Government By "Don't Think" Tanks and Twitter Trends

My "Running on MT" podcast co-host Matt King and I recently interviewed Wisconsin Senator Melissa Agard (D-Madison) about her Senate Bill 545 which would legalize cannabis in Wisconsin for medical and recreational purposes. Including her time in the Wisconsin State Assembly, Agard has sponsored cannabis legalization legislation for eight consecutive years. Not once has the Republican majority leadership scheduled the Bill for a hearing, even though it's now become common for Wisconsinites to travel to neighboring states for pot purchases and opinion polls show majority support for legalization. 

Interview with Senator Melissa Agard 

We asked Senator Agard how she became passionate about something like cannabis legalization. Her answer was very "old school." She said that while marijuana is not part of her personal culture and she never campaigned on the issue, every time she knocks on citizens' doors or meets voters in other settings, she hears numerous stories of how pot prohibition is harming people. As she told us: 

After I was elected and maybe even before I was elected, as I was knocking on doors and pounding the pavement so to speak . . . I had people coming up to me and sharing with me very personal, compelling stories about how the prohibition of cannabis was harming them and harming the people who they love. Whether it was the mom who was talking to me about her son who lost his scholarship and housing opportunities for college because he was pulled over for a missing tail light on his car and the police found a blunt in the ashtray. Or whether it was how egregious our racial disparities are when it comes to arrest for simple possession in Wisconsin--the fact that black and brown people are between four and seven times more likely to be "invited into" the criminal justice system than white folks. Or people who had left the state of Wisconsin to learn about and become part of the cannabis industry, and wanted to be able to come back and pollinate that knowledge and bring the industry into Wisconsin, but they weren't able to. Or parents with very ill children whose peers in other states were able to provide relief to their kids with access to cannabis . . . The stories could go on and on, but it was really clear to me through these stories that the most dangerous thing about pot in Wisconsin is that it's illegal, and prohibition is not working.

Every single member of the state legislature represents people with pot prohibition stories similar to those Senator Agard hears. No doubt every representative also hears from people with sincere, evidence based objections to legalization. (I personally support legalization based on the evidence I've seen and testimony I've heard, but am very open minded to opposing views.). In a functional, truly representative government, the way to work out the disagreements is to have public hearings on the Bill in the relevant committees. If the Bill makes it out of committee, then schedule debates in and votes of the full legislature. If it passes both Houses, send it to the governor for his signature. That's Civics 101. 

Note that I said "functional" government. State government in Wisconsin stopped being functional a long time ago, to the point where the old school practice of legislation starting at the grassroots level has virtually disappeared. What's replaced it is government by partisan [don't] think tanks and Twitter trends. 

A textbook example of what I'm talking about occurred recently in Wisconsin when the legislature along strictly partisan lines passed an education bill designed to ban Critical Race Theory from schools and mandate the GOP's vision of civics education. Let's compare what happened with Senator Agard's cannabis legislation with the GOP's education bill: 

*The cannabis legislation emerged from grassroots level discussions with citizens hurt by the current policy. The education legislation is part of a national movement spurred on by Fox News and other right wing actors. 

*The cannabis legislation has been filed for eight consecutive years and still has not had a committee hearing. The education legislation was introduced in June of this year and fast tracked through the legislature. 

*The cannabis legislation appears to be a good faith effort to address the real, documented harms caused by the current policy of prohibition. The education bill appears to be the latest episode in the never ending attempt to make hot-button culture war issues the center of attention in election season. (In Virginia, the central claim of Republican Glenn  Youngkin's gubernatorial campaign is that a vote for Democrat Terry McAuliffe is a vote for critical race theory. Youngkin might win.). 

*The cannabis legislation has bipartisan support among the people (83 percent including a majority of declared Republicans support medical marijuana; 59 percent including a majority who "lean Republican" support legalization for recreational purposes). Passing such legislation--or at least giving it an opportunity to be debated in good faith--would be a rare unifying moment across party lines in Wisconsin. In contrast, the education bill is strictly partisan, and its fast tracking and passage appeared designed to enhance divisions across the state. 

Put simply, the legislation to ban "Critical Race Theory" in Wisconsin education is just another example of our state legislature being coopted and exploited by national [Don't] Think Tanks and the Twitter trends they create. Because Don't Think Tanks and Twitter Trends are designed to build support for tribal interests as opposed to sound public policy, legislation that gets passed is often so poorly thought out that the consequences can range from absurd to unconstitutional to just frightening. For example, the education bill passed by the Wisconsin Assembly creates a literal censorship regime in the state's public schools, in which teachers are told that certain concepts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. 

Do you think I'm exaggerating? Last August, Wisconsin Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), one of the co-authors of the critical race theory ban, in testimony before a joint Assembly/Senate education committee meeting outlined a number of terms that would be prohibited subjects in the classroom: 

• Critical Race Theory (CRT)
• Action Civics
• Social Emotional Learning (SEL)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
• Culturally responsive teaching
• Abolitionist teaching
• Affinity groups
• Anti-racism
• Anti-bias training
• Anti-blackness
• Anti-meritocracy
• Obtuse meritocracy
• Centering or de-centering
• Collective guilt
• Colorism
• Conscious and unconscious bias
• Critical ethnic studies
• Critical pedagogy
• Critical self-awareness
• Critical self-reflection
• Cultural appropriation/misappropriation
• Cultural awareness
• Cultural competence
• Cultural proficiency
• Cultural relevance
• Cultural responsiveness
• Culturally responsive practices
• De-centering whiteness
• Deconstruct knowledges
• Diversity focused
• Diversity training
• Dominant discourses
• Educational justice
• Equitable
• Equity
• Examine “systems"
• Free radical therapy
• Free radical self/collective care
• Hegemony
• Identity deconstruction
• Implicit/Explicit bias
• Inclusivity education
• Institutional bias
• Institutional oppression
• Internalized racial superiority
• Internalized racism
• Internalized white supremacy
• Interrupting racism
• Intersection
• Intersectionality
• Intersectional identities
• Intersectional studies
• Land acknowledgment
• Marginalized identities
• Marginalized/Minoritized/Under-represented communities
• Microaggressions
• Multiculturalism
• Neo-segregation
• Normativity
• Oppressor vs. oppressed
• Patriarchy
• Protect vulnerable identities
• Race essentialism
• Racial healing
• Racialized identity
• Racial justice
• Racial prejudice
• Racial sensitivity training
• Racial supremacy
• Reflective exercises
• Representation and inclusion
• Restorative justice
• Restorative practices
• Social justice
• Spirit murdering
• Structural bias
• Structural inequity
• Structural racism
• Systemic bias
• Systemic oppression
• Systemic racism
• Systems of power and oppression
• Unconscious bias
• White fragility
• White privilege
• White social capital
• White supremacy
• Whiteness
• Woke

Were it not for the fact that legislation like this is so destructive, the idea that the sponsors cannot see the irony of them rejecting discussions of "white fragility" or "critical self-reflection" would be funny. 

In all seriousness, do the writers of this legislation even know what the majority of these "radical" concepts even mean? Do they have any idea how mindful, dedicated teachers use the concepts? Do they even care? 

I understand that the Governor will probably veto the legislation. I also understand that it is aimed at K-12. But as a university professor, I know that such legislative overreach does have a chilling effect that makes instructors "think twice" before introducing certain concepts into the classroom. And yet how can any serious curriculum in the Humanities or Social Sciences avoid critical discussions of race? 

To provide just one simple example: I teach a sophomore level class in "Rhetoric and Public Advocacy." The course covers dozens of concepts, including a brief mention of "intersectionality." That concept, which has become the new "communism" for bad-faith Republicans, simply refers to the obvious fact that our performance of all identity factors is impacted by other identity factors. For example, a person's  performance of their age is impacted by the performance of social class and race. Middle-aged white men with white collar jobs have different life experiences than middle-aged black men with white collar jobs. Are white people in America really too fragile to consider the possibility that some of those differences in experience are the result of deeply rooted, systemic factors that are rarely talked about? If we don't talk about those factors in schools, then where? When? 

When we get to the intersectionality concept in class, I usually show a provocative ad run by the Procter & Gamble corporation called "The Look." In the ad, we see an African-American man and his son entering spaces filled with predominantly white faces in places like a restaurant, public swimming pool, and an elevator. In all the spaces, the African-American man gets "the look" suggesting his presence in the space provokes fear and suspicion. It is not until the end of the ad that we find out that the African-American man is a Judge; when he is wearing his robe and reaching for his gavel he seems to get the respect denied him in other places. 

Procter and Gamble Ad: The Look

That simple yet effective ad provokes some great discussion in the classroom. If white people are suspicious of the man before they know he is a judge, does the suspicion go away when he puts the robe on? Does the African-American judge have to be "twice as good just to be equal?" If that judge shows up in a predominantly white neighborhood seeking to purchase a home, would he be treated as any other potential home owner?  There are no "right" answers to these questions. The point is that it is impossible to raise such questions seriously without at some point having to introduce concepts like "intersectionality" or "white privilege" or "systemic racism" or any number of concepts that the GOP majority--acting in response to [Don't] Think Tanks and Twitter Trends--seek to censor. 

When it comes to governance in Wisconsin and in the United Stated generally, we are living in disturbing times. Legislation with bipartisan support, like that which would legalize cannabis for medical and/or recreational purposes, cannot get a formal legislative hearing even after eight consecutive years of being introduced. Meanwhile, legislation that is purely the concoction of partisan [Don't] Think tanks and Twitter trends gets fast tracked and passed without the consequences being addressed in any meaningful way. 

What do we do about it? There are no easy answers, but in a Media Rants blog I would be remiss if I did not point out that major media need to do a much better job of calling out the bad faith actors willing to hijack state government for their own partisan political purposes. They also need to call out those members of the legislature who--probably because of intimidation or ignorance--are willing to allow themselves to BE hijacked. 

Ten Noteworthy 21st Century Speeches

I'm currently teaching a course called "History of American Public Address." The course examines speeches widely appreciated for their eloquence, provocative ideas, and impact on public policy. Examples include: 

*Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "The Solitude of Self": "The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education, for the full development of her faculties, her forces of mind and body; for giving her the most enlarged freedom of thought and action; a complete emancipation from all forms of bondage, of custom, dependence, superstition; from all the crippling influences of fear—is the solitude and personal responsibility of her own individual life."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the "Solitude of Self" before the Congressional Judiciary Committee on January 18, 1892. The speech grounded its [at the time] radical argument for women's equality in the traditional American value of individual responsibility. 

*George Washington's Farewell Address: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

George Washington warned us about the evils of party politics. We did not listen. 

*Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

Lincoln's Second Inaugural was a courageous call for unity and compassion at a time when the Civil War was still ongoing. 

*Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream": "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."

An amazing speech that to this day is widely [and in some cases willfully] misunderstood, King's "I Have A Dream" was not merely calling for integration. The speech called for racial justice, an admonition that links King clearly with #blacklivesmatter

Students who take History of American Public Address frequently conclude, not without justification, that modern rhetoric in the public sphere cannot hold a candle to the public address of the past. Even the most appalling and awful rhetoric of years gone by, like President Andrew Jackson's message on "Indian Removal" or South Carolina Senator John Calhoun's case for slavery as a "positive good," does not seem--in contrast to much modern rhetoric--to be opinion poll driven and focus-group tested. For better or worse, speakers from less mass and social mediated times come off as more authentic and genuine in their convictions. Put bluntly, old time rhetors do not come off as bullshit artists seeking to exploit the worst tendencies of their "base" for political advantage or personal gain. Rather, they present themselves as "true believers" who--in hindsight--were not able to see past the dominant attitudes and values of their time. 

So what really is a "great speech" in the public sphere? One way of defining it is as that which challenges the dominant beliefs, attitudes and/or values of the time while promoting alternatives that move us closer to the dream of equal justice for all. (The speeches by Washington, Lincoln, Stanton, and King all fit that definition.). In political discourse, the great speech does not parrot party or interest group talking points, but gives us truth as the speaker sees it. And in the great speech, that truth is communicated thoughtfully, so that audiences perceive the speaker as an intelligent person of character and goodwill. 

Have there been any great speeches delivered in our current century? Perhaps it is too early to tell; sometimes multiple generations must pass before a public address can be fully appreciated. There certainly have been a number of noteworthy speeches--some or all of which MIGHT end up in "History of American Public Address" courses if such a course is still being taught a century from now. Here are ten noteworthy speeches from this century: 

*Barack Obama's New Hampshire Primary Concession Speech (January 8, 2008). After winning an upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, many pundits expected Barack Obama to cruise to the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2008. Yet in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton won convincingly. Obama's concession speech succeeded in deflating any momentum Hillary might have gained from that victory. Though the content of Obama's speech was not markedly different from what he had been saying on the campaign trail for months previously, on this night he delivered it with an urgency that energized and mobilized his supporters. The "Yes We Can" section ended up becoming part of Will.i.am's famous pro-Obama video, one of the first ever viral videos sparked by a political campaign. 

Video: Barack Obama New Hampshire Speech 

*Bill Gates' Ted Talk (March 8, 2015) on "The Next Outbreak? We're Not Ready." Thanks to Covid-19, Gates's speech was rediscovered and is now one of the most downloaded ever. Too bad world leaders, especially those consumed with the "War on Terror," did not listen. Gates understood that our hyper vigilance on seeking out enemies to destroy via military means was an oh so 20th century way of looking at the world. Future generations will recognize Gates' speech as a voice of reason and common sense in a world led by too many that stubbornly resisted recognizing the actual threats to humanity. 

Video: Bill Gates' Ted Talk

*Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address. Well we have to follow the Microsoft god with the Apple god, right? The late Mr. Jobs, a college dropout who "dropped in" just on courses he wanted to take, left us with one of the most outstanding college commencement addresses of all time. Before Jobs, commencement speeches typically were part pep talk, part platitudes, and part parental advice. Jobs' speech certainly had elements of all three, but his deeply personal narrative had a poignancy to it that most commencement speakers since have tried to mimic with more or less success. Jobs' plea to follow the advice of Stewart Brand's countercultural "Whole Earth Catalogue" to "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" lives on as one of the most memorable endings in the long history of the commencement genre. 

Video: Steve Jobs' Commencement Speech

*New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu's Address on the Removal of Confederate Monuments (May 2017). Given the cartoonish way that politics and political rhetoric are covered in our national media, it's easy to think that local leaders in deep red states are all longing for a confederate resurgence. Mitch Landrieu's dissertation on the need for the south (and really all America) to "face our flaws" is a remarkable rejection of the southern leader stereotype. The speech is part history lesson, part sermon on right and wrong, and part plea for the entire nation to reject the lazy acceptance of white supremacist symbols and instead pledge to work together to create new, more inclusive ones. 

Video: Mitch Landrieu's Address on the Removal of Confederate Monuments

*Bernie Sanders Speech at Liberty University (September 2015). Liberty University is a conservative evangelical Christian institution founded by Jerry Falwell in 1971. The Democratic Socialist, Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders spoke at the campus during his campaign for president. Listening sessions and debates between people of opposing views are now so rare that Sanders' speech would be noteworthy just for the fact that he accepted the invitation to speak. But more than that is the fact that Sanders used the opportunity to alter the conservative audience's perception of what it means to act morally as regards public policy. He said in part: 

"Are you content? Do you think it's moral that 20 percent of the children in this country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world are living in poverty? Do you think it is acceptable that 40 percent of African-American children are living in poverty? In my view, there is no justice, and morality suffers, when in our wealthy country, millions of children go to bed hungry. That is not morality . . . I think when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of God's children, the poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick!"

We don't know how many people in that audience were persuaded by Sanders, but his effort to find common ground with those who disagree--and create a shared vision of what a just America could look like--is an effort that more of us should undertake. The survival of the country might depend on it. 

Video: Bernie Sanders at Liberty University 

*Nikki Giovanni, "We Are Virginia Tech" (April 2017). This poem brings tears to my eyes almost every time I listen to it. Delivered shortly after the awful massacre of innocents on the Virginia Tech campus, Giovanni lifted the spirits of the survivors while at the same time reminding them of the universality of tragedy: 

"We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy."

The standing ovation in response to the poem was like a collective catharsis. Giovanni the poet prodded the nation to perceive that we are ALL Virginia Tech. 

Video: Nikki Giovanni, We Are Virginia Tech

*Aly Raisman Confronts Larry Nassar in Court (January 2018). Former USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar assaulted perhaps hundreds of girls over the course of decades. He was enabled by academic, athletic, and government bureaucracies that did not take complaints against him seriously, looked the other way, or tried to make the girls feel delusional. 

When Nassar was finally tried and convicted, a number of victim statements were made in court. Olympic champion Aly Raisman directly confronted Nassar, becoming a role model for finding one's voice: 

"Larry, you do realize now that we, this group of women you so heartlessly abused over such a long period of time, are now a force and you are nothing. The tables have turned, Larry. We are here. We have our voices, and we are not going anywhere. And now, Larry, it’s your turn to listen to me . . . Imagine feeling like you have no power and no voice. Well you know what, Larry? I have both power and voice and I am only beginning to just use them."

Video: Aly Raisman Confronts Larry Nassar

*Oprah Winfrey's "A New Day Is On The Horizon" (January 2018). Delivered at the Golden Globes ceremony, Oprah's speech became a foundational #metoo moment, filled with righteous anger at the past but bubbling with hope for the future. After this speech, Oprah's name popped up regularly as a possible 2020 presidential candidate. Part of me wishes Oprah had entered the primaries. A Donald Trump v. Oprah Winfrey race would have been quite educational. 

Video: Oprah Winfrey's A New Day Is On The Horizon 

*Stephen Colbert's Roast of George W. Bush (April 2006). For years, comedians invited to speak at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) Dinner had performed mostly inoffensive, bland jokes that--at best--reached a Saturday Night Live level of mainstream satire. In 2006 Stephen Colbert's cutting attacks on the Bush presidency (with the president himself sitting just a few feet away), set a new tone for WHCA gatherings that ultimately led to the cancelation of inviting humorists to the event. (Although now that Mr. Trump is out of office, I can see a scenario where the speech returns.). 

What's become tragic about Colbert's speech is that his main criticism of the Bush Administration--that it "believed the same thing on Wednesday as it did on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday"--is now pretty much standard operating procedure for partisan hacks. What Colbert tried to express as absurd and outside of political norms is now THE norm. 

Video: Stephen Colbert Roast of George W. Bush

*George W. Bush's Speech on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11/2021. I'll let former President Bush have the last word here. Mr. Bush, who presided over two failed and ill conceived wars, the worst economic crash in history, and assaults on our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, is a very difficult man to rehabilitate. And yet in today's Republican party he sounds like a voice of sanity. It is difficult to listen to his speech of 9/11/2021 and interpret it as anything less than a total rejection of Trumpism: 

"There's little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard of human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them."

If the Republican Party ever finds its way out of the cult of personality morass it is now painfully ensnared in, speeches like the one President Bush delivered at the 9/11 ceremony will be remembered as an attempt to rescue the party from itself. Bush was never the brightest national leader, but he does understand that a "disdain for pluralism" will ultimately destroy the Republican party--if it does not destroy the entire country first. 

Video: George W. Bush Speech on 9/11/2021