Ferguson: Why Darren Wilson's Indictment Would Not Mean Justice

Organizers, citizens, police officers and even Missouri’s national guard are waiting on edge for the St. Louis Grand Jury’s decision on whether to indict officer Darren Wilson on charges for the shooting death of Michael Brown.

Indeed, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s move to issue a state of emergency and activate the National Guard, Ferguson public schools’ decisions to send homework packets home in preparation for school closings, and the FBI’s warning that the decision “will likely” lead to violent protests — all strongly insinuate that a decision against indicting Wilson is imminent, that is, if it hasn’t already been made.

This is immediately sad. Though I am not fully able to empathize with Michael Brown’s family, it must be devastating that the legal system will not punish the murderer of their loved one, will not, in effect, recognize the humanity of Michael Brown.

However, regardless of the Grand Jury’s decision, justice will not be served. Wilson’s indictment would not constitute justice. Indeed, that indictment would fall well short.

Justice, in this case, would mean that Michael Brown was still alive today.

To put it more generally, justice is not that white people be punished for white supremacy (though Wilson should be indicted) — justice would mean that white supremacy never existed.

As a nation, as a people, we have never known justice. Our history does not bear it out. From slavery, to the act of leasing blackprisoners to local factories and coalmines, to Jim and Jane Crow, to the current racialized mass incarceration, our nation really never has been a just one. This is not to suggest we shouldn’t work towards a more just society — but we should refrain from calling on high principles that have never existed within our national narrative, principles that we may never actualize.

Instead, it becomes our duty to discard unfounded self-righteousness and let suffering speak. This will not only allow for the truth to surface, as Cornell West suggests, but it might also finally force the racist American system and culture to comprehensively acknowledge the humanity of Black people. And though this may not actualize justice in the instance of Michael Brown, it might bring us closer in the future — it may prevent another fate similar to Michael Brown’s.  

The American People Have Not Spoken: Why Relinquishing the Senate Doesn’t Mean Compromise

(Cartoon via Political Irony / John Jonik)

Last night, as expected, Republicans essentially ran the table on win-able Senate seats and took control of the United States Senate.

Afterwards, soon-to-be former Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D) tweeted the following:

“I congratulate [Republican] Sen McConnell, who will become Majority Leader. Voters made clear they want us to work together. I stand ready to do that.”

At first glance, one might be compelled by the argument that last night served is a rejection of the current gridlock between Congress and the presidential administration. To go one step further, the elections arguably served as a resistance to the President’s — and, by extension, Democratic — policies. For one, the Republicans did do an effective job of linking senate, house, and even gubernatorial races to the current Democratic administration’s policies. And moreover, ABC exit polls hold that 31 percent of voters were casting a ballot against  the current presidential administration. In fact, fifty-four percent of voters said they disapprove of the President’s job performance.

Indeed, quite frankly, the whooping Democrats took last night seemingly appears to be an articulation of contempt towards the status quo — and a strong nod in favor of Republican policies. Harry Reid, alas, may be correct when asserting that “voters have made it clear that they want compromise.”

However, these assertions do not fare well upon a more thorough examination of last night’s elections.

First, the same exit polls cited above hold that “61 percent expressed that they were dissatisfied or even angry with the Republican leaders in Congress,” nearly twice the number of voters expressing contempt for the President.

Second — and more importantly — the voters of yesterday’s elections do not accurately reflect the electorate at-large. Typically, Democratic-base voters — people of color and young folks, especially — don’t turnout in midterms. This year was no deviation from that norm.

Consider the following from ABC’s exit poll:

Race/ethnicity:

• Whites: a more Republican voting group -– account for 75 percent of voters in preliminary exit poll results, up from 72 percent, a record low, in 2012.

• Nonwhites: a more Democratic voting group -– account for 25 percent of voters, down from 28 percent, a record high, in 2012.

Age:

• Millennials (Voters age 18-29): a more Democratic voting group, make up just 12 percent of voters -- down from 19 percent in 2012. That's the same as it was in 2010. Note, however, that younger voters may turn out later, so their share may rise in later data.

• Older voters (Age 65+): make up 26 percent of voters, up sharply from 17 percent in 2012. Note, however, that older voters often turn out early, so their share may decline in later data.

On the other hand, United States Census reports that “non-Hispanic or Latino whites make-up 62.6% percent of the population,” which, puts the non-white at just under 38%. In reference to age: people 65 years and older only constitute 14% of the population; and those aged 18-29 are 16% of the population.

In short, this means: 1) yesterday’s turnout is not reflective of 2012’s general election; and 2) yesterday’s turnout is not reflective of the US population at-large.

This is, of course, not to suggest that these elections aren’t significant; indeed, the fact that Democrats didn’t turnout is a problem that Democrats are partially responsible, save for the voter ID laws. However, this empirical fact certainly curtails the long leap that folks take when they suggest these victories constitute a Republican mandate.

Ultimately, the nod has not been given to Republicans, and it is thus up to Reid and President Obama to resist the plethora of right-wing legislation that is anxiously waiting to emerge. 

No compromise — no, no.

Stop Vote-Shaming People: Democracy is a Lifestyle, not a One-Day Event

(Photo Courtesy of WikiCommons)

Today marks the 2014 midterm elections, and all throughout the nation organizers and volunteers are making phone calls, knocking on doors, and organizing other folks to do the same—all in order to get people to vote. Or, as they describe it, “to get out the vote.”

This is an incredible public service; it is, indeed, the most practical way to foster participation in our democracy. I admire their fervor, and I agree with their overarching message that folks should vote.

However, a popular argument that surfaces amongst the fervent GOTV-ers — as they describe themselves — is that “one doesn’t get to complain about our government unless he/she votes.” This argument typically surfaces mostly on the left, and for understandable reasons: when more people vote, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are more likely to be elected. This is a simple fact reflecting our changing electorate: people of color, young people, Latinos, and materially poor people tend to vote Democrat, but typically vote in lower numbers. Vote-shaming, in short, becomes a sort of tactic for the left to press those who don’t turnout to vote in high numbers to vote, as they will most likely vote Democrat.

While the argument “you don’t get to complain unless you vote” may seem somewhat compelling on its face, it is problematic—and even silly—in many ways.

To begin, this argument is a form of victim blaming. As it is implicitly directed at those who don’t typically vote, it is therefore also aimed at those who are typically marginalized and underrepresented by our political system, once again: people of color, Latinos, and poor people. But to suggest that just because these folks don’t participate in the same system that functionally marginalizes them, is akin to blaming women for being sexually harassed or assaulted — though certainly on a different scale. “Don’t complain about cat-calls,” so the logic goes, “If you continue to wear revealing clothes.” Similarly, “Don’t complain an oppressive system if you continue to refuse to participate in it.” Indeed, we can all agree how silly this line of argumentation is.

Moreover, for people on the left who make this argument, it is quite circular — and even self-defeating. More specifically, many folks on the left — myself included — charge the political system as plutocratic; that is, in the American context, disproportionately favoring wealthy white me. For the champions of this argument, however, one has to vote for, or chose between, this narrow variance of plutocrats in order to complain about plutocracy. 

Further, this argument ignores political issues that can’t be solved singularly through the ballot box. For example, no real alternatives are offered by either dominant party vis-à-vis the racist War on Drugs, or even systemic racism at-large. Certainly, one party is better than the other, but only to an extent. Indeed, the Democratic party is not running on a platform to end the mass incarceration of people of color.

Finally, this argument has a very limited understanding of democracy. For those who champion this argument, democracy is showing up to the ballot box every year and casting a choice. Certainly, this process is part of it — but democracy should be thought of as a much more rich process, one of participating in the direction of one’s society. For this latter definition to hold true, it seems participation in democracy is constituted by something much more robust than voting. That participation ought to be constituted by, among other things, protests, town-hall meetings, and, ultimately, a popular and continuous discussion about the principles that we govern ourselves by.

Democracy, in short, should be a lifestyle — not a once-a-year holiday. If we start acting and thinking this way, there will be “less complaining,” for we can begin to actualize some justice.