Category Archives: Politics

“We’re All in This Together” ?

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.

Something You Can Do

Posted on by
Reply

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.

198 Methods of Nonviolent Action:

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

Actions and Strategies

Posted on by
Reply

For full article CLICK HERE

IN TIMES OF TRUMP DISMANTLING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 

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.

Actions and Strategies

In Times of Trump Dismantling American Government

Comprehensive Strategies to Regain Control and Protect Democratic Institutions from Systematic Dismantling

Freedom of Assembly – A Constitutional Right

# Immediate Action Strategies

## 1. Legal and Constitutional Mechanisms

– Utilize judicial review to challenge unconstitutional executive actions, as established by Marbury v. Madison [[1]]

– Leverage existing checks and balances systems to limit executive overreach [[2]]

– Employ legislative oversight tools, including:

  – Congressional hearings

  – Investigations

  – Strategic use of funding controls [[2]]

## 2. Civil Society Response

– Engage with organizations like Civil Service Strong and Partnership for Public Service that specifically work to protect civil service [[3]]

– Support watchdog organizations and legal advocacy groups like Protect Democracy [[4]]

– Mobilize grassroots movements and civil society organizations to:

  – Monitor government actions

  – Expose corruption

  – Lobby for governance reforms [[5]]

## 3. Institutional Protection Measures

### Government Workforce Protection

– Support initiatives defending civil service against political interference

– Work with unions and professional associations to protect government employees

– Document and challenge illegal terminations or restructuring [[3]]

### Democratic Process Protection

– Safeguard election integrity through:

  – Protection against voter suppression

  – Combating disinformation

  – Maintaining election infrastructure [[6]]

## 4. International Cooperation and Support

– Engage with international organizations like International IDEA and UNDP’s Democratic Governance [[7]]

– Utilize international pressure and accountability mechanisms

– Learn from other democracies’ experiences in resisting authoritarian attempts [[8]]

# Long-term Strategic Approaches

## 1. Develop a National Democracy Strategy

– Create a comprehensive plan integrating democracy protection into:

  – Economic policy

  – Social policy

  – Technology policy

  – Diplomatic relations

  – Military considerations [[9]]

## 2. Build Cross-sector Alliances

– Form coalitions between:

  – Civil society organizations

  – Legal professionals

  – Academic institutions

  – Business leaders

  – Pro-democracy politicians [[10]]

## 3. Public Education and Engagement

– Launch public awareness campaigns about democratic institutions

– Educate citizens about their rights and democratic processes

– Foster civic participation and engagement [[5]]

## 4. Media and Technology Strategy

– Support independent journalism

– Combat disinformation through fact-checking initiatives

– Engage technology companies in protecting democratic processes [[11]]

# Success Indicators from Historical Examples

Historical examples show that democratic institutions can recover from systematic dismantling attempts. Key lessons include:

1. **Post-WWII Germany and Japan**: Successful reconstruction required:

– Strong constitutional frameworks

– International support

– Economic rebuilding

– Democratic institution building [[12]]

2. **Eastern European Transitions**: Demonstrated the importance of:

– Civil society movements

– International support

– Economic reforms

– Democratic constitution development [[12]]

# Current Public Support

Recent data shows potential for successful resistance:

– High public demand for government reform (49% Democrats, 83% Republicans) [[13]]

– Strong electoral responses against anti-democratic actions

– Growing concern about institutional integrity across political spectrums [[14]]

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.

Coalitions

Building Coalitions and Bridges

To build coalitions and bridges beyond our own special interests:

  1. Identify Common Goals: Successful coalitions often start with a clear understanding of the common goals and the necessity of collaboration. The process involves identifying the problems or goals that bring organizations together, understanding the community’s needs, and assembling a diverse group of stakeholders who can contribute to achieving the coalition’s objectives [7].
  2. Engage Diverse Stakeholders: Include those most affected by the issue and leverage their unique perspectives and resources. This diversity can lead to more comprehensive and effective solutions.
  3. Focus on Shared Interests: Cross-racial coalitions, for example, have been successful in addressing issues like voting rights and economic opportunities by focusing on shared interests or common threats [8].
  4. Utilize Frameworks: Employ frameworks like the Health Impact Pyramid to assess local assets and challenges, coordinate activities, and monitor interventions effectively [9].
  5. Promote Open Communication: Foster a culture of open dialogue and shared responsibility among coalition members to ensure all voices are heard and valued.

We Need Organizations

The Importance of Community Organizations

Addressing the question “if it doesn’t affect me directly, why should I care?”, it’s crucial to understand the broader impact of community organizations. Understanding and evaluating community organizations requires a multifaceted approach. By considering their effectiveness, transparency, coalition-building efforts, and legitimacy indicators, you can make informed decisions about which organizations to support and engage with. Remember that while an organization’s impact may not always be immediately apparent to you personally, their work often contributes to broader societal improvements that can benefit everyone in the long term.

  1. Collective Impact: Community organizations often address issues that affect society as a whole, even if not immediately apparent to individuals. Their work can lead to systemic changes that benefit everyone in the long run.
  2. Social Cohesion: These organizations play a vital role in building stronger, more connected communities, which can improve quality of life for all residents.
  3. Resource Mobilization: They often mobilize resources and volunteers to address local issues more efficiently than government agencies or individuals could alone.
  4. Advocacy: Community organizations can amplify the voices of marginalized groups and advocate for policy changes that benefit the broader community.

The Importance of Transparency in Community Organizations

In an era where organizations may operate virtually or from home offices, developing transparency is crucial:

  1. Embrace Digital Tools: Organizations should leverage digital technologies to enhance transparency and accountability. This includes using platforms that allow for real-time data sharing and communication, which can help in making informed decisions and fostering trust among stakeholders [10].
  2. Implement Data Transparency Practices: Ensure clear and open handling of data, helping stakeholders understand how their information is collected, used, and shared [11].
  3. Utilize Blockchain for Immutable Records: Consider using blockchain technology to create decentralized and immutable records, enhancing transparency and reducing the risk of fraud [12].
  4. Balance Transparency with Privacy: While transparency is important, it must be balanced with privacy concerns. Organizations should ensure that sensitive information is protected and that transparency does not lead to unintended data exposure [13].

What If!
What if nobody sees what you do?
What if nobody knows how you feel?
What if nobody cares that you care?
What if nobody does what you do?
What if nobody reads what you write?
What if nobody thinks the way you do?
Will you still be who you are?

Rodney Coates

Which Side Are You On?

By Florence Reece
This song emerged during the Harlan County War, a
series of coal miner strikes in Kentucky. Florence Reece was the wife of a union organizer and her song became the anthem for the labor movement and was widely covered by artists like Pete Seeger.

I Care What You Think

We know that you all cannot support nonviolent revolution in the same way and we are not asking you to. But before we ever start we need to know who will support nonviolent revolution and at what level. Are you an Actor, Ally or Accomplice? Click this link. After you have figured out what it is you are willing to do please fill out and submit the What Will You Do Survey.

We need to build a movement! Not another organization. We need to support active organizations that we already have.

Be aware of the gatekeepers (pimps, preachers and prostitutes), they will want to stop you, slow you down, and turn this movement around. Some earn their income from our plight. Their behavior might get you killed.

Develop Effective Action Groups

Reflections on 50 Years of Social Action Groups in Spokane

These reflections and critiques offer insight into the challenges and nuances of organizing for social and political change, especially in a community with unique demographic and cultural dynamics like Spokane’s. I’ll break down some of the key themes and ideas that emerge from my observations, followed by an analysis of the different organizational meeting styles I have observed.

Observations on Spokane’s Social Justice Landscape

1. The Challenge of Unity in Diversity

I would like to highlight a critical stumbling block: the diversity of backgrounds and experiences among African Americans in Spokane, combined with open housing policies that have dispersed the community geographically. This dispersal creates physical and cultural barriers to organizing. Efforts at building unity often falter because of a lack of shared experiences or common interests.

The “myth of unity” is especially powerful. True solidarity often requires honest critique and the ability to challenge one another constructively. However the fear of disrupting fragile social bonds can prevent this, leaving communities stagnant or divided. Recognizing this tension is a crucial first step toward addressing it.

2. Opposition’s Strategic Plans

The opposition’s strategy of fostering disunity by perpetuating myths of unity and relying on ineffective slogans such as “each one teach one” resonates. While the latter sounds appealing, it does not scale quickly enough to make the kind of sweeping change necessary in the face of systemic opposition.

Calling for methods to teach larger groups and work collaboratively rather than individually is vital. Scaling up requires intentional, structured approaches that balance grassroots engagement with broader, unified strategies.

3. The Power of Small, Scalable Actions

Starting with small groups (5-10 people) that reach consensus and funnel ideas up to larger groups (20-40 people) is practical and reflects effective organizing models. This approach mirrors successful strategies used in community organizing and union movements. The key is ensuring that these small groups do not become isolated or self-contained but instead feed into a larger, cohesive effort.

Use independent media to disseminate ideas and strategies. In the digital age, leveraging social media, podcasts, and other platforms can amplify these messages far beyond the immediate community.

Critique of Organizational Meeting Styles

1. Small Groups That Just Complain

These groups are common in grassroots organizing and often act as pressure valves for frustration. While they may provide a sense of camaraderie and shared grievance, they rarely lead to action or change. The key to transforming these groups is introducing structure, goal-setting, and accountability.

2. Small Groups That Take Effective Action But Fail to Scale

These groups are the backbone of many movements, as they are action-oriented and often achieve measurable results. However, they can become insular and overly reliant on the comfort of their small size. To scale up, these groups must develop strategies for outreach, recruitment, and leadership development. Succession planning is also critical to prevent burnout and stagnation.

3. Large, Established Groups with Gatekeeping Leadership

Larger organizations with entrenched leadership may have the appearance of strength, but their top-heavy structure often stifles grassroots participation and innovation. Additionally, their focus on appearances (e.g., press conferences, grand speeches) can overshadow actual community engagement. Breaking down these gatekeeping tendencies requires fostering a culture of transparency, shared decision-making, and accountability within these organizations.

4. A Model Town Hall Meeting

I want to note a successful Democratic meeting – a state legislative town hall I recently attended which stands out as a shining example of effective organization and engagement. Its success can be attributed to several factors:

  • Preparation: From the panel’s shared experiences and unified goals to logistical details like sign-ins, cards for questions, and microphones for audience participation, every aspect of the event was thoughtfully planned.
  • Inclusivity: The setup allowed for both written and verbal questions, ensuring that all voices were heard, including those less comfortable speaking publicly.
  • Follow-Up: Collecting contact information and ensuring unanswered questions were addressed later demonstrated respect for participants’ concerns and a commitment to accountability.
  • Engagement: The inclusion of a younger, passionate panel member brought fresh energy and perspectives, which is often key to inspiring broader participation.

This model could serve as a blueprint for other events, fostering trust, transparency, and community buy-in.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

1. Build Bridges Across Diverse Experiences

To overcome the challenge of disunity, focus on identifying shared goals and emphasizing common interests rather than differences. This could involve hosting listening sessions or cultural exchanges to deepen understanding among community members.

2. Scale Effectively

  • Start with small groups but ensure they are networked into a larger movement. Use representatives to connect these groups and share their findings.
  • Embrace digital tools to communicate and scale your efforts. Social media campaigns, live-streamed events, and online forums can bring dispersed communities together.

3. Cultivate Leadership and Prevent Gatekeeping

Develop leadership training programs to empower new voices and prevent the monopolization of power by a few individuals. Encourage established organizations to adopt more democratic, participatory structures.

4. Learn from the Model Town Hall

The thoughtful, inclusive approach of the town hall meeting I attended is replicable. Key elements to incorporate into future events include:

  • Advance planning and logistics
  • Opportunities for direct and written participation
  • Transparent follow-up processes
  • A mix of seasoned and fresh voices to ensure both experience and innovation

5. Use Independent Media Strategically

Leverage independent media to broadcast successes, share strategies, and counteract misinformation. Platforms like blogs, YouTube channels, and podcasts can amplify voices that mainstream media often overlooks.

Conclusion

I hope these reflections capture the complexity of organizing for social justice in a fragmented community. The challenges outlined—disunity, ineffective strategies, and entrenched gatekeeping—are significant but not insurmountable. By building on effective models like the town hall meeting and prioritizing scalable, inclusive approaches, there is real potential to create lasting change.

If any of this information here at 4comculture.com is useful to you, pass it on to friends and community leaders in order that they might learn.

Guide to Critical Thinking

Thinking Critically with Community Organizing

Guide to Critical Thinking Worksheet

Choices Now: Tyranny or Revolution?

Think Outside Silos: Win Elections

“Reactionary”: Labels Are Not Inclusive

Obama Speech July 13, 2012 in Roanoke Virginia

Reply

From an ABC News blog post By Jake Tapper July 16, 2012

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

Think Outside Silos: Win Elections 1

“Reactionary”: Labels Are Not Inclusive

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.