Author: jxindivisible

I can’t unsee this

In these Substack posts I try to focus on the civics and politics of eastern Washington. In the Inland Northwest we have more than our share of militant, off-the-rails (often self-appointed, see P.S. below) “pastors” who think of themselves as expressing Christian values. The self-ordained pastor of On Fire Ministries and former Washington State Representative Matt Shea with his “The Biblical Basis for War” is a perfect example. Or how about Pastor Jason Graber of the Sure Foundation Baptist Church at 307 W Francis Ave in Spokane, who went briefly viral on social media last April with a video of a sermon in which he proclaimed that “parents of transgender children should be shot”. We’re familiar with Pastor Ken Peters of the non-denominational Covenant Church (the name at the time) on Princeton Ave and his “The Church at Planned Parenthood” used his his idea of Christianity as an excuse to harass people seeking health care at Planned Parenthood. Even Richard Butler of the infamous Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake claimed for himself the religious cover of the alliterative, white supremacist “Church of Jesus Christ–Christian”. Viewed from my Methodist upbringing these folk are using a twisted view of Jesus’ teachings to justify violent, hateful, political ends. 

As far as I know none of the above-mentioned pastors and personalities claim any formal theological education or support within an institutional framework, but all claim they are personally channeling a higher power to justify what they preach. But there is a national figure with formal theological training, an ordained Southern Baptist Pastor, Mike Huckabee, who follows a related far right path.

Mike Huckabee is not only an ordained pastor, but he has stature in the national Republican Party. He was the governor of the State of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. He ran for President of the United States in 2008 and 2016. His daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, served for two years as Donald Trump’s White House press secretary and is now the governor of Arkansas. 

Huckabee hosted a talk show on the Fox News Channel from 2008 to 2015. Since 2017 that same show, Huckabee, has aired on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, “an international Christian-based broadcast television network and the world’s largest religious television network.” As a formally ordained pastor he speaks for The Southern Baptist Convention, “the largest Protestant and second-largest Christian denomination in the United States”, which makes his presentation in the video below all the more sobering.

My Methodist upbringing and values rebel at Huckabee’s words: If Trump is kept from winning (or even running) by what Huckabee claims are President Biden’s “banana republic” tactics “…2024 will be the last election decided by ballots rather than bullets” . Decide for yourself if Huckabee’s words are a prediction or a not-so-subtly worded call to arms. Either way this is the sort of pseudo-Christian rhetoric that infects the ears of listeners to Republican right wing media both nationally and locally. Huckabee discards the basic principle of democracy. Either his candidate wins the election or the election is surely rigged. For Huckabee the proper response to such an election is “bullets” and the abandonment of voting. The outcome is pre-determined.

Ten or twenty years ago it wouldn’t have occurred to me that Mick Huckabee could make a statement like this, but this is what former governor Huckabee, the Southern Baptist Convention—and the Republican Party—have come to. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Understand that the word pastor does not in itself confer any sort of institutional approval. The word pastor comes from the Latin word of the same spelling, meaning “shepherd”. Taking on the appellation “pastor” merely suggests that one wishes or has been able, by the power of one’s preaching and personality, to gather a loyal audience, a flock. Self-declared pastors like Matt Shea, Ken Peters, or Jason Graber claim the mantle of Christianity and personal inspiration from a higher power to justify what they preach. Presumably, each of them sincerely believes they are guided by God in their leadership. I am reminded by my Methodist upbringing of the Biblical warnings against “false prophets”. Whom did Jesus tell us to hate and shun? Whom did Jesus tell us to kill? What sort of arms training did Jesus recommend? Did Jesus encourage armed conflict in the face of his own impending crucifixion?

P.P.S. If you have any doubts as to just how far off the rails this has gotten check out Matt Shea associates Caleb Collier’s and “Pastor” Gabe Blomgren’s Church and State videos.

Lecture on The Social Contract at the South Hill Library on Perry and 34th

Dr. Shane Gronholz Ph.D. offers “Social Contract Theory”, the first in a four part series “Introduction to Political Philosophy”. The social contract is the philosophic basis for living in a society ruled by law. Dr. Gronholz is the Current Affairs Specialist at the Spokane Public Library. Here is an excerpt from this description on the Library website explaining the relevance of the topic:

In his role as Current Affairs Specialist, Shane frequently reflects on the nature of our political disagreements and the state of civic dialogue. He posits that many of these disputes stem from differing underlying political philosophies. While understanding these philosophies may not resolve all disagreements, it can foster a deeper understanding and appreciation of perspectives different from our own.

The central question we’ll explore is: Where does the authority of the government come from? The government makes a lot of rules about who gets to do what. Governments have told people whom they can marry, what drugs they can take, how much they have to pay in taxes, what rights have to be respected (and which ones do not), and much, much more. Our question is simply: why do they get to do that?

This is a fundamental inquiry in political philosophy, and your answer to it can significantly shape your views on what the government is entitled to do. Join us as we unpack this question and explore its far-reaching implications.

This is the first in four sequential Wednesday evening lectures. I urge you to click on this link for more detail—and then attend the lecture. Each Wednesday evening lecture is “designed to stand alone”, but I expect there will be some small additional value to starting at the beginning. 

At this time I know of no plans either to livestream the lectures or to record them, so take this opportunity to visit the newly renovated South Hill Library and take advantage of a free lecture on a fascinating and highly relevant topic. For those who cannot attend on this short notice, if I hear of a livestream or a recording of this first lecture I will pass it along as soon as I know. 

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

An opinion piece from the NYT worth reading

Part of the reason I write these posts is to force myself to better understand local civics. In my recollection, I learned basic civics as part of my early public school education back in Wisconsin before I went off to college. The curriculum covered the basics of state history and the outlines of state and local governments early on. What I didn’t realize back then was that each of the fifty states functions under a slightly different constitution and framework of laws. As a result, details that I learned in my Wisconsin public school education did not necessarily translate when taking up residence in a new state. 

The article that I’ve pasted below from the September 3rd New York Times addresses the need for civic education at the college level, specifically at Stanford. I see it as an important article with which I heartily agree—but I would advocate to expand its call for civic education as a significant part of public (and private) education before college. 

At the same time we should be aware that significant parts of the Republican Party are headed in exactly the opposite direction. Project 2025, the blueprint for the Republican Party’s takeover of the federal government in 2025, begins its section on education with “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” Certainly no mandate for nationwide civics education there. 

The anti-public education religious wing of the modern day Republican Party includes people like Michael Farris, a Gonzaga Law-educated Evangelical religious zealot recently profiled in the Spokesman (here and here). Farris has devoted himself to developing clever wording, lawsuits, and protests to “take down the education system as we know it today”. Instead, he is in favor of public funding for home schooling. (Just one of his ten children attended public school—for two months of kindergarten—convincing him that the public education system was bent on indoctrinating children with the “religion” of secular humanism.) Clearly, Mr. Farris wants to school his offspring and ours in his particular brand of theocratic governance, not with a civics education, an education that would help equip all students to live in a society with a diversity of opinions. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

By Abandoning Civics, Colleges Helped Create the Culture Wars

By Debra Satz and Dan Edelstein

Professor Satz is the dean of Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences, where Professor Edelstein is the faculty director of the civic, liberal and global education program.

Free speech is once again a flashpoint on college campuses. This year has seen at least 20 instances in which students or faculty members attempted to rescind invitations or to silence speakers. In March, law school students at our own institution made national news when they shouted down a conservative federal judge, Kyle Duncan. And by signing legislation that undermines academic freedom in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis is carrying out what is effectively a broad assault against higher education.

We believe that this intolerance of ideas is not just a consequence of an increasingly polarized society. We think it also results from the failure of higher education to provide students with the kind of shared intellectual framework that we call “civic education.” It is our responsibility as educators to equip students to live in a democratic society whose members will inevitably disagree on many things. To strengthen free speech on campuses, we need to return civic education to the heart of our curriculum.

Throughout the 20th century, many colleges and universities had a required first-year course that honed these skills. Typically, this course was known as Western Civ (short for “civilization”). Such courses became standard during the interwar period, as immigration transformed the student body and liberal democracy itself was under threat around the world.

Western Civ also served another, often unintentional, purpose: It provided a mutually intelligible set of references that situated students’ disagreements on common ground.

Generations of students grappled with Socrates’ argument that the rule of law cannot survive if people simply ignore laws they don’t support. By debating plausible answers, students learned to see disagreement as a necessary ingredient of both learning and of life. They also confronted hard questions about civil disobedience and social change. And the common references that students picked up in their first year provided a foundation for future conversations and courses.

The limitations of Western Civ are evident from its title. It exposed students to Western ideas only, implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) suggesting that these ideas were superior to those from other cultures.

Eventually, these limitations proved intractable. In 1987, activists at Stanford denounced the “European-Western and male bias” of the university’s first-year requirement, then called Western Culture. The course was replaced with a program that had no Western focus.

From 1964 to 2010, almost all selective schools (Columbia being an exception) abandoned first-year requirements featuring a common humanities curriculum. Instead, they opted for a “buffet” model, in which students could choose from various curricular tracks. Between 1995 and 2012, Stanford students could pick from around a dozen first-year humanities classes, from a course on gender roles in Chinese families to Technological Visions of Utopia. While many of these courses were excellent, they had no common core of readings nor any transparent rationale for why they were required.

Many colleges said the change was a pragmatic one, given the disagreements about which texts should be mandatory. We believe there was another reason universities turned toward an à la carte curriculum: They had come under the spell, like much of society at that time, of a free-market ideology. In this vision, individual choice and individual advancement take center stage. Requirements are recast as paternalistic; freedom is understood as doing as one pleases.

Freedom of choice is an important value. But without common foundations, it can lead to people shouting one another down. An educational model that leaves no room for a core curriculum shaped by the demands of 21st-century democracies leaves students woefully ill equipped for dealing with disagreements. In a world where individual choice is supreme, how do we learn to accept that there are alternative perspectives to our own that may also be valid? If my goals are the only ones that matter, those who do not share them can too easily be viewed as obstacles that need to be swept away. In the educational context, the invisible hand can turn into an iron fist.

The widespread adoption of a free-market approach to the college curriculum has had other noxious effects, as well: It has fueled a rampant vocationalism among students, leading them to desert humanities classes in favor of pre-professional tracks aimed at lucrative careers. When universities do not signal the intrinsic value of certain topics or texts by requiring them, many students simply follow market cues.

Civic education, by contrast, is a public good. Left to the market, it will always be undersupplied. It is rarely a priority for employers or for job seekers to promote the skills of active listening, mutual reasoning, respecting differences and open-mindedness. We need to reinvest in it.

In the absence of civic education, it is not surprising that universities are at the epicenter of debates over free speech and its proper exercise. Free speech is hard work. The basic assumptions and attitudes necessary for cultivating free speech do not come to us naturally. Listening to people with whom you disagree can be unpleasant. But universities have a moral and civic duty to teach students how to consider and weigh contrary viewpoints, and how to accept differences of opinion as a healthy feature of a diverse society. Disagreement is in the nature of democracies.

Universities and colleges must do a better job of explaining to our students the rationale for free speech, as well as cultivating in them the skills and mind-set necessary for its practice. The free-market curriculum model is simply not equipped for this task. We cannot leave this imperative up to student choice.

At Stanford, since 2021, we once again have a single, common undergraduate requirement. By structuring its curriculum around important topics rather than canonical texts, and by focusing on the cultivation of democratic skills such as listening, reasonableness and humility, we have sought to steer clear of the cultural issues that doomed Western Civ. The new requirement was approved by our faculty senate in May 2020 without a single dissenting vote.

Called Civic, Liberal and Global Education, it includes a course on citizenship in the 21st century. Delivered in a small discussion-seminar format, this course provides students with the skills, training and perspectives for engaging in meaningful ways with others, especially when they disagree. All students read the same texts, some canonical and others contemporary. Just as important, all students work on developing the same skills.Preliminary assessments and feedback suggest that our new program is meeting its goals.

To be clear, our civic education does not aim at achieving consensus among students, nor at producing moderation. Our students, like all of us, will continue to disagree on many things. Nor are our students the only ones in need of such civic skills — numerous members of Congress and governors could no doubt use this curriculum, as well. (We’d be happy to share it.)

But it is our belief that by restoring a common curricular foundation centered on the democratic skills our students need to live in a diverse society, they will turn to more constructive ways to engage with those with whom they disagree than censorship or cancellation.

Some Labor Day Weekend history from Professor Heather Cox Richardson

I read historian Heather Cox Richardson’s Substack post “Letters From an American” every morning. I know that many of my readers also receive her posts. For those who do not, I urge you to visit her website and sign up.

As a Labor Day post I thought her September 2 email was spot on. Hence, I’ve copied Professor Richardson’s post below. 

Note that, although the modern Republican Party still holds “Lincoln Day” dinners, claims Lincoln as their founder, and pretends to be the Party that abolished slavery, the modern day Republican Party bears little resemblance to the Party that Abraham Lincoln founded. Consider, as just one of many possible examples, the modern Republican adherence to “trickle down” economics (what Republicans refer to as “Supply Side Economics”), the theory that overall economic benefit at every level will result from less taxation and regulation of business and the wealthy—a Republican article of faith at least since the Reagan presidency. 

Lincoln’s words support the idea of an economy built from the middle out and the bottom up, not one built on trickle down from the top.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

September 2, 2023

Heather Cox Richardson

On March 4, 1858, South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond rose to his feet to explain to the Senate how society worked. “In all social systems,” he said, “there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life.” That class, he said, needed little intellect and little skill, but it should be strong, docile, and loyal. 

“Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization and refinement,” Hammond said. His workers were the “mud-sill” on which society rested, the same way that a stately house rested on wooden sills driven into the mud. 

He told his northern colleagues that the South had perfected this system by enslavement based on race, while northerners pretended that they had abolished slavery. “Aye, the name, but not the thing,” he said. “[Y]our whole hireling class of manual laborers and ‘operatives,’ as you call them, are essentially slaves.” 

While southern leaders had made sure to keep their enslaved people from political power, Hammond said, he warned that northerners had made the terrible mistake of giving their “slaves” the vote. As the majority, they could, if they only realized it, control society. Then “where would you  be?” he asked. “Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not…with arms…but by the quiet process of the ballot-box.” 

He warned that it was only a matter of time before workers took over northern cities and began slaughtering men of property. 

Hammond’s vision was of a world divided between the haves and the have-nots, where men of means commandeered the production of workers and justified that theft with the argument that such a concentration of wealth would allow superior men to move society forward. It was a vision that spoke for the South’s wealthy planter class—enslavers who held more than 50 of their Black neighbors in bondage and made up about 1% of the population—but such a vision didn’t even speak for the majority of white southerners, most of whom were much poorer than such a vision suggested. 

And it certainly didn’t speak for northerners, to whom Hammond’s vision of a society divided between dim drudges and the rich and powerful was both troubling and deeply insulting.

On September 30, 1859, at the Wisconsin State Agricultural Fair, rising politician Abraham Lincoln answered Hammond’s vision of a society dominated by a few wealthy men. While the South Carolina enslaver argued that labor depended on capital to spur men to work, either by hiring them or enslaving them, Lincoln said there was an entirely different way to see the world.  

Representing an economy in which most people worked directly on the land or water to pull wheat into wagons and fish into barrels, Lincoln believed that “[l]abor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed—that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior—greatly the superior of capital.” 

A man who had, himself, worked his way up from poverty to prominence (while Hammond had married into money), Lincoln went on: “[T]he opponents of the ‘mud-sill’ theory insist that there is not…any such things as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life.”

And then Lincoln articulated what would become the ideology of the fledgling Republican Party: 

“The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account for another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor—the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all—gives hope to all, and energy and progress, and improvement of condition to all.” 

In such a worldview, everyone shared a harmony of interest. What was good for the individual worker was, ultimately, good for everyone. There was no conflict between labor and capital; capital was simply “pre-exerted labor.” Except for a few unproductive financiers and those who wasted their wealth on luxuries, everyone was part of the same harmonious system. 

The protection of property was crucial to this system, but so was opposition to great accumulations of wealth. Levelers who wanted to confiscate property would upset this harmony, as Hammond warned, but so would rich men who sought to monopolize land, money, or the means of production. If a few people took over most of a country’s money or resources, rising laborers would be forced to work for them forever or, at best, would have to pay exorbitant prices for the land or equipment they needed to become independent. 

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since Lincoln’s day, but on this Labor Day weekend, it strikes me that the worldviews of men like Hammond and Lincoln are still fundamental to our society: Should our government protect people of property as they exploit the majority so they can accumulate wealth and move society forward as they wish? Or should we protect the right of ordinary Americans to build their own lives, making sure that no one can monopolize the country’s money and resources, with the expectation that their efforts will build society from the ground up? 

—

Notes:   

Selections from the Letters and Speeches of the Hon. James H. Hammond (New York: John F. Trow & Co., 1866), at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Selections_from_the_Letters_and_Speeches/FvMeZzrWW3AC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Abraham Lincoln, September 30, 1859, “An Address by Abraham Lincoln Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Fair.” 

Matt Shea’s and Sean Feucht’s “Christian” nationalism called out

Decades of death notices of the Christian values with which I was brought up were premature. Those values are shared by people of many faiths, people who, in the face of mounting threats, are organizing and pushing back against bigotry—and not getting the level of press coverage they deserve. 

Sadly, over decades of reading “the news”—news put forward by outlets pre-disposed to cover controversy—it was easy for me to believe that the welcoming Protestant Christianity in which I was brought up in the 1960s was subsumed by Evangelical televangelists and talk show gadflies like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye (preacher and author of the End Times “Left Behind” series), and, locally, loudmouth, controversial politico-religionists like Ken Peters (of Covenant Church and “The Church at Planned Parenthood”) and disgraced former Washington State Representative Matt Shea (On Fire Ministries). Now, thanks to a growing local movement, I no longer believe that.

Goodwill and solidarity against bigotry, it turns out, are alive and well—and people of goodwill are organizing to oppose the toxic bigotry that is once again making national news and smearing the national reputation of the Inland Northwest. Lest we forget, Richard Butler and his Aryan Nationsnational gatherings in Hayden Lake were tamped down by dedicated people of goodwill and solidarity in the 1990s—but the people who accepted white supremacist doctrine did not simply disappear. Butler and many of his acolytes are now dead, but the bigotry on which Butler’s version of the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian still lies in the soil of region and provides fertile ground for the like of some of what we see today. 

Below is pasted (with permission and encouragement) an open letter signed by a growing multitude of Faith Leaders and Leaders of Conscience of Eastern Washington and North Idaho in opposition to the recent Matt Shea/Sean Feucht gathering in downtown Spokane that City of Spokane Mayor Woodward and a number of local right wing Republican political candidates attended and to which they lent their legitimacy. 

I encourage you to copy the letter and its signatures and share it widely with your friends and neighbors on social media. Not only is that sharing valuable on its own but it might gain enough notoriety for local media like The Spokesman to publish it as well.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

Reject all Attempts to Cloak Bigotry in Religious Language

As Faith Leaders and Leaders of Conscience of Eastern Washington and North Idaho, we ask the people of the State of Washington to join with us in opposing Christian Nationalism and white supremacy in Spokane and, indeed, the entire State of Washington. We reject all attempts to cloak bigotry in religious language, and we ask you to do the same.

We hold fast to the separation of church and state, as articulated in our nation’s constitution. We seek a city and state that are welcoming to all, and civic leadership that clearly observes the vital importance of the separation of church and state.

Christian Nationalism and white supremacy have no place in our country. 

We are disturbed at the recent  featured participation of Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward at the “Let Us Worship” rally, sponsored and promoted by an organization known for promoting the fusion of conservative Christian Nationalism and the US government.

The “Let Us Worship” rally was organized well in advance. Sean Feucht, the promoter,  is known for his anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments, his embrace of the exclusionary label of “Christian nationalist,” and declaration that people with his view of Christian theology should make all laws in the United States. 

Also, standing with Mayor Woodward was Matt Shea, who is well known for his sharing Sean Feucht’s values and for his violent ideology as put forth in his “Biblical Basis for War.”  

We believe all persons have not only a God-given human right but a constitutionally protected freedom to be their full selves and to pray, worship, believe and practice faith as, and if, they choose.

While people holding public office also have that right in their personal lives, they must be careful about the actions they take as a democratically elected public figure where they represent our whole community. The Mayor’s participation in her official capacity as Mayor of Spokane at the “Let Us Worship” event is deeply concerning. Public trust has been damaged. 

We ask that all people condemn the public involvement of civic leadership with an event that promotes Christian Nationalism and affirm that Washington State is a place where all people, faiths, and religions are valued and welcomed. In a time when we need to bring people together, we hope the good people of the state of Washington  will not be silent. 

Christian Nationalism and white supremacy have no place in the State of Washington. We seek a state-wide community that is welcoming to all, and civic leadership that clearly observes the vital importance of the separation of church and state.  Join us.

With peace,

The Reverend Gen Heywood, Convener of Faith Leaders and Leaders of Conscience of Eastern Washington and North Idaho

The Reverend Liv Larson Andrews, Northwest Intermountain Synod of the ELCA. 

Petra Hoy, Community Member.  NAACP Education Committee Member

William Aal, Tools for Change

Samantha Mumford, MPA, PMP, Security Advisor Veradale UCC

Jan Young, Life Deacon, Veradale United Church of Christ 

Don Young, Life Deacon Chair, Veradale United Church of Christ 

Elise DeGooyer, FAN (Faith Action Network)  Executive Director

Brianna Dilts, Eastern Washington Organizer, Faith Action Network

Victoria Harris MD, MPH    Member, Temple Beth Shalom

Pam Silverstein MD member Jewish community

The Reverend Debra L. Conklin, St. Paul’s and Liberty Park United Methodist Churches and The Oak Tree

The Reverend Kaye Hult, Shalom Church Spokane, (UCC and Mennonite).

The Reverend Roger Hudson, U.M.C.

Naghmana Sherazi, Muslims for Community Action and Support (MCAS)

Quan Yin (Lynne Williams, MD, Baraka Spiritual Sufi Community in Spokane.

The Very Reverend Heather VanDeventer, Episcopal Church 

The Reverend Walter Kendricks, Pastor, Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church

The Reverend Andy CastroLang, United Church of Christ

The Reverend Jim CastroLang, United Church of Christ & Board Member, Faith Action Network

The Reverend Dr. Mark Finney, Pastor, Emmaus Church Spokane 

The Reverend Rick Matters, Episcopal Church

The Reverend Alissa Amestoy, Spokane Valley United Methodist Church

Sr. Pat Millen, OSF, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia.

Rabbi Tamar Malino, Temple Beth Shalom and Congregation Emanu-el

Charity Doyl, Multicultural Organizer, Spokane Valley

Rev AC Churchill, Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power and Light, Executive Director.

Silver Valley Community Resource Center 

Children Run Better Unleaded

Tracy Morgan, Co-Chair RG*NEW

Joan Berkowitz, member Jewish community

Jennifer Gale Compau, Community Member, Vflats Artisan Farm : Anti-violence projects

R. Skyler Oberst, international interfaith leader and community advocate 

The Reverend Pamela Starbuck, Manito Presbyterian Church

The Reverend Dr. Scott Starbuck, Manito Presbyterian Church

Senator Maralyn Chase, retired

The Right Reverend Gretchen Rehberg, Bishop,The Episcopal Diocese of Spokane 

The Reverend Kimmy Meinecke, St. David’s Episcopal Church

Jody Shapiro, Jewish Community Leader

Leilani DeLong retired Rn, nursing supervisor

Patrick McCormick, with 350 Spokane Interfaith Committee

Kurtis Robinson , President, Spokane NAACP 

Mary Noble MD, member Temple Beth Shalom

The Reverend Tara Leininger, Metaline Falls Congregational UCC

The Reverend Dane Breslin, The Sunnyslope Church UCC/COB

“Save your children” as a Republican electoral tactic comes to Spokane

Local Republicans are taking cues from national Republican focus-group-tested rhetoric. City of Spokane Proposition 1 plays on every human’s protectiveness of children—and uses that protective impulse to build on the Republican narrative that unsheltered homeless people, painted as an entire group, are lawless, drug-addicted, mentally ill, undeserving, thieving, lawbreaking “others”, a grave threat to be threatened with incarceration—and certainly to be kept far away from children. 

Last week Spokane Superior Court Judge Tony Hazel cleared the way for the appearance of attorney Brian Hansen’s and Larry Stone’s City of Spokane anti-homeless camping initiative (Proposition 1) appearing on the November ballot. 

Here is the text as it will appear on the ballot (for all the gory details click here):

Proposition No. 1
City of Spokane
Initiative Prohibiting Encampments Near Schools, Parks, Playgrounds, & Child Care Facilities

Shall the Spokane Municipal Code be amended to prohibit encampments within 1,000 feet of any public or private school, public park, playground, or licensed child care facility as set forth in Ordinance No. C-36408?

Are there good reasons to vote “No” on this proposition? Yes, and here they are: Proposition 1 is a thinly disguised effort to get around Martin v. Boise, the 2018 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding, based on the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, “that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available for their homeless population.” 

Proposition 1’s 1000 foot from “any public or private school, public park, playground, or licensed child care facility” encompasses the majority of the land in the City of Spokane (see the map below thanks to the work of Spokane Community Against Racism [SCAR]). 

Consider the complexities of enforcement: Who will carry with them a 1000 foot measuring tape to ensure compliance? Proposition 1 is a recipe for police intimidation of the homeless (who would be powerless to contest distances)—and a recipe for prolonged and very expensive taxpayer-funded legal contests over the constitutionality of the new ordinance’s enforcement. 

As always, follow the money. City of Spokane Proposition 1’s primary financial backer is “Stone Lawrence”. He donated $90K of a current total of $170K given by just ten monied Republican businesses and individuals to “Clean and Safe Spokane” (see the table at the bottom of this post). Recall that Lawrence B (Larry) Stone is the beneficiary of Mayor Woodward’s lease of the TRAC Shelter. Mr. Stone’s money and direction of the inane, simplistic video “Curing Spokane” was arguably responsible for the slim margin by which Woodward was elected in 2019. Note also that the effort to gather signatures for Prop 1 was not made by any of the monetary contributors to “Clean and Safe Spokane”—this is no grassroots effort, this is another monied effort at political manipulation. Larry Stone and company spent $70,000 with Groundgame Political Solutions, LLC, of Jefferson City, Missouri, for “Voter signature/petition gathering costs”. It seems unlikely that Mr. Stone ever met one of the paid signature gatherers for his Proposition 1—much less gathered signatures himself. 

City of Spokane Proposition 1 is the thinly disguised 2023 Larry Stone equivalent to his 2019 “Curing Spokane”. If passed it will cost us taxpayers hundreds of thousand of dollars in legal fees. See it for what it is and vote NO.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry 

P.S. We see the same Republican “othering” tactic leveled against other marginalized targets: anyone not conforming to strict male/female gender (all to be feared as “groomers” of children); women facing difficult reproductive medical decisions with the help of their families and doctors (all presumed to seek, for frivolous reasons, “abortion on demand until the moment of birth”—”killing babies”); legitimate historians accused of making white children “feel bad” for teaching the accurate history of systemic racism (banning of “CRT”), and, especially warped, the QAnon meme of Democrats as “pedophiles” (Pizzagate conspiracy theory). The Republican (and general authoritarian) narrative of demonizing and “othering” marginalized groups runs rampant in Republican rhetoric. The use of manufactured fear, marginalization, and hate is effective—until voters begin to recognize how their emotions are being abused and manipulated. 

P.P.S. Below is a snapshot as of August 29 of all the contributors to “Clean and Safe Spokane – 2023”, the “Single Election Committee” pushing for passage of City of Spokane Proposition 1. Unfortunately, at least for now, if you want to check up on the then current donations to “Clean and Safe Spokane” with the Public Disclosure Commission (pdc.wa.gov) it will require more than clicking the link to “Campaign Contributions” listed at vote.wa.govpage for Prop 1. You will need to know the name “Clean and Safe Spokane” and enter it into the “Committee Name” box on the page at the PDC to which that link leads. 

With Republican primary rhetoric and “Project 2025” a platform is superfluous

Up until the 2016 presidential election it was possible to imagine that some Republicans might believe that global heating (“climate change”) was real and that curtailing carbon emissions was important—just on a longer timeline than most of us would like. The eastern Washington Representative to the U.S. Congress, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA CD-5) never says plainly that she believes climate science is a hoax—though it clear that is what she believes—in part because she is intellectually unequipped to comprehend the science. Since Roe v. Wade kept her from acting on her convictions one could ignore McMorris Rodgers’ statements on about reproductive freedom. Now, after Dobbs, McMorris Rodgers has the power to act on her convictions and vote for a national ban. After all her declarations does anyone think she would vote against such a national ban if it came up for a vote—regardless of any obfuscating language she might soon put forward.

Before 2016 and the Trump election the Republican Party concocted a platform of carefully worded intentions, like the intent to “lower taxes and cut regulations to unleash American business” or “reduce inflation”, a platform that often concealed the extremism of what the party would support. Since Trump came to power such a subtly worded platform would be laughable. Indeed, the party is not bothering to produce one. No subtle wording can conceal the extremism of statements and actions like “deconstructing the administrative state”, withdrawing from the Paris Accords, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, calling for the abolition of the Department of Education (as was heard during the Republican primary debate last week), and the suppression of voting rights for people of color under the guise of “voting integrity”. 

Any differences drawn among the non-Trump contenders for the Republican nomination for President in 2024 are illusory—the extremism of the party is on full display. No one should imagine any Republican hopeful to the Presidency vetoing any extremist bill that reached their desk that was voted in by a Republican majority in the House and Senate. A vote for any Republican is a vote in furtherance of a radical reactionary, science-denying, personal freedom-suffocating agenda. 

As if to cast off all doubt of this assertion, we now have a declarative blueprint for enacting the reactionary Republican agenda. “Project 2025” is a document with a history that voters ignore at their peril. 

The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, is the flagship of the conservative, pro-business, non-profit “think tanks” inspired by the Powell Memorandum (1971) and funded by dark money from the Koch donor network. In 1981 the Heritage Foundation’s first “Mandate for Leadership”, a three thousand page document, detailed much of the policy pursued by the Reagan Administration. The “Mandates for Leadership” carry weight as blueprints for action and statements of intent and policy for incoming Republican administrations. 

The latest Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (aka “Project 2025, Presidential Transition Project”) lays out the detailed actions we should expect if Republicans regain control of the federal government in 2025 following the 2024 elections. Judging by the statements made by the candidates in the Republican primary debate on Fox News last week we should expect Project 2025 to be a guiding light for any administration headed by any Republican hopeful.

What “conservatives” promise with Project 2025 is a comprehensive expansion of all the worst executive acts and congressional initiatives we recall from the early days of Trump administration, the time when Republicans held a slim majority in both the House and the Senate. Trump was, one suspects, surprised by his win in 2016. He lacked the comprehensive plan of action to move forward with the entire Republican Party wish list that Project 2025 now provides. Indeed, his only legislative achievement was the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017”, the legislation that gave the wealthiest among us a huge tax break even as it was sold to the average Republican voter as “money in your pocket”. In contrast to Trump’s lack of preparation, Project 2025, a 920 page document, (click to see it) offers detailed goals and a plan to achieve them. I would not recommend taking the time to read the whole thing. Instead, skim the Table of Contents, check out the chapter authors, and use the Command-F function on your computer to word search the pdf for words and phrases like climate change, education, taxes, and equity. 

This summer of drought, epic storms, floods, fires and smoke is a wakeup call to the long-predicted weather disruption due to global heating. Project 2025 cites the words “climate change” fifty-four times, each time to disparage, as “ideological”, the broad scientific consensus on the threat of manmade global heating. Project 2025 provides detailed plans for dismantling all government efforts to address the threat. You can read it for yourself, but here is how Lisa Friedman of the New York Times summarizes it:

The blueprint said the next Republican president would help repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 law that is offering $370 billion for wind, solar, nuclear, green hydrogen and electric vehicle technology, with most of the new investments taking place in Republican-led states.

The plan calls for shuttering a Department of Energy office that has $400 billion in loan authority to help emerging green technologies. It would make it more difficult for solar, wind and other renewable power — the fastest growing energy source in the United States — to be added to the grid. Climate change would no longer be considered an issue worthy of discussion on the National Security Council, and allied nations would be encouraged to buy and use more fossil fuels rather than renewable energy.

The blueprint throws open the door to drilling inside the pristine Arctic wilderness, promises legal protections for energy companies that kill birds while extracting oil and gas and declares the federal government has an “obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources” on America’s public lands.

Notably, it also would restart a quest for something climate denialists have long considered their holy grail: reversal of a 2009 scientific finding at the Environmental Protection Agency that says carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.

Erasing that finding, conservatives have long believed, would essentially strip the federal government of the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from most sources.

Commitment to this reactionary global-heating-denying plan of action extends to the very roots of the Republican Party. Witness Republican hyperbolic fear-mongering over a Washington State (and local) effort to prohibit the installation of natural gas infrastructure supplying new construction.

Most of the readers of this blog probably will not live to see the worst of the weather disasters resulting from global heating—but your children and grandchildren will. Denial of the scientific reality of human caused global heating is just one of many reasons to shun the now-unmasked reactionary politics of the modern day Republican Party, regardless of any individual candidate’s attempts to appear moderate and reasonable. Shun them in every election until the Republican Party becomes reacquainted with reality. (Such a re-make is not impossible. Remember that the Environmental Protection Agency was established during the Nixon administration—before the Party went off the rails.) 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry