With millions of people marching in the streets across the United States and 10,000 – 20,000 marching here in Spokane this would make a good topic for our local newspapers, comma and social media. It would also be an opportunity to disseminate strategic conversations across the nation.
The marchers are asking a fundamental question: How do we preserve democracy when so many of our neighbors seem willing to trade it for the promise of security?
It appears that there is a great deal of fear dividing our country in two. Why these fears, what needs to be done, and how can we do it? What do our readers think? What does our community think? What do others think?
This is a three part series. The first part describes the fears and what needs to be done to address them. The second part addresses why Black people should resist the loss of democracy, the third part deals with what needs to be done. Later articles can follow the progress of the Spokane fight for democracy.
The articles discuss various evidence-based approaches to enhance democratic resilience and social cohesion at government, institutional, and individual levels. They highlight the importance of economic interventions, leadership strategies, educational reforms, media responsibility, and personal engagement. The text outlines measures for specific demographic concerns while emphasizing the need for systemic changes and the importance of measuring success. Key factors for success include authenticity, inclusivity, patience, consistency, local focus, and bipartisan support.
Feedback from social media posts and interactions can be used to invite them to remove the fear, save democracy and participate in building a better community they want to live in.
Read the first article in the Fighting Fear series:
Visit the Empowerment page. It provides examples of how you can be empowered. Feel free to look around 4comculture.com. Please also do research outside of the site.
During the last few weeks millions have taken to US streets in urban, suburban and rural communities. They came to express their disapproval of the direction the government is moving. But why are so many others so afraid that they would choose a dictatorship, a monarchy or a strongman government? How can this be changed?
Why these fears?
Why Blacks will resist the loss of democracy
What needs to be done?
How can we do it?
why these fears?
This is a complex sociological and political question. Let’s break down the various fears and concerns that may influence support for authoritarian or strongman leaders.
Economic and Class-Based Fears
Working Class Concerns:
Fear of continued economic displacement due to globalization and automation
Anxiety about declining manufacturing jobs and wage stagnation
Concerns about being “left behind” by rapid economic changes
Fear of losing social status and economic security
Middle Class Anxieties:
Worry about downward mobility for their children
Healthcare cost concerns
Education affordability fears
Housing market pressures
Cultural and Social Fears
Demographic Change Anxiety:
Fear of becoming a minority in traditionally majority-white communities
Concerns about rapid cultural change
Language and cultural preservation worries
Immigration-related anxieties
Traditional Values Concerns:
Fear of erosion of traditional family structures
Religious freedom concerns
Worry about changing gender roles and expectations
Demographic Breakdown
By Race/Ethnicity:
-White Americans (particularly rural/suburban): Higher rates of support often correlate with fears of demographic displacement, economic competition, and cultural change -Hispanic Americans: Mixed patterns, with some supporting strong immigration enforcement due to economic competition concerns -Black Americans: Generally lower support, but some concerns about economic competition and traditional values -Asian Americans: Varied responses, with some supporting merit-based policies and law-and-order approaches
By Gender:
-Men: Often drawn to strongman imagery and promises of restored traditional masculine roles -Women: More complex patterns, with some attracted to security promises while others concerned about reproductive rights and gender equality
By Age:
-Older Americans: Concerns about rapid social change and nostalgia for perceived “simpler times” -Younger Americans: Generally less supportive, but some attracted to anti-establishment messaging
LGBTQ+ Community Considerations
The LGBTQ+ community generally show slower support for authoritarian movements due to:
Historical persecution under authoritarian regimes
Concerns about rollback of civil rights protections
Fear of discrimination and marginalization
However, some subset concerns include:
-Security fears (particularly after incidents like the Pulse nightclub shooting) -Economic anxieties that may override other concerns -Single-issue voting on topics like immigration or taxes
Psychological and Social Factors
Authoritarian Personality Traits:
Preference for order and hierarchy
Discomfort with ambiguity and complexity
Desire for clear, simple solutions
Attraction to strong leadership figures
Social Identity Threats:
Fear of group status decline
In-group/out-group thinking
Zero-sum worldview (believing others’ gains mean their losses)
Media and Information Environment
-Echo chambers reinforcing existing fears -Disinformation amplifying perceived threats -Social media algorithms promoting divisive content -Declining trust in traditional institutions
Important Caveats
1.Individual variation: People within demographic groups have diverse views 2.Multiple motivations: Support often stems from combinations of factors 3.Context matters: Local conditions significantly influence attitudes 4.Temporal changes: These patterns shift over time with events and generational change
Why Blacks will Resist the loss of democracy
The fight against authoritarianism represents a continuation of a centuries-long struggle for true democratic participation and protection under law. CLICK HERE
Since Trump’s second election I have been hearing talk that “We’re all in this together”.
Ultimately, the true meaning of “all” lies not in its historical usage but in the ongoing efforts to make it **genuinely inclusive**—a call to action for continued progress in the pursuit of justice.
Since Trump’s second election I have been hearing talk that “We’re all in this together”.
Ultimately, the true meaning of “all” lies not in its historical usage but in the ongoing efforts to make it **genuinely inclusive**—a call to action for continued progress in the pursuit of justice.
The phrase “justice for all” and the use of the word “all” in foundational American documents like the Constitution have often been sources of reflection, critique, and debate, especially when viewed through the lenses of **history, sociology, political science, and social justice**. While the language of “all” suggests inclusivity and universality, the reality of its application—particularly at the time of its writing—was far more exclusive.
Let’s unpack the concept of **”all”** in this context by examining its historical roots, implications, and how modern disciplines like sociology and political science have interpreted it.
—
**Historical Context: “All” and the Constitution**
When the United States Constitution was drafted in 1787, and later when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the language of these documents was steeped in **Enlightenment ideals** like liberty, equality, and justice. However, these ideals were **not universally applied**:
– The **Three-Fifths Compromise** (Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution) explicitly treated enslaved Black individuals as **three-fifths of a person** for purposes of representation and taxation. This was a political concession to Southern states that wanted to maximize their influence in Congress while maintaining the institution of slavery.
– The framers of the Constitution, many of whom were **slaveholders** (e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison), did not intend for “all” to mean **everyone** in society. The rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution initially applied almost exclusively to **white male property owners**—excluding women, Native Americans, Black people (enslaved or free), and the poor.
– The phrase “justice for all”, while noble in principle, was in practice deeply hypocritical during this era. It excluded large swaths of the population, including those subjected to systemic inequalities like slavery and disenfranchisement.
—
**The Evolution of “All” in Social and Political Thought**
Over time, the meaning of “all” has been challenged, expanded, and redefined through **historical struggles and movements**. Disciplines like history, sociology, and political science provide tools to understand how this concept has evolved.
1. **History and Archaeology**:
– Historical records and archaeological evidence demonstrate that societies often have **hierarchies of inclusion and exclusion**. In the U.S., the founding documents reflect the sociopolitical norms of the 18th century, where racial inequality and systemic oppression were institutionalized.
– The abolitionist movement, Civil War, Reconstruction, and Civil Rights Movement all illustrate moments in history where the **definition of “all” was contested and expanded** to include those previously excluded.
2. **Sociology and Social Sciences**:
– Sociologists examine how language like “all” is used to **construct social hierarchies** and enforce power dynamics. The rhetorical use of “all” creates an illusion of unity while masking structural inequalities.
– For example, the concept of **”colorblindness”** in modern racial discourse can be critiqued as a way to ignore systemic racism while claiming that “all” people are treated equally under the law.
3. **Political Science**:
– Political theorists often critique the **original exclusionary frameworks** of liberal democracies like the U.S. Constitution. Scholars like W.E.B. Du Bois and Angela Davis have argued that the rhetoric of equality in American politics has historically been a tool to **legitimize unequal systems**.
– The expansion of voting rights (e.g., 15th and 19th Amendments) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are examples of how political movements have worked to make “all” more inclusive in practice.
4. **Social Work and Activism**:
– Social work emphasizes the need for **equity** (fairness) rather than equality (sameness). While “justice for all” implies equality, social workers advocate addressing **systemic barriers** that prevent marginalized groups from accessing justice.
– Activists today often challenge the gap between the **ideal of justice for all** and the realities of systemic racism, economic inequality, and social injustice.
—
**What Does “All” Truly Mean?**
The word “all” is both a promise and a paradox in American political and social discourse. Its meaning depends on who is included and excluded in its application. Historically, “all” has been a **selective term**, wielded to uphold existing power structures while denying rights to marginalized groups.
In a broader philosophical sense, “all” should imply **universality**, but achieving true inclusivity requires:
1. **Acknowledging historical exclusions** and their ongoing legacies (e.g., systemic racism, sexism, and classism).
2. **Critically examining language** and how it reinforces power dynamics.
3. **Taking action** to dismantle systems of oppression and expand the circle of inclusion.
—
**Conclusion: “All” as a Call to Action**
The U.S. Constitution’s use of “all” in phrases like “justice for all” set an **aspirational standard**—one that the nation has struggled to meet. History, sociology, and other disciplines highlight the ways in which “all” has been used to exclude rather than include. However, they also offer tools for understanding and reshaping this concept to reflect a more equitable and just society.
Spokane, like many cities in the United State has seen its share of protests over the years. And year after year thousands show up at the Martin Luther King Rally and March. Who’s who of Black Spokane will show up. Black organizations and community centers show up. Church groups show up. Local press shows up. Politicians show up. They are ethnically and economically diverse. In 2011 there was a bomb found along the MLK March route. For the following year thousands more turned out for the march.
One of the current cliches is that we are all in it together. But how is this expressed in terms of social justice? In the constitution it says liberty and justice for all, but Blacks were counted as only 3/5ths of a person. The diversity of the nation has increased through immigration but we still all live in our silos and everyone was not and is not considered equal. One of most segregated organizations are our churches. But now when we are on the verge of a tyranny when everyone is losing their rights suddenly we are all in it together. But our protests are still segregated. The only diverse marches and rallies here in Spokane are the Martin Luther King rally and march in January of each year.
Thousands Turn Out in Spokane and The Nation
Our protests are not diverse. Think of these examples:
Civil Rights Movement (1960s -1970s) Vietnam War Protests (1960s -1970s) Environmental Movements (1970s – present) Indigenous Rights LGBTQ+ Rights Black Lives Matter (2010s – present) Protest Anti-Semitism Protest Anti-Muslim Open Housing Homeless Rights Economic and Labor Protests Anti-Trump Protests Women’s March
How do we all work together? When people leave the meetings and rallies they return to their homogeneous communities. Check out the following links for things that can be done in-between the significant emotional events of major protests.
Pass this out at every march, rally and meeting you attend
Practitioners of nonviolent struggle have an entire arsenal of “nonviolent weapons” at their disposal. Listed below are 198 of them, classified into three broad categories: nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation (social, economic, and political), and nonviolent intervention. A description and historical examples of each can be found in volume two of The Politics of Nonviolent Action, by Gene Sharp
Comprehensive Strategies to Regain Control and Protect Democratic Institutions from Systematic Dismantling
# Immediate Action Strategies
The success of these strategies depends on coordinated action across multiple sectors and sustained commitment to democratic principles. The research suggests that combining legal mechanisms, civil society action, and international support provides the most effective approach to protecting and restoring democratic institutions.
Based on the research reports provided, there are several common misconceptions about reactionaries that are worth addressing. Let’s explore these misconceptions in detail:
1. Reactionaries are simply opposed to all progress
One of the most prevalent misconceptions is that reactionaries are inherently against all forms of progress or change. However, this oversimplification fails to capture the nuanced motivations behind reactionary ideologies [1]. In reality, reactionaries may support certain types of change, particularly those that align with their vision of tradition or order. Their opposition is often more specifically directed at what they perceive as threats to societal values or cultural norms, rather than a blanket rejection of all progress [2].
2. Reactionaries are the same as conservatives
While reactionaries and conservatives may share some similarities, it’s a misconception to equate the two. Reactionaries are typically more extreme in their desire to return to a previous state of society, often idealizing a past era that they believe had positive characteristics absent in contemporary society [3]. Conservatives, on the other hand, generally aim to preserve the status quo or implement gradual changes. The reactionary outlook is described more as an impulse rather than a fully developed political philosophy, which distinguishes it from traditional conservatism [4].
3. Reactionaries are solely motivated by nostalgia
While nostalgia plays a role in reactionary thought, it’s a misconception to view this as their sole motivation. Reactionaries often have a complex mix of metaphysical and historical views. Some may be devoutly religious traditionalists, while others might be militant atheists. What unites them is a common disposition that views existence as fundamentally threatening and chaotic, requiring strong leadership to maintain order [4]. This perspective is more nuanced than simple nostalgia and involves a critique of modern cultural and social changes.
4. Reactionary movements are always right-wing
Although reactionaries are often associated with right-wing politics, it’s a misconception to assume this is always the case. The term can also apply to left-wing contexts, indicating a broader application beyond traditional political spectrums [3]. Historical examples show that reactionary movements can emerge in response to various types of social, political, or economic changes, regardless of their position on the left-right political axis.
5. Reactionaries are inherently regressive
The portrayal of reactionaries as purely regressive overlooks the complexity of their ideologies. While they may advocate for a return to previous societal structures, this doesn’t necessarily mean they oppose all forms of development. Instead, they may support changes that they believe will restore or maintain a preferred social order [5]. This nuanced perspective is often lost in simplified media portrayals.
6. Reactionaries are simply populists
While there may be overlap between reactionary and populist movements, it’s a misconception to view them as synonymous. Academic analyses suggest that reactionary ideology is more deeply rooted in specific traditions and rhetorical strategies than populism alone. Richard Shorten’s work, for example, highlights the distinct rhetorical triangle of decadence, conspiracy, and indignation that characterizes reactionary thought [6].
7. Reactionaries are motivated solely by self-interest
It’s a misconception to assume that reactionaries are only motivated by preserving their own privileges. While this may be true in some cases, many reactionaries genuinely believe that their ideologies will benefit society as a whole. They often see themselves as defenders of order and meaning in a world they perceive as chaotic and declining [4].
8. Reactionary movements are a modern phenomenon
Historical examples demonstrate that reactionary movements have existed throughout history. From the Thermidorian Reaction during the French Revolution to the Bourbon Restoration and the Holy Alliance in the 19th century, reactionary ideologies have long been a part of political discourse [5][7][8]. Understanding this historical context helps to dispel the misconception that reactionary politics is solely a modern development.
In conclusion, these misconceptions about reactionaries often arise from oversimplified portrayals in media and public discourse. A more nuanced understanding requires examining the complex motivations, historical contexts, and ideological underpinnings of reactionary movements. By addressing these misconceptions, we can gain a more accurate and comprehensive view of reactionary politics and its place in the broader political landscape.
The phrase “who you are is who you were when” is a thought-provoking statement that touches on the complex philosophical and psychological concepts of personal identity, consciousness, and the continuity of self over time. To unpack this statement and explore its meaning, we need to delve into various perspectives on personal identity, memory, and the nature of consciousness.
Philosophical Perspectives on Personal Identity
The question of personal identity over time has been a subject of intense philosophical debate for centuries. Several key theories help us understand the implications of this statement:
Psychological Continuity Theory: John Locke, a prominent philosopher, proposed that personal identity is founded on psychological continuity, particularly the continuity of consciousness. He argued that it is the same consciousness that links past and present experiences, which constitutes personal identity [1]. This theory suggests that “who you are is who you were when” is directly connected to your current self through a continuous stream of consciousness and memories.
Hume’s Bundle Theory: David Hume, another influential philosopher, was skeptical of the notion of a permanent self. He suggested that personal identity is more like a bundle of perceptions without a true underlying self [2]. This perspective challenges the idea of a consistent “you” across time, implying that “who you were when” might be fundamentally different from who you are now.
Narrative Identity: This concept, supported by philosophers and psychologists, suggests that individuals construct their sense of self through a personal narrative that is continuously updated and reshaped [3]. In this view, “who you were when” becomes part of the ongoing story you tell about yourself, influencing but not necessarily defining your current identity.
The Role of Memory in Identity
Memory plays a crucial role in connecting our past selves to our present identity:
Dynamic Nature of Memory: Scientific research has shown that memory is not a static archive but an active and reconstructive process. Each time we recall a memory, it is reconstructed, and this process can alter the original experience [4]. This suggests that “who you were when” is not a fixed point but a dynamic representation that changes over time.
Autobiographical Memory: From a psychological standpoint, autobiographical memory is central to the construction of personal identity. These memories are subjective, selective, and reconstructive, influenced by current emotions, beliefs, and cognitive biases [5]. This means that your recollection of “who you were when” is shaped by your current perspective and circumstances.
Consciousness and Self-Awareness
The statement also touches on the concepts of consciousness and self-awareness:
Self-Awareness Development: Self-awareness is a critical component of personal identity. It begins to develop in infancy and becomes more complex as individuals grow [6]. This developmental perspective suggests that “who you are is who you were when” might have different levels of self-awareness compared to your current self.
Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Scientific studies have explored the neural basis of consciousness, identifying areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex as important for self-awareness. However, self-awareness may arise from distributed brain networks rather than specific regions [7]. This neurological perspective highlights the complexity of maintaining a consistent sense of self over time.
Personality Development and Change
Research on personality development provides insights into how individuals change over time:
Stability and Change: Personality traits are generally characterized by both stability and change across the lifespan. While some traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase with age, others like neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience may decline [8]. This suggests that who you are is who you were when” might have different personality characteristics compared to your current self.
Impact of Life Events: Significant life events can lead to changes in personality traits. For example, entering a romantic relationship or starting a new job can increase emotional stability and conscientiousness [9]. These changes imply that major life experiences can create distinctions between “who you are is who you were when” and who you are now.
Synthesis and Meaning
The statement “who you are is who you were when” encapsulates the complex interplay between continuity and change in personal identity. It challenges us to consider:
Continuity of Consciousness: To what extent does our consciousness provide a thread of continuity between our past and present selves?
Memory’s Role: How do our memories, which are dynamic and reconstructive, shape our understanding of who we were and who we are?
Personal Growth: How have we changed over time, and how do these changes affect our sense of self?
Narrative Construction: How do we integrate our past experiences into our current self-narrative?
In essence, this statement invites us to reflect on the complex nature of personal identity. It suggests that while there may be a continuity of consciousness and memory linking our past and present selves, we are also constantly evolving beings. Our current identity is shaped by, but not necessarily identical to, who we were in the past. This perspective encourages a nuanced understanding of personal identity that acknowledges both the enduring aspects of self and the potential for growth and change over time.
