What you need to know about Georgia’s new election law

Earlier this spring state lawmakers in Georgia passed a new law concerning how the state runs its elections which was signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp on March 31st. The decision comes just months after President Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the General Election and the state of Georgia as well by just 11,779 votes, making Biden the first Democrat to win the state of Georgia in a General Election since President Clinton in 1996. The new law will go into effect on July 1s.t. Here is what is in the bill

  • Special ballots will be created for non-partisan elections.
  • Ballots will be printed in black and white ink on security paper.
  • The cut-off date for mail-in ballots 11 days before a federal, primary, or general election or 22 days before a municipal general election or primary.
  • A 25-day deadline for the issuance of absentee ballots for federal, primary, or general elections or 22 days for a municipal general or primary election.
  • A Georgia state driver’s license number, ID card number, date of birth, and the last 4 digits of your social security number or another approved form of identification must be printed on the outside of the absentee ballot.
  • Conditions for rejecting absentee ballots if certain requirements are not met.

The new law is a massive piece of legislation that both its supporters and detractors have a lot to say about it. Ultimately this will affect all voters in Georgia so here is a detailed breakdown of what Georgia voters should look out for whenever they plan to cast their ballots in future elections.

How will it protect against voter fraud?

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Raffensperger spoke about the new bill and he said that it will weed out any “bogus” residents who will attempt to vote. According to the Secretary, everyone will be required to present a photo ID in order to verify their identity before they cast their ballot. The Secretary also noted that there were a total of 8,000 out-of-state residents who requested a ballot and they were given a letter from the state detailing the penalties were for voting in the state of Georgia if they were not permanent residents.

What’s in the bill?

Voters will be able to request a ballot 79 days before the election and mail it in 29 days before it, previously voters could mail ballots 49 days prior to an election. Early in-person voting will be expanded for general elections, two early-voting periods on Saturday are required for each county, with optional voting on Sunday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Whereas in previous elections early voting began on the fourth Monday before a primary or election and ended the Friday before election day. Depending on what county you live in you could be able to vote from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m or even 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. For some smaller counties, voters will be able to cast their ballots from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. As far as run-off elections are concerned early voting will begin as soon as possible and it will require early voting Monday through Friday prior to the election. However, counties may not be able to offer early weekend voting depending on how fast they finish the first election and move on to the second.

If you live in Fulton County you will no longer be able to use the mobile buses that were purchased a year ago to aid with long lines. While a 2019 omnibus bill allowed more early voting sites in more locations, state Republicans have written new laws that prohibit buses to be taken to the polls unless the Governor declares an emergency. Other rules in effect require a 4 by a 4-foot sign that shows where the polling locations are and that anybody except poll workers is allowed to hand out refreshments to those waiting in line to vote within 150 feet of the building. They may also not do it within 25 feet of any voter standing in line. When early voting takes place counties must keep a record of in-person voters, as well as the number of absentee ballots that were issued, used, and rejected. Early voting sites and times must also be posted publicly ahead of time.

There will also be a change in how the votes are tabulated in future elections given the fact that it took many counties a long time to release their vote totals and the general confusion is as to why the process wasn’t over on election night. One change local election officials are embracing is absentee ballots being processed two weeks prior to the election. Counties must also count all ballots non-stop as soon as the polls close at 5 p.m. Local officials will be required to report the total number of ballots cast on election day, during early voting, absentee, and provisional ballots, all by 10 p.m. on election night. This is so the public is aware of the total number of votes that were cast as the results begin to trickle in. Provisional ballots will not be counted after 5 p.m. unless the voter signs a statement stating they could not make it to their home polling place in time. Now that all of the votes must be tabulated by 5 p.m. the day after the election, lawmakers moved the certification deadline 6 days after the election rather than 10. As far as absentee ballots are concerned they will be checked using the ID information voters write on the outside envelopes.

Another change the bill would require is that there will be more flexibility for election officials concerning voting equipment for smaller races with low turnout. Officials will be required to calibrate every piece of technology used in the election. The dates and times will be posted on the county’s website, local newspapers, and the Secretary of State’s office must keep a public list. Massive polling places with more than 2,000 voters will longer waiting times and will be required to hire more workers. More than 1,500 precincts in Georgia have at least 2,000 voters. GOP legislatures also made sure that poll watchers be trained before they go to work and gives local officials the power to determine where those watchers can observe from.

There are also new rules for ballot drop boxes where a board of registrars or an absentee ballot clerk may supply one ballot drop box for absentee voters who choose to vote by mail at respected offices or voting locations. Any additional drop boxes are restricted to one box per 100,000 voters in a given county. The boxes are only accessible during advanced voting. The number of drop boxes in Georgia’s most populated counties of Fulton, Cobb, Dekalb, and Gwinnett which makes up a majority of the state’s population, will decrease drastically from 98 to 23 starting in 2022.

Another massive change featured in the bill would be that the Secretary of State can no longer serve on the election board. The new chair will be a non-partisan actor appointed by a majority of the Republican-controlled state House and Senate. The chair will not be allowed to have run for office, participate in a political party, a campaign, or have made campaign contributions in the past two years prior to being appointed. If the position were ever to become vacant the Governor would appoint a new one. The board will also have the power to intervene in state elections that are deemed underperforming. In addition to the appointed chair, the five-member board will be made up of one member appointed by the House, one in the Senate, and one appointed by both political parties. House and Senate members could also conduct an independent performance review of board members or Judges who supervise the election. According to Georgia law, this person is referred to as the superintendent. SB 202 would allow the board to suspend the multi-person elections board or probate judge and replace them with somebody else for a minimum of nine months. The Superintendent is responsible for certifying the election results, handling changes in polling places, and hearing challenges to voter eligibility. All of these must be done in a timely manner and have an unlimited number of changes. The board is limited to suspending only four members at a time.

What are critics and proponents saying about the bill?

Republicans will argue that they decided to pass the bill in order to protect the integrity of future elections against voter fraud. They support voter ID laws because if people need an ID in order to drive a car, buy alcohol, or gamble then you would require an ID in order to cast your vote in an upcoming election.

Critics of voter ID laws will argue that they are racist because voter ID laws greatly affect minority communities. 25 percent of African-Americans lack a government-issued photo ID whereas only 8 percent of whites share the same problem. Photo IDs can also be expensive for people who don’t have one. Underlying documents to acquire a photo ID when it comes to document fees, and travel expenses can add up to $75 to 175 which will greatly affect lower-income voters. Disabled and elderly voters may have to travel a long way in order to obtain a photo ID. In Rural Texas, voters may have to travel up to 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office. Voter ID laws also affect voters who live in big cities such as New York or Chicago because they might not own cars and therefore do not have a driver’s license. Voter ID laws also lower voter turnout. In 2014 a GTO study published that there was a 2 to 3 percent reduction which translates to tens of thousands of votes not being cast in a single state.

The fallout

There has also been massive corporate backlash due to the new law in Georgia. Major League Baseball for example moved the All-Star game from Truist Park in Atlanta to Coors Field in Denver. The Rockies were looking to host an All-Star game in the near future and due to Georgia’s new voter ID law, Baseball gave them a chance to do that. Prior to the change of plans, the Atlanta Braves were planning to honor the late Hank Aaron, the legendary Braves hitter who knocked 755 career home runs, who died this January at the age of 86. The All-Star game also would have given them the chance to show off their four-year-old stadium to the baseball world this summer. Hundreds of corporations have also denounced the bill including Amazon, General Motors, Google, CBS, UPS, Microsoft, Delta, Coca-Cola, and Bank of America. The CEOs of these corporations blasted the new law calling it unacceptable, they also said that the right to vote is sacred and that making it more difficult for black voters to exercise their right to vote is wrong. There are different ways you could look at the new law in Georgia, if you are a resident of the state it is important you keep all of this in mind the next time it’s time to go out and vote.

 

 

Thomas Paine & America’s Transformative Politics

Thomas Paine is one of the most significant political thinkers in American history. Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense inspired a revolutionary vision and mainstreamed the concepts of democracy, self-determinism, and equality. Along with his advocacy for democratic governance, Paine’s critique of monarchy displayed its vast contradictions & illegitimacy. “But how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest and distinguished like some new species” (Common Sense, 11). Whether it’s Kings or Oligarchs, Paine highlights that such vast amounts of political and social inequality cannot be natural unless monarchs are a separate race from the rest of humanity, which is obviously laughable.

In Paine’s view, inequality was justified through the customs and traditions that legitimize arbitrary power. Because Paine understood these inequalities were merely a social construction of elites, rather than a result of natural inequality, he recognized the fight to expand democracy & equality was purely a matter of political will: “We have the power to make the world over again” (Common Sense, Appendix). This was Paine’s call to revolution & restructuring of our political and social order to mirror what he saw as our natural inclination of solidarity and interdependence. Paine’s rejection of tradition, questioning of authority, & the pursuit of social equality & democracy has had a profound impact on the boldest & transformative political moments in US History, including Reconstruction.

The Second Founding

The Reconstruction Era is the period following the American Civil War, in which the push for material freedoms for African Americans such as voting rights, political representation, & economic security began to take place. Reconstruction was a period of transformative politics that was meant to expand & uphold those fundamental rights of democracy, equality, and liberty for all. Although Reconstruction failed in 1877 following the white supremacist backlash & implementation of Jim Crow, it was a template for radical social & political change that Paine spoke of in the late 1700s. The attempt to redefine our economic & political systems to reflect an egalitarian worldview that recognizes the human & civil rights of African Americans, against the will of the plantation class of the 1860s, shows the influence of Paine’s ideas. The Radical Republicans understood Paine’s call to “make the world over again”. They rejected the conventional wisdom, arbitrary authority, & unjust laws that were meant to legitimize the unequal & anti-democratic reality of the United States in the 1800s. The Radicals Republicans saw that transformative economic & social change was necessary to fulfill America’s promise to African Americans, just as Paine realized during the Revolutionary Era that transformation was needed for the colonists to have the rights to self-determination & self-governance.

The Greatest Generation

Paine’s vision re-emerged once again in the 1930s, with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, the implementation of the New Deal, & a call to action for the American people to embrace their “rendezvous with destiny” (FDR quoted this original Paine quote in his re-nomination acceptance speech in 1936). The quote speaks on the connection between the Founder Revolutionaries and the Greatest Generation, both of who opposed conformity & pursued justice through transformative collective demands. Again, we see Paine’s ideas reemerge during a time of conflict & struggle but also an opportunity for change. The demands of the Labor Movement pushed Roosevelt to intact a variety of programs & policies to not only provide relief and recovery to Americans impacted by the Great Depression, but to yet again expand the American promise of democracy, equality, & liberty. Roosevelt & the Labor Movement recognized that freedom in the 20th century cannot be actualized without material economic security ( i.e. freedom from poverty, starvation wage, homelessness, etc). The establishment of the minimum wage, social security, & the right to unionize was all a product of this new & radical view of the government’s role in the economy. Some have argued that these ideologies have strongly contributed to the furthering of a socialistic framework within the progressive wing of the modern Democratic party. They argue, in order to have a free society, our individual rights shouldn’t come at the exclusion of collective security and freedom including rights to healthcare, a living wage, housing, college education, and more.

The common theme here is that the conventional wisdom of each era heavily influenced opposition to the expansion of democracy. Most politicians during the 1870s abandoned the push for civil rights and economic freedom for African Americans & mainstream neoclassical economists in the 1930s rejected the economic theories espoused by the New Deal coalition. Thomas Paine’s vision served as a catalyst to break from this traditionalist worldview, question the legitimacy of authority, & constantly demand a transformative change of illegitimate structures and systems under his reasoning. Paine saw the despotism of The Crown firsthand & wrote about the need for Revolution in Common Sense in 1776 & still, his influence lives on centuries later through the revolutionary politics of modern American history.

8 Male Politicians Who Support Women

Activists, civilians, and politicians alike have been fighting for women’s rights and gender equality since the very beginnings of our country. Individuals such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, and Ida B. Wells are well-known for their historical championing of women’s rights, and today, we see individuals in politics such as Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein following in their footsteps. However, the thought that the only individuals fighting for women’s rights are women themselves is concerning, considering that women only make up 24% of Congress. Luckily, this isn’t the case. Here are eight men in Congress today across party lines that are committed to working towards gender equality and have taken legislative actions to do so.

1. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

 Bob Menendez has a long track record of sponsoring and supporting women’s rights legislation. Menendez is a leading sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment as well as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Other legislation he’s sponsored include the Keeping Women and Girls Safe From the Start Act of 2020, Reproductive Rights are Human Rights Act of 2019, S.R. 724 calling for the release of female political prisoners worldwide, and the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act of 2013. Menendez is committed to fighting for women’s economic, political, and social equality, and continues to push for nationwide passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, which has been contested in Congress since the women’s suffrage movement of the early 20th century.

2. David N. Cicilline (D-RI)

David Cicilline is known for being the lead sponsor of the Equality Act, which was introduced in 1974, was passed by the House of Representatives in 2019, and has yet to receive passage by the Senate. Cicilline has also supported many other pieces of legislation that if passed, would make huge headway for women’s rights. These include the Paycheck Fairness Act, Raise the Wage Act, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act), Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act, and the Violence Against Women Act.

On Women’s Equality Day 2014, Cicilline released the following statement:

“94 years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the women’s rights movement has made tremendous gains, but with women on average still earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, the fight for full equality continues.”

3. Cory Booker (D-NJ)

 Cory Booker has stood by women’s reproductive rights and healthcare access all throughout his political career. He recently sponsored the HEAL for Immigrant Women and Families Act of 2020, which expands healthcare services to immigrants and aims to address racist and anti-immigrant attitudes that are deeply entrenched in the current healthcare system. He has also sponsored the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act and the Access to Birth Control Act, and has called for recognition of National Women’s Health Week “to empower adolescent girls and women of all ages to make informed choices about their sexual activity and effective steps to prevent against HIV.” Due to his continued advocacy for women’s healthcare and reproductive rights, Booker is endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice and was even invited as an honorary guest tp the NARAL Pro-Choice #MenforChoice event.

4. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Marco Rubio has received some pushback from women’s rights activists for being Pro-Life and voting against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, however regardless where you stand on these policy issues, Rubio has supported several pieces of legislation benefitting women and girls worldwide. Among the several pieces of legislation he has sponsored directed towards women and girls are the Central American Women and Children Protection Act of 2019, the Protecting Girls’ Access to Education in Vulnerable Settings Act, and the Girls Count Act of 2015. He also sponsored S.R. 73 which advocates for the release of women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia and for the respect of universal human rights, as well as S.R. 400 which recognizes October as “National Women’s Small Business Month.”

5. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

 Tim Kaine has sponsored numerous pieces of legislation protecting womens’ rights in regards to maternal healthcare as well as sexual violence awareness and prevention, including the Mothers and Newborns Success Act, the Protecting Critical Services for Mothers and Babies Act, the Survivors Outreach and Campus Support Act, and the SOS Campus Act. He was also a co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act and was recognized by the National Organization of Women as a strong supporter of women’s rights.

6. Raphael Warnock (D-current candidate for Senate)

 Rev. Raphael Warnock, current candidate for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, has received widespread support from women’s rights organizations for his dedication to bridging gender disparities in healthcare access and quality and pay equity. These prominent organizations include NARAL Pro-Choice, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Organization of Women.

In a recent Tweet, Warnock described his stance on women’s autonomy in healthcare with the statement:

7. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

 Bill Cassidy has been an active supporter of improving maternal healthcare and supporting mothers and their children. A few legislative acts he has sponsored include the Connected MOM Act, which mandates that Medicare and Medicaid assist with coverage for health monitoring devices such as heart rate monitors and sphygmomanometers, the Maternal Immunization Coverage Act, which requires Medicaid to provide coverage for certain CDC-recommended vaccines for pregnant women, and the Ensuring Access to Free-Market Healthcare Act of 2013. He has received some flack for his Pro-Life stance and decision not to vote for the reauthorization of VAWA due to concerns about religious freedom, however there is no denying his tremendous contributions to improving the accessibility of maternal healthcare.

8. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

 Chuck Schumer is perhaps best known in women’s advocacy efforts for being the leading sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act which provides increased government funding for the investigation and prosecution of violence against women. Schumer also sponsored the Human Rights for Girls Act, which places limitations on restraints that can be used by law enforcement on pregnant juvenile offenders.

In light of the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Schumer Tweeted the following statement:

 

These are just eight of the many women-allied men currently serving in the 116th Congress, and hopefully, through the many policies, practices, and advocacy efforts set forth by these politicians, we will see more and more men joining in the fight for women’s rights. And women of course, will keep fighting as they always have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Generation Z (born 1995 and 2015) in Politics

Generation Z currently comprises 10% of the American electorate and 4% of likely voters. Gen Z has grown up post-9/11 and has aged through the Trump Administration. This year, the stakes are even higher: with 2020 marked as a year of reckoning with racial unrest, rioting, and a global health crisis.

Generation Z has been widely hallowed as the most liberal generation of all time, but, in reality, much of Gen Z is opposed to the long-held “binary” choices given to the American electorate: that of the Democrat and Republican parties.

Gen Z is currently twice as likely to vote Biden – rather, its clear that they are voting against Trump, and not for Biden. Gen Z is looking for a candidate that encompasses a global perspective and shows foresight and quick actions into key issues that have been mounting for decades: climate change and racial inequality – neither of which is highlighted in the current presidential candidates. For these reasons, Gen Z is more hesitant to identify as part of the Democratic Party and some choose to vote independent which could be the sign of a rising tide towards the end of the two-party system. (Politico 2020 poll takeaways )

Crucially, younger voters historically have a habit of not showing up to the polls. But with the rising amount of youth-led activism with voter registration, may suggest that turnout may be higher this November. With nationwide protests and national reckoning sparked by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, young people can’t afford not to vote (Pew research center).

In terms of priority, the top issue for the majority of Gen Z voters is synchronous with older voters: 30 percent say is the most important and 20 percent say it’s healthcare. In regards to the economy, the majority said the country should move away from the current capitalist standard towards a more socialized economy (Politico 2020 poll takeaways).

While presently much of Gen Z is ineligible to vote this year, waves are starting to form and as more young people come of age and turn to the polls, there will be wide rippling changes for American politics as we know it.

 

The Truth about Racism and its Statistics in America

To many, the civil rights messages of figures like Martin Luther King Jr. still ring true today as America continues to navigate racial tensions. With protesters taking to the streets and the election just around the corner, racism has resurfaced as a topic that both sides of the aisle have to weigh in on. In order to address what, if anything, should be done about racism, it is first necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of what racism means in the context of modern America and, by extension, interactions between black people and police.

Systemic Racism Analysis

With the explosion of peaceful and non-peaceful protests across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd, many people wonder about the motive of demonstrators. Justifications for breaking social distancing guidelines, defacing property, and other civil unrest range anywhere from defunding the police to destroying capitalist systems. However, the shared message between those leading demonstrations seems to be the fight against systemic racism. Systemic racism is not an easy term to define. It does not have to be explicitly codified in the laws or policies of an institution. To those committed to combating systemic racism, discrimination based on biological race or skin color is pervasive and normalized. They point to the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor as manifestations of this.

The variables surrounding the death of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor are circumstantial at best. In order to convict an individual of first or second degree murder, intent must be proven. Furthermore, in order to prove that an individual committed murder due to prejudice (a hate crime), intent for the killing must be proven to be driven by prejudice such as racism. Judging by the escalation of Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the name of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, many have judged the intentions of involved police officers to be prejudiced. However, evidence such as the gunshot wound to an officer in the Breonna Taylor case suggests that the fatal shooting of Taylor was incidental collateral damage in officers’ discharging of weapons in reaction to Taylor’s boyfriend shooting a police officer. But, the specific details of the case are to be evaluated by a grand jury. Thus, evidence in the Taylor case remains circumstantial and inconclusive about intention, let alone prejudiced intention, in the killing of a black individual. Similarly, the congruence between the fatal neglect of a police officer kneeling on George Floyd’s neck and prejudiced action against an individual based on their skin color remains debatable. That is not to say that Breonna Taylor or George Floyd deserved to die. However, the reason behind what led to their death may or may not include racist motives.

Taking into account the ambiguity of intentions and circumstances surrounding instances of police brutality, case examples of manifestations of systemic racism do not seem to put racism into perspective. In trying to better understand what racism in a huge and complex system such as the US, case examples do not provide a complete picture.

Racism Statistics in Education, Government and Occupation

In order to define racism, it is important to understand inequalities between people of different races. Inequality may exist in the context of structures and institutions such as education, government, and occupation. In addition, inequalities may exist in subtler areas of life such as culture and family. Almost all bodies of research indicate that schools with a predominantly minority student body disproportionately suffer more from larger class sizes, a lack of qualified teachers, and an overall inability to provide resources to students. For now, it is somewhat unclear whether the cause of under-funded and neglected portions of the education system are due to racial bias or are simply symptoms of economic equality. A study by David Mosenskis points to a causal relationship in Pennsylvania between the skin color of students within a school district and how much that district receives in funding. However, more research is needed to conclusively implicate racial bias as a primary factor in education in other states and districts. In addition to discrepancies in education, many Americans point to a lack of representation in government for racial minorities. However, Pew Research Center indicates that Congress continues to set records of minority representation every election cycle. Additionally, many Americans point to the fact that minorities are significantly over-represented in lower-paying jobs. Many see this as evidence that processes such as hiring and deciding employee promotions are biased. In respect to family structure, Brookings reports that from 1965 to 1990 (in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement) the percentage of black infants born into families without fathers increased from 24% to 64% compared to the percentage of white infants which increased from 3% to 18%. Taken together, factors such as education and family structure are considered to be strong influences on socioeconomic inequities.

Controversy emerges with disagreement about how these different factors mix together to cause inequalities between races such as the wealth and income inequality gap between white and black households. Those who view statistics through the lens of systemic racism are likely to attribute any discrepancy between races or differences in representation of races to prejudice. In this way, rather than defining racism as a explicit or intentional bias, any policy or institution that leads to a discrepancy between races may be considered racist. In contrast, an individual might view inequalities between races as consequences of factors such as culture or personal choice. Looking at partisan differences between perceptions of racial privilege in a study by Pew Research Center, Democrats are far more likely to view being white as a significant advantage. Consequently, it is no surprise that Democrats view race as a driving indicator of one’s likelihood to succeed, fail, or suffer as a victim of police brutality. Conversely, Republicans are less likely to attribute an individual’s socioeconomic position to their race and more likely to attribute it to their personal decisions and productive merit.

Racism Statistics in Police Brutality

In the current political climate, police brutality remains as one of the primary topics in discussing racial tension and inequality. According to Statista, black Americans experience higher rates of killings by police officers than any other race, while white Americans are the most killed race. This study shows that black Americans are about twice as likely to have a fatal encounter with a police officer. However, although it is more likely for black people to be killed, the Washington Post database on police shootings indicates that only 14 unarmed back people were fatally shot in 2019 which represents the continuation of a 63% reduction in fatal shootings of unarmed black men since the study began in 2015. While it is tragic that black people are statistically more likely to be fatally shot by police officers, the small and decreasing proportion of the African American population that experiences fatal instances of police brutality does not help to prove Joe Biden‘s that statement that “black Americans wake up knowing that they can lose their life over the course of just living their life.” Thus, many go farther in asserting that the criminal justice system as a whole is racist due to higher incarceration rates of black people. Others point to a significantly higher proportion of individuals that are black that commit violent crimes as compared to other races, as 37.8% of violent crimes are committed by black Americans despite black people representing only 13.4% of the general public. Interestingly, factors such as high poverty among black Americans may also help explain inequalities in fatal shooting statistics. This study demonstrates how the rate of poverty can explain the higher number of black Americans being killed by police officers. This study claims that there are increased odds of simply being black and poor in America at a ratio of 2.5, which closely resembles the 2.29 increased odds of which black Americans are killed by police officers. More importantly, the odds-ratio of poor black citizens being killed by police officers is 3.34 which is actually less than the odds for white citizens being killed by police officers at 3.64. These statistics do not correlate with the claim that police officers are collectively biased in their kills by race. Nevertheless, these statistics do not disprove isolated cases of racism.

Politics

At its core, racism remains a political issue. Given the history of government-induced racial inequity in the past as well as many people’s belief in government’s general responsibility to facilitate social well-being and equity, the question of how to address racism is often targeted toward politicians. More specifically, in recent months, the death of George Floyd has sparked interest in reforming laws surrounding policing. To many, reforming the police can involve eliminating qualified immunity, imposing more restrictive recruiting, and requiring better training. These reforms are primarily driven by the desire to create a more transparent and less-militarized police force composed of officers that can be held accountable. In simpler terms, many argue over the amount of money allocated to police. Some Democrats such as House Representatives Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have supported the movement to “defund the police.” The movement hopes to diminish the proportion of the budget assigned to the police and reinvest the funds into areas like education and public health. However, despite rallying cries for police reform, the direction towards progress remains elusive. In the face of concerns of over-policing specific neighborhoods with predominantly black populations, a Gallup poll indicates that 81% of black people in America would like to maintain or increase policing in their own communities.

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and President Donald Trump have varied approaches to racism and race-based inequality. Joe Biden has vowed to help the black community by tackling housing inequality, expanding funding to public education, and appointing the first black female Supreme Court Justice. In contrast, President Trump has touted low black unemployment numbers before the economic devastation during the COVID crisis. It is far from clear where the politics surrounding racism will and should go from here. Given the hazardous and often-polarizing nature of the topic, it is undeniably imperative that we are able to objectively assess both the problem of racism, and the policies to address it.

How the Bill of Rights is Being Ignored in the U.S.

In order to protect the liberties of American citizens, the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution to prevent the government from abusing their authority. However, several of these rights are being ignored.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment claims that there should be no law that prohibits the “Abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, or interfering with the right to peaceably assemble”.  This amendment is critical in allowing citizens to express themselves. However, this year amidst the protests that involved the Black Lives Matters Movement, this amendment was not applied in a particular case. The American Civil Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of journalists who were attacked by the Minneapolis and Minnesota police. The journalists were covering the protests, but were wrongfully arrested, injured, and harassed. According to Forbes, the ACLU will file similar lawsuits in other states where journalists have found themselves in these situations.

State’s Rights

The Tenth Amendment claims that the powers that are not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States. This allows the states to decide whether they want to integrate a particular law by enforcing it. For example, this amendment plays a role in legalizing marijuana. There are some states that only allow marijuana for medical purposes while others, like Colorado and Washington, allow it to be used for recreational purposes. On the other hand, the state of Oregon is facing a difficult situation while trying to handle the recent protests. They filed a second lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s deployment of federal officers in Oregon. The state of Oregon claims this is a violation of the tenth amendment.  KOIN 06 mentioned how  Oregon State Representatives claimed that, “The purpose of this lawsuit is to stop the federal government . . . from depriving Portlanders of the right to be policed solely by those the Constitution permits, and who are accountable to Portlanders and Oregonians”. The state of Oregon wants to be in control on how to handle the protests regarding George Floyd’s death and not be solely governed by the federal officers.

Religious Freedom

When Congress passed The Affordable Care Act in 2010, which is known as Obamacare,  it required insurers to cover at least one form of contraceptives. Furthermore, employers were obligated to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their employees. Since then multiple lawsuits have been filed claiming that this contradicted some businesses and religious organization’s beliefs. One of highest profile cases involving this issue was Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.  In 2017 the Health and Human Services department integrated a broader religious exemption to protect religious non-profits, which included the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group run by Catholic nuns. They were no longer obligated to provide contraceptives that they morally objected to provide. However, the lawsuits did not end there because the Pennsylvania court interfered and the case was ultimately brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recently ruled in July 2020 that the Trump administration has the authority to provide exceptions to this regulation, although, according to Politician Compare, Biden is still leading  Trump  in the polls. Therefore, depending on the 2020 election if Biden wins the presidency his administration could overturn this.

The Right Against Unreasonable Searches

The fourth amendment grants citizens the right for them to be secure in homes and against unreasonable searches. It has been through cases like Roe v. Wade and Kelly v. Johnson that emphasized the right to privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment. Furthermore, this right includes protection against government intrusion like collecting private information through a variety of databases due to suspicions and the right not to have personal information to be disclosed.  However, since 2014 the National Security Agency (NSA) has made headlines due to the controversial actions of Edward Snowden. Snowden leaked classified information from the NSA in 2013 while he was working for the CIA. This led to the public knowledge of global surveillance programs that were being conducted by the NSA and sparked numerous discussions about national security and individual privacy rights.

“What is your Life’s Blueprint?” -Martin Luther King

Six months before he was assassinated, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke to a group of students at Barratt Junior High School in Philadelphia on October 26, 1967.

Martin Luther King remains one of the most hallowed orators in American history. With a voice so imbued with power, King often delivered eloquent speeches with broad ideas on the national stage. This speech, however, was delivered in a high school gym.

In his speech, Dr.King speaks to high school teens regarding their futures and the fight to keep those dreams alive. King’s speech gave so many Black teenagers across America the motivation to continue their educations, their belief in their own self-worth, and the tenacity and strength to be the best they could possibly be.

The school where King delivered his speech, Barratt Junior High, was later transformed into a middle school, and subsequently demolished in 2011 due to declining student enrollment. Though the building may exist no longer, Dr. King’s blueprint has remained a focal point for Black youth in America.

Beyond Black youth, Martin Luther King’s speech also speaks to the youth of every race. This fight for equality is all of our fights. It is up to every single community to get up and fight for this movement on the behalf of us all. We can no longer keep our heads down as it comes to racism.  In Martin Luther King’s own words: “If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

Is Religious Freedom a Social or Economic Issue?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” reads the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of the Constitution, are some of the most protected and principal rights of Americans. However, none are more prominent and well known than those mentioned in the First Amendment. First Amendment rights include religion, speech, press, to peacefully assemble, and to petition unjust governmental actions.

What makes these rights so important is that they are indisputably just and enable freedom of choice. They allow people to freely believe in and pursue their own opinions and ideas. They are designed to prevent suppression of opinions and to protect, not restrict, take away, or harm the rights of anyone else.

The first right mentioned is Freedom of Religion. Rights, such as Freedom of Religion, are often correlated with harmonious societies. However, there are positive, unanticipated consequences that result from granting the Freedom of Religion, and this matter has seldom been studied.

Economics of Religious Freedom

An article written by Brian J. Grim from Georgetown University titled, Is Religious Freedom Good For Business?: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis, explores the economic impact religious freedom has on countries.

The study explores several different areas in which religious freedom benefits society and how religious restrictions serve as a detriment to society.

Grim wrote about how religious freedom creates peace and stability which will directly allow for more fluent business operations as well as greater socioeconomic results. As well, most countries that exercise freedom of religion are likely to grant other freedoms. “Religious freedom is also correlated with one of the key ingredients of sustainable economic development: lower corruption,” he wrote. Where there is freedom of worship and religion, there is seemingly less incentive to malfeasance.

Establishing his belief that religious freedom allows for better economic outcomes, Grim mentions six theories as to why this may be. The most accurate of his claims is the religious economy model which implies that religious activity is economic activity. “Religious freedom results in more religious activity, hence more economic growth.”

Several areas are studied within the inquiry such as GDP growth, competitiveness, and economic outcomes. The data accumulated in the study suggests that from a business and economic perspective, religious freedom is quite beneficial to society. It triggers global competitiveness as well as GDP growth.

Along with the uncoverings found within the study, religious freedom engenders more opportunities for businesses to thrive. If the freedom of only one religion is granted, the proscriptions of this religion would become the prominent focus of business opportunities. When religious freedom is unanimously granted, business opportunities remain everywhere.

What the findings suggest is that there are unforeseen results for people and politicians to advocate for religious freedom other than from a human rights standpoint.

Advocating For Religious Freedom

“Our Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions,” said President Donald Trump who values “America’s first freedom.” President Trump believes in safeguarding religious freedom including allowing prayer in schools along with equal treatment of all practices and organizations. However, some have accused Trump of acting differently than his words, favoring Christian freedom over other religions.

An editorial from the Los Angeles Times suggests that while Trump claims that he favors religious freedom for all, he mainly favors it for Christians. The editorial explains how Trump has created an illusion through this “religious freedom initiative” that Christians in America are under attack and that action must be taken to prevent further harm. Part of the initiative is a reminder that voluntary prayer is allowed in schools which is a reaffirmation of an already existing law. The editorial insists that Trump has made this law appear as his own in order to secure a crucial Christian conservative vote in the 2020 election.

President Trump’s voiced decision to protect religious freedom, in this case, was made in terms of a freedom standpoint, and the data analyzed by Grim would only stoke President Trump’s support. Donald Trump runs a business and economic-based presidency and taking into account the great economic benefits that religious freedom rewards would only strengthen his stance on the issue.

Another prominent name in Politics, Ted Cruz, who ran for office in the 2016 election is a strong supporter of religious freedom. “I do not think the federal government should be able to force Catholic nuns or Priests for Life to pay for abortion-inducing drugs and others. I think that violates their free exercise rights,” said Cruz in 2018 at a hearing titled Threats to Religious Liberty Around the World. Cruz went on to mention circumstances beyond that of Christianity such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Orthodox Jews. “To attack religious liberty is to attack the dignity of a person,” was his underlining remark. Cruz believes in protecting religious liberty at its fullest extent.

President Trump’s opposition in this upcoming election, Joe Biden, a Roman Catholic, also claims to support religious freedom but his record and presidential plans prove otherwise.  He said in his plan to advance LGBTQ+: “Religious freedom is a fundamental American value. But states have inappropriately used broad exemptions to allow businesses, medical providers, social service agencies, state and local government officials and others to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.”  Biden’s statement indicates his desire to limit religious freedom in several aspects which opens the door for future exploitations on religious freedom including institutions potentially not being able to withhold membership priveledges of the LGBTQ+ practicing communities. Biden said in response to his Athenagoras Human Rights Award from The Greek Orthodox Church in 2015. “We defend religious liberty, not just because it’s a moral imperative because it improves and will improve the security of people everywhere against violent extremists.” Biden believes that religious freedom is not only important for those who practice it, but implies peace and tolerance, two virtues that the United States was founded upon.  Conservatives have been apprehensive in supporting Biden’s religious freedom policy.

Exceptions to Religious Freedom

In a modern, American society, opposing the freedom of religion as a whole would be a very difficult political stance. However, the issue is not typically regarding one’s individual practices, but how they impinge on the practices and beliefs of others. Examples of this include refusing service to LGBT members or refusing to pay for birth control due to religious practices, similar to Biden’s stance. Politicians may favor the freedom of religion across all circumstances and others may believe that business cannot discriminate due to religious reasons.

Senator Kamala Harris from California, also under consideration for Biden’s running mate, believes that the government has the power to force non-discriminatory actions despite religious beliefs. This includes fighting Hobby Lobby’s supreme court petition for a religious exemption to not require the company to provide contraceptives to all of its employees pursuant to Obama’s contraceptive mandate.

Elizabeth Warren, another politician, that supports religious freedom in the same way that Kamala Harris does. Warren believes in religious freedom without the right to discriminate and believes attacks on women’s birth control access are an attack on women’s economic freedom.

In any of the political stances mentioned above, it is important to consider the findings in Grim’s article when making these decisions especially considering the fact that religious restrictions have increased globally from 2007-2017 according to PEW Research.

So what do these findings mean? The study suggests that religious freedom is not only something that should be supported due to its benefits but is easy to support. It suggests that religious freedom is not just a social issue, but an economic one as well, and provides the underlying fabric to a fully functioning democracy that provides a moral framework to help entice people to do good. In the political stances noted above, every statement considers the issue a social one. Typically issues are separated into the category of social or economic. For example, LGBT rights, gun rights, are social issues while tax rates and healthcare, are economic issues. Religious freedom can now be considered both. Religious freedom should not only be seen as a basic right and America’s first freedom but an economic catalyst as well.

Racism in America: How We Have Fought and How We Will Win

In America, we have been fighting racial injustice around the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The land we took from Native-Americans to be seeded and tilled by slaves is built on the backs and bodies of these two minority groups. It was not until the Civil Rights act of 1964, that people of different skin tones could legally stay in the same room.

Today we are facing pandemics, police brutality, and unequal opportunity. We have greatly progressed as a country around these issues and are continuing to do so, as has been proven in recent weeks. Here is a brief history lesson on dark points of inequality in our country and how citizens banded together to stop or null them.

Slavery

One of the most controversial topics that every American has held their head for, slavery in America lasted for more than 100 years. It is estimated that in the early 18th century alone more than six to seven million African people were taken from their homes and brought over to the US.

In one of the earliest accounts, historians note after the American Revolution many states in the north did not rely as heavily on slave labor and even empathize with their plight like how the British treated America as a whole. There were also roughly 5,000 soldiers and sailors during this time that were black.

But empathizing and action are different. When the electoral college was enacted slaves only counted as three-fifths a person according to History.com. It wasn’t until the industrial era that America started realizing that a person as property might be wrong. When Lincoln was elected president he signed the emancipation proclamation, freeing all slaves. Due to industrialization, crops such as cotton and tobacco became priceless, as well as the free labor many of these farmers possessed.

This declaration made some of the very wealthy people in the southern states angry, causing a rise in militia and separation of the states into two factions, The Union and the Confederacy. The confederacy consisted of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

During this time is when people like Harriet Tubman, founder of the underground railroad, came to shine and open people’s eyes to the atrocity of slavery. During her time she served as a spy for the Union helped so many people, but she was never granted a pension for her efforts.

Jim Crow

Still fresh in the minds of Americans was the aftermath of Union victory. Though on paper slavery was abolished this didn’t mean that “colored” people were equals. All manner of discrimination and the rise of the KKK wrought fear in the hearts of many southern African-Americans. You couldn’t use the same bathroom, school, water fountain, eatery, and especially no intermingling.

After the nail in the coffin for equal rights was hammered in with Plessy V. Ferguson, this oppression rose great and influential people that will forever be remembered. People like the peaceful Martin Luther King, to his more aggressive counterpart Malcolm X. Though this country was founded on bloodshed, Martin Luther King sought to seek equality through peaceful protest. When the police broke out the firehouses, protestors wore out their swimsuits. When good men and women were killed, they persevered and did not raise arms but voice.

The other major point was persistence. Protests and voices never faltered no matter how beaten down or deterred they were. People were willing to risk their lives so future generations could use the same facilities as white people. To finally stop being subhuman and be equals in every right.  Martin Luther King was arrested 20 times and assaulted within an inch of his life at least four according to nobelprize.com.

Japanese Internment

Though the last two topics were about mainly African American history, discrimination doesn’t just cater to one race or belief. Japanese and Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps during World War II. People like George Takei can remember being forced out of his home because of the way he looked.

The original idea was proposed by Lt. General John DeWitt. Originally calling for the detainment of those with German and Italian descent should be incarcerated as well, but this did not take as well. It was decided by 1942 that all “Japanese people” be rounded up and sent to relocation centers. People like Milton S. Eisenhower, who was originally in charge of the War Relocation Authority, resigned from his position after heavy criticism of what he called “incarceration of innocent people.”

Some accounts sound just like the roundup of the Jewish people by the Nazis. Many were taken from their homes and transported by train to march miles to camps like the one located in New Mexico. There are even accounts of people being shot if attempting to flee like.

Though the camps were kept in place until a little after the end of the war, the government did give reparations of up to $20,000 each to some 80,000 people detained at these camps.

The Southern Border

Illegal immigration and the southern border have been heated topics in American politics as of late. Many people try to live the American dream for a better life are being thwarted by tight regulation and the difficulty to just legally work here. Though this wasn’t always the case. Mexico and America have had rocky relations since the westward expansion. States like California, New Mexico, and Texas came from taking the land from the Mexican government. After Texas declared itself independent and joined the United States in 1846, President James K. Polk declared war on Mexico after false accusations that Mexico invaded American territory.

This isn’t the first instance of this type of behavior either. During the second world war, many people from Mexico were encouraged and given the incentive to move to America, and many already living here enlisted to fight for the US military. A declaration and pact called Bracero were also made to send 300,000 Mexican works to help till the land in the US. After the war ended there was a campaign that deported over 4 million Mexican and Mexican-Americans to Mexico.

Today we are dealing with illegal immigration and things like Dreamers and a difficult and discriminate system for legal immigration. Adults brought here as children, who have only known American life, are having issues because their parents came here illegally. Why punish the child for the parents’ sin? If we do this then we reinforce the idea that everything we fought for means nothing.

How They Relate to Us Today

After restrictions started lifting for the coronavirus pandemic, a man named George Floyd was detained and suffocated to death under the knee of a police officer. Having it all caught on film it spread like wildfire causing civil unrest. This led to protests all over the country, some peaceful and some turned full-blown riot. Many businesses were destroyed in an already turbulent time because of these actions.

Equality is a hill and transitional. It requires everyone’s attention and effort. Do not become compliant, but do not give a reason for hate or violent action either. Peace can have a more powerful effect than violence as proven by Martin Luther King. Constant addressing of issues like Black Lives Matters will help bring more peace, love, and unity within our nation.  And, by all means, we need more unity, we need more love, and we need more peace in this world. It is up to individual citizens to help drive action and make a change.

You don’t have to be well-versed in politics to know when something is morally wrong.  The Civil Rights Movement should not be a partisan issue in any way shape or form.  This is not the 1960s and certainly not the 1800s so there should be no excuse whatsoever.  Both sides embracing these issues empathetically with understanding and love without exacerbating the situation for political gain is the solution. Both sides need to take action and improve.  If we do this, we should be known truly as THE UNITED States of America, the Free.

How Looting Affects Small Businesses

The riots following the death of George Floyd have been made known to US citizens. We are now reminded on a daily basis through the defacing of monuments and lootings of businesses that the death of George Floyd has invoked outrage into the hearts of many Americans. Images of destroyed buildings and monuments have been posted on social media throughout late May and most of June. 

One image in particular that many people recollect is that of a Target store. The store was ransacked, aisles were destroyed, and shelves were stripped. This type of action reoccurred throughout many businesses and stores in the United States. Many people were angered by the actions of the rioters, and others were on their side. To the surprise of the public, a strong supporter was none other than Target. 

“As a Target team, we’ve huddled, we’ve consoled, we’ve witnessed horrific scenes similar to what’s playing out now and wept that not enough is changing. And as a team we’ve vowed to face pain with purpose,” said CEO Brian Cornell. He was not concerned about the looted store as he promised to continue “rebuilding and bringing back the store that has served as a community resource since 1976. In any of our other locations that are damaged or at risk, the safety and well-being of our team, guests and the surrounding community will continue to be our paramount priority.” The company went as far as to send truckloads of supplies and aid to the damaged areas. 

Target’s response towards the looting of one of their own stores was simply a result of the fact that it was a toll they could afford to pay. While the response of the nation-wide chain was ringingly heard, it was not a common one amongst looted store owners. Unfortunately for small businesses, they are not able to rebuild in the same way that Target has. 

A video of a man by the name of Hak Tong Kim crying at the loss of $350,000 looted from his store represents the impact these lootings have on small businesses. “I couldn’t sleep today… I am so unlucky,” he said. Kim stood in the parking lot with a wrench in hand as he watched his own creation get demolished while receiving phone calls from friends and family to come home to safety. Kim has no current plans to reopen. 

The tears of Hak Tong Kim represent the loss that many small businesses have gone through during these lootings. The impacts are emotional, financial, and material. 

An estimate calculated by the Anderson Economic Group indicates that the total cost of the lootings in the 20 largest metropolitan areas adds up to more than $400 million. This estimate accounts for property damage, stolen items, money, and any cost to rebuild. 

Small businesses that are currently suffering from the impact of these damages have high hopes of recovery. Unfortunately, this will not come with ease. Small businesses were already experiencing financial complications due to the effects of the coronavirus and the lootings only fueled this effect. These kinds of losses have served as a blow not only financially and materially, but in terms of emotion and morale. 

In another case in Tampa FL, the owner of a local jewelry store watched on TV as her store was broken into just minutes after the store was left unattended. She described other businesses in the area as “disappointed, shocked. They are suffering because now they have bills to pay. Everybody has bills to pay.” 

Gov. Ron DeSantis responded to the actions of the rioters saying, “Florida has zero tolerance for violence, rioting, and looting. George Floyd’s murder was appalling, and the Minnesota perpetrators need to be brought to justice, but this cannot be used as a pretext for violence in our Florida communities.”

The small businesses themselves have not been the only things harmed during the lootings. Employees have been largely affected as well. 

What has gone unnoticed about the effects of looting on small businesses is the fact that many are not able to work until the store has rebounded. Employees from stores that were looted are losing hours and money even if the store is still able to remain in everyday service. Some stores were able to take orders from customers with shortened hours and less workers. 

Large businesses simply have the capacity to recover from these lootings. In February 2019, there were approximately 1,844 Target locations throughout the nation. The annual revenue of Target in 2019 was approximately $78.11 billion. To replace a single store for a large company is a simple task. 

A small business may only make $200-400,000 in annual revenue. In the case of Hak Tong Kim, approximately $350,000 was stolen or damaged.

The effects of looting on businesses has been inevitably negative. Especially in terms of recovery, small businesses were hit much harder than larger ones. The financial, material, and emotional damages will make it hard for small businesses to rebound or to even restore a similar version of what the businesses had been prior to the lootings.

 

 

 

Liberalism vs. Libertarianism

Liberalism and libertarianism emerged as two distinct political ideologies in the late 20th century. At its core, libertarianism rejects government power and regulation in any form. In contrast, liberalism supports government interference in respect to some policy issues.

Separating the Two Ways of Thinking

Liberals today denounce government’s role in imposing a rigid conception of marriage or women’s reproductive rights. However, they take no issue with increasing the government’s power to regulate guns, corporations or wealth distribution. Liberals embrace the use of government power to address economic problems. An example of a liberal platform can be viewed on the Democratic Party website here. Liberals generally advocate for high income tax brackets as well as high corporate taxes. They contend that these types of regulations and mechanisms of redistribution help funnel resources to the most needy through publicly-funded programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This toleration of authoritative power makes liberals distinct from libertarians.

Being a liberal means being on the “left” side of the political spectrum. This generally involves a belief system that embraces empathetic policies such as leniency towards immigrants and healthcare for all. Liberals also back the idea that government should use its power to address climate change. In practice, legislation from the left helps regulate the economy for the purpose of promoting the livelihood of the public. They emphasize the role of government in helping the needy. Libertarians argue that these actions by government are over-extending and thus putting unnecessary pressure on economic opportunities and free enterprise.

Libertarianism is not as complicated as liberalism. From drugs to corporations, libertarians say that the government has one good option: to stay out of it. The ideology does not believe in using power or regulation as a means of promoting economic growth or civil rights. In practice, this translates into minimal taxes and very little government interference in the economy. They believe that this allows entrepreneurship and small business to flourish through free enterprise without the pressures of taxes or regulation. For instance, Rand Paul, a libertarian conservative in the Senate, supports a flat tax rate and lower government spending in order to move towards a more balanced budget. In addition to identifying government regulation as a harmful force on small corporations, libertarians argue that regulatory bodies such as the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) can limit the potential for capital gains.

Libertarians believe that this sort of freedom is also conducive to addressing other issues. For example, free markets are seen as creating competitive and lower prices in healthcare and education. But, while conservatives agree with these ideas, libertarians take it one step farther. Contrary to Republican’s dedication to the War on Terror, the Libertarian Party advocates for small government in foreign policy as a means of promoting peace. In addition to foreign and economic policy, libertarians maintain that government does not have a right to infringe upon social aspects of American civilization such as female reproductive decisions and gun ownership. For more information on their platform, the Libertarian Party has posted its platform on issues here.

Given the current COVID crisis, libertarians stand fervently against tightened regulations on individuals and businesses. Rand Paul, a self-identified “libertarian conservative,” has introduced S. 3922, the Coronavirus Regulatory Repeal Act, which forces federal agencies to justify imposed regulations. This firmly opposes liberal politician’s willingness to advocate for regulations as a means of preserving the livelihood of the public. Rather than trust the government to implement crisis management at the expense of personal freedom (such as forcing people to wear masks), libertarians will claim that regulations actually hinder the efficiency of recovery during this crisis. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian in the House, also denounced exercising government power fiscally as they opposed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) which provides $2 trillion in relief for the crisis. No matter how big the emergency, a true libertarian would likely never tolerate an increase in authoritative power as a means of solving it.

Politicians

Cory Booker helps demonstrate the difference between libertarian and liberal policy issues because of his varying views on policy issues. He is usually considered liberal with his advocacy of programs such as the Affordable Care Act and requirements of comprehensive background checks for gun owners. But, his supportive attitude towards charter schools is clearly libertarian in its aim to give both profit-driven entities and consumers less limitations in education.

Justin Amash was a longstanding Republican Party member before officially declaring himself a member of the Libertarian Party in 2020. Despite his withdrawal from a campaign for the presidency, Amash ideology is clearly informed by libertarianism with his aim to use free markets and privatization to address foreign trade and industries such as education and healthcare. In addition, he supports maximizing civil liberties such as the freedom to own a gun.

 

The Morality Behind Rioting

On May 30th, Salt Lake City faced one of the first violent protests seen in the history of the city. An empty police car was flipped and incinerated, the windows of the local 7-11 shattered, completed with a mob-style beat down on a man wielding a crossbow with intent to harm.

The aftermath of the protest garnered more outcry against the violence of the riots than support for the larger Black Lives Matter movement.

Rioting draws the attention of the media, and consequently serves as a focal point for those who speak louder about “unnecessary violent actions” but not when the same unnecessary violence is executed by the police. In America, violent protests means shattered glass, but violent police means death. One is a sentence, the other is not.

Before the incineration of the police vehicle, an officer had shoved an elderly man to the ground, in almost every case of violence in the Salt Lake City protest, acts of violence were preceded by violent police actions.

The intent behind rioting is unity in doing so; it is not like black Friday, where patrons fight over who will receive the next i-pad mini, rioting is united. Seemingly meaningless destruction may not help to propel the Black Lives Matter movement – but jarring images symbolic of Black pain will.

One such example is the bloodied palms of the Serve and Protect sculpture at Salt Lake City’s Public Safety building (see above). The image has garnered national acclaim and serves as a symbol of the greater movement ahead. Vandalism is a crime, but without the crime, we would not have been able to see the symbolism in what lies ahead.  

Many have come to question whether or not violence is warranted within protests, it comes down to effectiveness. Rioting has always been a valid form of protest. Since the dawn of American time, democracy has always been defended through violence. There is precedent, and thus far, protests seem to be garnering renewed support and changes are slowly being made with new laws against no-knock warrants and charges against the police officers.

White entitlement to the bodies of People of Color has gone on long enough. It is only in the last few decades that People of Color have had autonomy over their own bodies. Consider Colin Kaepernick – one of the most visual instances of a trigger to white fragility. A Black man, silently, and respectfully, going down on one knee, and the immediate uproar of anger and criminalization he faced.

It is not your place, nor mine, to speak as to how the oppressed should respond to their oppressors. The Black community is exhausted, rightfully so. They have protested peacefully, silently, politically, and are still being met with the same outrage as they have from the beginning.  Four hundred years of Black pain and anger, and they are still being killed like dogs in the streets.

If history is any indication, it takes a true spark, or in this case, it may take a bonfire, to truly ignite change. The least we can give is our solidarity in doing so.