in the same house in Pasco County. I was educated at the oldest university in Florida and the number one liberal arts university in the south. Though I've been privileged to visit other parts of this country and other parts of the world, I have never spent more than ten consecutive days outside of the sunshine state. Don't talk to me about southern heritage; I AM THE SOUTH.
I am as southern as chicken fried and cold beer on a Friday night, but they don't talk about my heritage. When Simone Manuel became the first African-American woman to win a gold medal in swimming last summer, one of my white friends asked why it was a big deal. I told him of my father's Facebook post on the subject:
Having grown up in the Jim Crow South, the normal news article concerning an African American and water was that someone had drowned. In Lynchburg, Va. after integration closed the pool that blacks had access to we swam in the filthy Blackwater Creek or died in the James River, while whites learned to swim at the country club. Now we see an African American female win an Olympic Gold medal. Congrats to Simone, perhaps with greater access to facilities this will be the first of many medals for girls who will be inspired by her story.
Again, stories like this don't get told when talking about "southern heritage." Until they do, I will always believe that those who wish to preserve these monument are either ignorant of their history or only wish to preserve white supremacy. Those who are ignorant, we will educate, and those supremacists will lose, because losing is their heritage. They lost the Civil War, they lost the Civil Rights Movement, and they will lose these monuments and tributes as we continue the fight to make America live up to its declaration that all are created equal.
This Juneteenth I had hoped to publish a different post on race and the social contract, but in light of Florida Democratic Party Chair Stephen Bittel's comments
calling black lawmakers "childish" and his subsequently inadequate apology I could not delay my response:
Mr. Bittel:
I hope you remember me. We met at a luncheon for College and
Young Dems in Hillsborough County a couple months ago. If you don't remember, I
was the tall black guy with the hair. I must confess that your comments at the
Leadership Blue Gala deeply disappointed me. They turned what ought to have
been a celebration for the party into a controversy. As Chair of the party, I
hope you understand and take responsibility for that.
As I wrote my reaction to the story to share on Facebook, I
questioned whether or not I should call for your resignation. Ultimately, I
decided against doing so. However, the first comment on my post did call for
you to resign your post and I have since seen others make the same call. I have
nightmares about a solidly red Florida and do not think that your resignation
would help prevent my fears from manifesting. Furthermore, I believe in
forgiveness. In your apology you said
that "you will do better" so I believe in giving you the opportunity
to do so.
Had your comments been directed at white lawmakers or
lawmakers in general, your apology would have sufficed and we could move
forward. People sometimes say things they that they shouldn't and in and of
themselves, your comments were not too egregious. However, context matters.
Throughout our history in this country, black people have been treated like
property, children or beasts, not with the dignity and respect they deserve as
men and women. That your comments came between people mourning the verdict of
the Philando Castile trial and Juneteenth - when many African-Americans celebrate
the emancipation of their ancestors - further exacerbates the pain felt. Any adequate
apology must address the peculiar history of African-Americans.
While your comments opened up racial wounds, I want to be
clear that I am not calling you a racist. Rather, I fear that your comments are
another micro-aggressive straw that will eventually break the camel's back. As
their cries of injustice at the hands of the police state go unheard, the souls
of black folk feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one side, with
their Southern Strategy, the GOP has done everything to dissuade the
African-American from supporting them. Today, they pass laws designed to make
it more difficult for African-Americans to vote and gerrymander their districts
to weaken the representation of those who do vote. On the other side,
African-Americans increasingly feel that their vote in bloc for the Democratic
Party is taken for granted. Rep. Shevrin Jones echoed this sentiment when she
that "[African-Americans] are considered an afterthought," and that
"[African-Americans] are only brought in to deal with issues when it's
election time."
I am convinced that if fulfilled, the Democratic agenda is
better for African-Americans than that of the Republican Party. However, an
increase in the minimum wage or access to affordable health care does nothing
for a man if he is arbitrarily slain at the hands of the police. I have come to
the conclusion that African-Americans should only vote for a candidate if and
only if police reform is at the forefront of his or her campaign, even if that
means voting for a Republican or not voting at all. Their support for Democrats
can no longer be a foregone conclusion. You can raise all the money in the
world Mr. Bittel, but Democrats cannot win in Florida without the turnout and
support of black voters. With 20 years of Republican leadership in the
Governor's Mansion, I believe African-Americans can endure four more years, but
we are coming to the point where we cannot wait any longer for the end of the
tyranny of the police state or to be taken seriously by the Democratic Party.
Rather than turn police reform into a partisan issue, I do believe reigning in
the police state can be argued from the ideologies of both sides of the aisle.
These reforms must include body cameras, citizen review boards and more
training for law enforcement, as is often discussed. However, in addition we
require laws explicitly limiting engagement and the use of force by police
officers, so that if and when people are arbitrarily deprived of their life at
the hands of law enforcement, they can at the very least expect justice in the
court of law. With or without the Democratic Party, we will have justice.
Chickens come home to roost Mr. Bittel and in context your
comments were more offensive than Frank Artiles referring to six senators of
the GOP - all of whom are white - as n***as. In your apology, you said you
"respect all of our elected officials." But, your comments were not
directed at "all" of our representatives; rather, you explicitly
targeted "black lawmakers" in general and also specifically Sen.
Oscar Braynon. I hope you will, as you promised, "do better," and use
this opportunity as a teachable moment. Furthermore, come November 2018 I hope
we can celebrate Democratic victories across Florida. However, a house divided
cannot stand, and this party cannot win if its black base continues to feel
dismissed by party leadership.
Sincerely yours for the cause of liberty and justice for
all,
