WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11126
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2026-10-08 20:19:47
    [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-08 20:19:47
    [post_content] => 

Why you should pay attention to Alabama's Statewide Amendment 3 this election.

On the ballot in Alabama this November is a proposed constitutional amendment to policies on prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in public K–12 schools.

Statewide Amendment 3 would compel local school boards to adopt rules requiring the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day and allow student-initiated and student-led prayer. However, the amendment would not require students to participate in either the Pledge or prayer. If passed, students would have the right to opt out based on their beliefs and would be allowed to leave the classroom during either. 

On February 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, replacing previous guidelines from 2023. The update states that students, teachers, and school employees retain their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, which includes engaging in personal, visible prayer. Although the United States Supreme Court previously determined that public schools and their employees (including teachers, coaches, and principals) cannot lead, organize, prescribe, or endorse prayer or religious exercises during school activities, Alabama has leaned into the Department of Education’s newest recommendations, which have created a voluntary religious expression loophole.   

Back in May, the Alabama legislature approved the proposed amendment by attempting to explicitly enshrine student-led prayer into their state constitution to shield it from future legal challenges. Since April, Alabama law has required public K-12 schools to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day. Additionally, students are permitted to “pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during, and after the school day.” 

The bill was introduced by Republican State Representative Reed Ingram, who says the United States was founded on Christian principles. He also says that today, there are families who don’t have time to implement faith-based activities, like prayer at home, because they are too busy working. (Though he notes he doesn’t personally know a family struggling with this.)  

Both Republicans and Democrats  in the Alabama House of Representatives and Senate have expressed support for the proposal.

“This is an opportunity, not mandatory; it's a voluntary basis, student-led only,” Ingram explains. “Nothing is going over the PA, and it’s nothing that’s going to be led by a teacher or principal. The student only prays if they stand up and tell the teacher they want to pray this morning, and the class will have that option.” 

Ingham adds that student-led prayer can be led by students of all religions and faiths, not limited to just Christianity, but that’s not clearly written into the bill. 

Following the 2024 presidential election, Baptist News Global reported that the conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation, does not propose a mandatory federal school prayer program. However, its conservative framework aligns with efforts like this one to expand and protect individual religious expression in public schools. (The Heritage Foundation wrote the infamous Project 2025, a conservative blueprint to transform the federal government and social structures of the country at large.)

Other people of fath, including Christians, are against implementing this type of bill into state law, like Rev. Julie Conrady, Minister at Unitarian Universalist Church of Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. She says that this kind of amendment imposes or forces a religion onto individuals who may not believe in the faith being practiced during student-led prayer. 

“Alabama has plenty of churches. If folks are not getting what they need on Sunday morning, Wednesday night, and all the other opportunities they have for religious freedom and expression during the week, then they need to choose a different school for their children,” Conrady says. “Because Alabama public schools should remain available for every student to be themselves, without being coerced to subjective practices, including this bill.” 

About 25% of Alabamians do not identify with Christianity, according to a  Pew Research report from 2025. Conrady says this amendment  dismisses that figure.

“The Universalist Church is included in the fourth of [Alabamians of other faiths], which also includes Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, nones, and the atheist, and the humanist,”  she says. 

The minister adds she’s been talking with other religious leaders who oppose this type of bill in other red states, and they are planning to take action up to the Supreme Court if the bill passes in November. 

“There will never be a separation between church and state,” says Zareen Dodwad-Khan, 46, who lives in Leeds, Alabama. Khan is Muslim and has three kids in public schools. “If the majority of people want prayer in school, I’m not gonna fight it and say I'm totally against it, because I’m a minority. And I teach my kids about their religion and identity at home.” 

However, Khan also says she will likely vote “no” for the amendment in November. 

Christy Johnson, 43, a mother of three kids who also lives in Leeds, says the amendment is all part of the growing Christian nationalist movement and MAGA. 

“I’m a Christian, who believes in Jesus Christ. We pray every night before dinner. It’s like church, politics, and school have all been mashed together and rolled into one. Instead of the way it was intended to be, which is all separate things and separate parts of our lives,  they’re trying to make it all part of the same,” she says.  “As a parent and a Chrisitian, I think that’s very concerning, and even for people who don’t believe the same way I do.”

Alabama voters will decide if they agree on November 3, 2026.

[post_title] => "There Will Never Be a Separation of Church and State" [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Alabama's Statewide Amendment 3 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-united-states-midterms-down-ballot-alabama-statewide-amendment-3-pledge-of-allegiance-student-led-prayer-church-religion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-09 22:25:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-09 22:25:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11126 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a teacher pointing to a map of the United States with a cross in the middle and three children looking on.

“There Will Never Be a Separation of Church and State”

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11119
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2026-10-07 22:16:20
    [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:16:20
    [post_content] => 

Why you should pay attention to Virginia's Question 1 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.

Sara Sanatkar learned firsthand how important it is to have the freedom to make decisions over her own body when she faced an unexpected pregnancy at 19 years old.

This was in 2019. Sanatkar was in an unhealthy relationship, and knew she wasn’t ready to be a mother. But, unfamiliar with the laws regarding reproductive care in her home state of Virginia, Sanatkar wasn’t sure if she could have an abortion, so she Googled it and learned about Roe v. Wade. Back then, she felt immense relief. “I can have access to care. I can have access to legal care. I can have access to safe care,” she remembers her 19-year-old self saying. 

Sanatkar says she was “geographically lucky” to have gotten pregnant in Virginia. Born and raised in Tehran, Iran, Sanatkar grew up in a country where, even though her family and the general population supported the right to abortion, the government did not. Leaving Tehran at age 15 wasn’t easy; despite some of the drawbacks women face, such as the threat of death penalty for illegal abortions, it was the only home she’d known. The year before she moved, she remembers sitting in the back of a taxi with her mother, whose words altered her perspective of home and family. While holding her hand, Sanatkar’s mother told her, “I'm so happy that you get to live in a country where you get to make decisions about your own body.” 

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—the ruling that had provided Sanatkar relief just three years before—ending the federal constitutional right to abortion, once again leaving the authority with individual states. Since then, 20 states have either severely restricted abortions or established total bans, including West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

As the Field & Canvass Manager at REPRO Rising, a grassroots political organization working to guarantee comprehensive reproductive healthcare information and services to all Virginians, Sanatkar now works alongside the Virginians for Reproductive Freedom coalition, which includes ACLU of Virginia, Virginia League for Planned Parenthood, and the National Women's Political Caucus of Virginia, to protect the right to reproductive freedom within their state constitution. Since August 2024, REPRO Rising has been organizing awareness around Virginia Question 1—one of three proposed amendments to the state constitution on the ballot this November. 

In her organizing work so far, she has seen an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the amendment. According to Sanatkar, many people view it as “very reasonable,” which has resulted in “a sense of pride for me as a Virginia voter,” she says.

“Across Virginia, we’ve heard a consistent message from voters,” she adds. “Regardless of their personal beliefs or experiences with reproductive healthcare, Virginians believe these deeply personal decisions should remain between a patient, their family, and their doctor, not politicians.”

For Virginians, the outcome of Question 1 will determine whether the state establishes a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, following a complicated, multi-year process to add the amendment to the state constitution. 

The constitutional amendment was first introduced in January 2023. The General Assembly subsequently passed the amendment in January 2025. The state process requires an intervening election, and a House of Delegates election was held in November 2025. Then, the General Assembly passed the amendment for the second time in January 2026. 

Now it is up to voters to vote yes or no. A “yes” vote means Virginians will have a constitutional right to make their own decisions on reproductive care, including abortion. (However, not without some potential restrictions: The proposed amendment would still allow the Virginian government to pass laws regulating abortion care in the third trimester though with decreased barriers.) A “no” vote will mean the status quo is maintained, including the same restrictions  to abortion care in the third semester that require approval from three physicians. What’s more, abortion rights in the future could eventually be restricted with a change in office. 

The issue has been a key part of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s platform since her electoral victory over Glenn Youngkin last November. In June, half a year after taking office, Gov. Spanberger joined the Reproductive Freedom Alliance (RFA), a nonpartisan coalition of governors dedicated to protecting reproductive freedom across the nation.

“Virginia is the only state in the South where a woman has the same freedom to make her own healthcare decisions as she did before the fall of Roe v. Wade. Today, we are taking a step to reaffirm those freedoms,” Gov. Spanberger said in an RFA press release last June.

In effect, a “yes” vote means Virginia law won’t change, says Executive Director of Virginia ACLU Mary Bauer. “Our goal is not to change Virginia law. Our goal is to enshrine reproductive freedom into our constitution because we know that these rights can be taken away with a flick of a politician’s pen,” she says. “We want to make sure that our rights don’t depend on who happens to be in office at any given moment.”

Prior to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, roughly 3% of patients accessing abortion care in Virginia came from out of state. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and more Southern states limited access to abortions, the percentage of out-of-state patients jumped to 30%, according to the Virginia Independent. This means the results of Amendment 1 will affect more than just Virginians. Arguably, the state is the last stronghold for abortion care in the South.

“To see Virginia as a leader in this space is really a beautiful thing,” Bauer says.

If the amendment fails to pass, there is a risk that Virginia will transform into a state banning abortion, says Dr. Kimberly Chernoby, a physician and reproductive rights lawyer. “Virginia is a state that is not very clearly Democratic or Republican,” she says. “Our legislature has gone both ways, and so there is a real risk that in the future, and it could be near future, that we could lose access to reproductive healthcare.”

Amendment 1 also holds implications for practicing physicians. “It means that when my patient is miscarrying and I have to offer them an abortion to treat their miscarriage, that I'm not worried. ‘Am I going to go to jail? Am I going to lose my medical license? Am I going to be fined $10,000?’ The idea that any physician is asked to weigh those things at the bedside is really incredible,” Dr. Chernoby says. “Abortion is routine healthcare, and you cannot affect all other aspects of reproductive healthcare. When you limit abortion care, you are by definition going to limit all other aspects of reproductive healthcare, and you can't have one without the other.”

It’s exactly this full span of reproductive healthcare that Sanatkar is advocating for, and that she’s encountered broad support for through her organizing. “It's a very simple question: Do you want to have access to bodily autonomy, and do you want to be able to make decisions independently with your doctor without being scared that the state is going to punish you or your provider? And I think [the] majority of Virginians are going to say ‘yes’ to that,” she says.

[post_title] => When the Future of Bodily Autonomy Is in Question [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Virginia's Question 1 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-down-ballot-virginia-question-1-abortion-bodily-autonomy-healthcare-womens-rights-voting [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-07 22:16:23 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:16:23 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11119 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a woman with a ball and chain attached to her ankle as she carries the ball at her stomach.

When the Future of Bodily Autonomy Is in Question

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11096
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2026-10-06 21:39:27
    [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-06 21:39:27
    [post_content] => 

Why you should pay attention to Colorado's Proposition 134 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.

In February 2025, just 16 days after President Trump took office for the second time, he signed an executive order banning trans girls and women from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in schools receiving federal funding. That directive, part of the administration’s broader assault on trans rights, goes against multiple studies showing that transgender students benefit from participating in athletics, including earning higher grades and a reduction in self-harm.

This November, Colorado voters will decide where they stand on this issue by voting on Proposition 134, a ballot initiative regarding the right of trans students to play on K-12 and college sports teams that align with their gender identity. 

“We talk about the importance of sports being this place for community, particularly for youth, but this is a few people assuming for the rest of people what their values are around sports and inclusion,” says Ash Neufeldt of Rocky Mountain Equality about the measure. Rocky Mountain Equality is a Colorado-based LGBTQ+ non-profit organization that advocates for, educates, and supports LGBTQ+ individuals and families.

While supporters of the proposition describe it as an effort to protect girls' sports, opponents like Neufeldt are concerned about its ambiguity and the process for determining which students would face restrictions. “When it comes to things like this for people who are trying to keep particular gender roles, a lot of times, it's related to genitalia,” Neufeldt says. “It could have the most invasive implications for kindergarteners all the way through college athletes.” 

Hannah*, a parent of a trans youth who requested anonymity due to safety concerns, agrees. “I think the thing is really poorly written and very vague. Anybody could be accused, and then what happens? The coach has to verify. How does that happen?” Hannah questions in what other setting would another parent be okay with a school meeting that is essentially about their child’s genitalia. “But somehow with our girls, it’s on the table because they're trans?” she asks.

While similar laws have been enacted in other states, including Idaho and Mississippi in 2020 and 2021, respectively, 2026 will be the first time U.S. voters decide on the issue at the ballot box. (Three other states—Washington, Arizona, and Nebraska—have similar ballot measures this November.) If passed, the initiative would require school- and association-sponsored athletic teams to be classified into one of three categories: males, females, or mixed. Teams designated for males would remain open to females, so long as no corresponding female team exists. The reverse, however, would not apply, meaning if no male team exists, anyone who is not a cisgender woman or girl would be barred from joining female teams. Neufeldt says this asymmetry points to a fixation and disdain for trans women and trans girls in particular. From her viewpoint, proponents of the measure are suggesting that a six-year-old transgender girl is somehow dangerous to cisgender girls of the same age.

The organization leading the campaign in support of the initiative, Protect Kids Colorado, says on its website, "Bigger, stronger biological males are invading girls' sports in Colorado, taking away our girls' dignity, safety, and opportunity.” Parents like Hannah push back against such arguments. “What do we need protection from? Show us one time when this has really, truly been a problem,” she says, referring to transgender athletes participating in K-12 sports. Beyond this, the "bigger, stronger" argument hinges on testosterone-driven puberty, a stage many trans kids never experience. While not every trans child uses puberty blockers, those who do must monitor hormone levels with regular blood checks. Hannah says these checks have shown her that her daughter’s testosterone levels are two-thirds lower than the average cisgender girl.

Another parent of a trans child who also asked for anonymity says they “are manufacturing an outrage that just doesn’t exist,” noting that Colorado already has guidelines from the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA). Under CHSAA's existing policy, a transgender student's home school conducts a confidential evaluation to determine eligibility—meaning coaches, athletic directors, and principals already have a formal process for making the call on what team(s) a student is allowed to play on, with CHSAA reviewing decisions on appeal rather than deciding unilaterally.

"The reality is Proposition 134 is so unclear. There's no accountability, there's no enforcement structure," says Nadine Bridges, Executive Director of One Colorado, an advocacy organization dedicated to advancing equality, freedom, and opportunity for LGBTQIA+ Coloradans and their families. "We have 179 school districts in the state of Colorado, and each one can interpret it any way they want. I don't believe they're setting up a structure to protect girls. I think they're setting up a situation that makes it even more gray. This is allowing government to get involved in decisions that families, experts, coaches, and schools should be allowed to make."

If the ballot measure passes in November, Neufeldt says sports will no longer be a place of fun, friendly competition and community building. It will become a place of interrogations. And that loss would fall on kids who are already struggling. Nearly 60 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth experience depression, and almost half have considered suicide in the past year. Laws that restrict sports participation worsen psychological stress for transgender youth, and the Bell Policy Center’s website highlights that Prop 134 would cut off transgender students from the benefits organized sports provide. It also notes there is no sound evidence that transgender participation in youth sports negatively impacts the well-being of cisgender youth.

For parents like Hannah, whose daughter has always been athletic and loves to be active, it’s heartbreaking to even consider. “Every body is different. There’s different athletic abilities, talents. Different heights, some kids are fast, some are clumsy. But learning how to win, how to lose, how to compete… It’s the one time for her that, for just a little while, she just gets to be like everybody else,” she says. “It’s this tiny moment in her life that she’s allotted to just be a kid.”

* Hannah is an alias. The family requested anonymity due to increasing safety concerns.

[post_title] => When a Kid Just Wants To Play Sports [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Colorado's Proposition 134 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-united-states-colorado-proposition-134-down-ballot-transphobia-sports-voting [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-07 22:19:19 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:19:19 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11096 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Illustration of a young girl looking at a clothing rack with a swimsuit and a football jersey.

When a Kid Just Wants To Play Sports

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11088
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2026-10-05 17:35:35
    [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-05 17:35:35
    [post_content] => 

Why you should pay attention to North Carolina's Require Voter Identification Amendment this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.

Since 2018, North Carolina law has required photo identification for in-person voting, as do 24 other states. This November 3, however, state residents will vote on the North Carolina Require Voter Identification Amendment measure, a “legislatively referred constitutional amendment,” or referendum, which would alter the state’s constitution. It would require all voters—including absentee and mail-in voters—to provide a photo ID in order to participate in elections. 

Whether voters reject or pass the amendment, the current voting requirements in the state of North Carolina would remain the same.

You’re not alone if you’re wondering why it’s even on the ballot. But North Carolina policy experts are concerned about it, warning that a ‘Yes’ vote would likely have lasting implications. 

Recent changes to North Carolina voting laws

The last time that language about voter IDs appeared on North Carolina’s ballot was in 2024. Since then, a photocopy of a voter’s photo identification has been required for mail-in voting. Currently, there are still exceptions for lost or stolen IDs, or a voter’s disability status, allowing voters to use an alternative method of identification, like sharing the last four digits of their Social Security number. 

According to Brooks Fuller, Policy Director with Common Cause NC, a non-partisan network of grassroots state policy experts, the original reason for the proposed measure was to ensure that voters are indeed who they say they are. 

This year’s proposed amendment, however, does not include any language on exceptions, and Fuller says this could affect many US voters, muddying its true end goal. 

“The only logical conclusion is that the legislators passing these laws want to make it more difficult for people to vote,” he says. “I imagine they can see who tends to vote by mail, and it's voters who they would prefer not to [be able to] vote.”

Data from 2022 analyzed by the non–partisan nonprofit Secure Democracy shows that nearly half of rural voters across the country vote by mail. In North Carolina, while most mail-in voters are white, Asian and Pacific Islander voters are the most likely to request an absentee ballot, while Black voters increased their mail-in participation five-fold in 2020. Black voters are also more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected, generally for minor errors like a missing signature or address. 

Democracy for all, not just a few

President of The League of Women Voters of North Carolina Jennifer McMillian Rubin says the proposed amendment is “troubling.” If passed, it would pose a barrier to North Carolina residents who are serving in the military or overseas, and Rubin argues  being forced to mail in a photocopy of their IDs would likely keep them from voting.

The Voter Identification Amendment is just one of three referendums that The League is opposing this year. The other two, the Property Tax Levy Limit Amendment and the Reduce Constitutional Income Tax Cap amendments, would reduce the maximum personal income tax rate from 7% to 3.5% and require limits on property tax increases by local governments, respectively. The League is at odds with such changes because they would shift local funding decisions to the state, cement policy decisions into the constitution, and potentially reduce funding for future services, like education or disaster relief.

Altogether, the three propositions ”place policy decisions into the Constitution that are better addressed through legislation, where elected officials can respond to changing needs and voters can hold them accountable,” says Rubin. “It seems like overkill to put additional verbiage that would make this more permanent, more stringent, and less flexible to adapt to changing times and changing requirements.” 

Common Cause NC, a nonprofit that works to protect voting rights, is concerned that historically marginalized populations will be most impacted by the proposal. Besides Black voters, Hispanic/Latine residents, disabled or elderly voters, people  who work multiple jobs with varied shifts, and residents who simply do not drive could also be affected if the amendment passes.

In 2013, the US Supreme Court removed critical components of the Voting Rights Act, including requiring that certain districts obtain federal clearance before changing voting laws or practice due to previous racial discrimination. North Carolina’s legislature responded by decreasing accessibility to voting through tactics like closing down polling locations predominantly used by Black residents and limiting early voting. Four years later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked components of a North Carolina voting law that singled out Black voters in the state, stating that it “target[ed] African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Legal proceedings about racially motivated barriers in voting have been ongoing since, including arguments about redistricting. In 2025, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais rendered gerrymandering legal. This led two North Carolinian residents to drop their appeal to the Supreme Court after years of pushing the courts to reconsider district lines in favor of the Voting Rights Act. After the latest ruling, Rep. Rodney Pierce told Daily Tar Heels that the decision “left no path open to protect the voting rights of Black citizens in the state.” 

Fuller is concerned that the latest proposed amendment is yet another attempt at creating additional barriers for historically marginalized populations. 

“[It would] cement a part of our law that tends to suppress voter turnout and votes, particularly in vulnerable communities, and would do so even more egregiously than it already does,” Fuller says. 

Resources for eligible voters

According to 2024 research led by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, almost 21 million US citizens of voting age lack a valid driver’s license. The Center’s research also reveals that almost 29 million voting-aged US citizens have a valid license that does not match their current address or name, which means they couldn’t use it to verify their ballots. These findings support Fuller’s concerns surrounding racial inequities, as both Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to be without a valid license than their counterparts.

“That's the point,” Fuller says. “This is just doubling down, making it harder for those folks when they have already, by registering, proven that they are who they say they are.”

For those eligible to vote but without valid photo identification, Fuller encourages them to visit their County Board of Elections, a seldom used resource that is less cumbersome than securing a DMV appointment. He also suggests using VoteRiders for voters who need extra support procuring their IDs and transportation to their polling place. 

Low on supporting data

Myths surrounding voter fraud fuel proposed amendments like this one, bolstering the idea that additional requirements would ensure voting accuracy. Yet Rubin says voting fraud in North Carolina is almost non-existent, and a 2024 social media campaign dedicated to busting voting myths, led by the North Carolina Board of Elections, confirms it.

“There is not an ‘election integrity’ reason to require a photo ID, especially not through a constitutional amendment,” argues Fuller. Instead, what is needed is voter education across party lines. 

“It is cliche, and I hear it a lot, especially from my elders,” says Fuller. “But it is true: They would not be trying so hard to take away your vote if it didn't threaten their power. They just wouldn't.”

[post_title] => Why Ask Voters to Provide ID If It's Already Required? [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to North Carolina's Require Voter Identification Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-down-ballot-north-carolina-require-voter-identification-amendment-united-states-voting-rights [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-06 19:10:33 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-06 19:10:33 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11088 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a voter with no face standing by a ballot box.

Why Ask Voters to Provide ID If It’s Already Required?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 10768
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2026-07-17 20:38:29
    [post_date_gmt] => 2026-07-17 20:38:29
    [post_content] => 

Györgyi Gálik on trust, agency, and the invisible work of peacebuilding.

What are the conditions that make democracy possible?  

This is the question that animates the work of Györgyi Gálik, the Hungarian co-founder of Governing Together at Dark Matter Labs, a non-profit research and design lab that builds alternative models for future economies. Unlike many democracy practitioners, Gálik is less interested in designing the next civic platform or participation process than she is in understanding the invisible conditions that ensure their success: trust, agency, kindness, dignity, psychological safety, and fostering relationships that allow people to govern together.

For Gálik, peacebuilding is not something that begins after violence, but rather the work of cultivating the social, relational, and institutional conditions that make violence less likely in the first place. In that sense, peacebuilding and democracy are not separate projects to her: They are expressions of the same underlying work. 

"Peace begins much earlier,” she tells me “It begins in the everyday conditions that help people feel seen, valued, connected, and capable of shaping the world around them. Peacebuilding is the slow, everyday work of creating the conditions where people can act, choose, disagree, repair, and shape the systems that govern their lives.”

“Peacebuilding is less about the absence of violence and more about the presence of agency," she continues. "That is also how I understand democracy."

Learning Democracy Through Loss

For Gálik, this understanding emerged from both political observation and personal experience.

Raised in Hungary and having lived across Europe and North America, she became fascinated by the ways political systems shape everyday life. But her deepest lessons came from watching how people lose meaning when they lose agency—something she witnessed in her own home. 

Throughout her life, Gálik’s father struggled with alcoholism, and died tragically at a time when addiction was treated primarily as a moral failing or personal weakness, rather than a consequence of trauma, disconnection, and unmet needs. What he lacked, she now believes, was not willpower alone, but community, dignity, empathy, meaning, and purpose.

Over time, she began to understand what happened to her father not simply as a family story, but also a political one: The same conditions that leave individuals vulnerable also leave democracies vulnerable. 

Citizens who are filled with resentment and hurt, and feel powerless, unseen, and unheard, become easier to manipulate. People stripped of purpose and dignity become susceptible to cynicism and authoritarian appeals. Far more alarming, this can happen without most even realizing it: It has always frightened Gálik how much people can normalize almost anything if the conditions are made gradually enough.

"The personal and the political were never really separate to begin with," she says.

When Democracy Exists Without Genuine Choice

Few people understand this dynamic more viscerally than Hungarians. 

Gálik points to recent investigations documenting how authoritarian governments can maintain the appearance of democracy while systematically narrowing citizens' choices in reality. Elections continue. Participation technically remains available. Yet fear, dependency, poverty, and intimidation hollow out any meaningful sense of agency.

This is something Hungarians have experienced firsthand. The former government stayed in power for 16 years, not simply by putting money in people’s pockets, but by deliberately maintaining widespread vulnerability with a disturbing level of precision. Threatening parents that their children could be taken away. Telling elderly people they could lose their place in care homes. Threatening families that their heating, gas, or electricity could be switched off, or that they’d lose their jobs. Letting criminals off in return for their votes.

What makes this system so chilling is how functionally, it narrows people’s choices without ever pushing them outside a system that depends on their votes and participation in order to maintain the illusion of a functioning democracy. 

"A society can have consultation, elections, surveys, town halls, and participation processes, and still not have genuine democratic choice," Gálik explains.

For her, democracy is not simply the presence of participation, but meaningful participation.

That distinction feels increasingly relevant far beyond Hungary. Across many democracies, citizens are invited to participate while struggling with economic insecurity, housing crises, burnout, and declining trust in institutions. Formal participation remains, but if people cannot afford to lose their job, speak up, move home, access care, or have the capacity to imagine a different future, then democracy becomes procedural rather than real. 

Democracy's Invisible Infrastructure

One of the most striking ideas in Gálik's work is her belief that, like any seed, democratic ideals need the rich microbiome that sustains healthy, regenerative soil to grow.

In politics, we tend to focus on what is visible: elections, policies, public meetings, constitutions, and institutions. But just as a plant depends on an unseen ecosystem of microorganisms to survive, healthy democracies depend on countless invisible interactions and flows of exchange. Integrity. Curiosity. Reciprocity. The ability to repair harm. The willingness to work across differences.

Without these, both on an individual and societal level, democratic institutions may continue to function on paper while becoming increasingly brittle in practice.

As a result of New Public Management, society’s dominant doctrine since the 1980s, and our broader desire to control complexity, most governments have invested heavily in measurable outputs and performance targets. Yet many technocratic reforms designed to improve efficiency and enable growth have unintentionally weakened the relationships that allow societies to function. Gálik argues that we have become experts at producing outputs, visions, and strategies while neglecting the human infrastructure that turns those outputs into meaningful outcomes for people and communities. A city can produce an award-winning climate strategy and meet every reporting requirement, yet still struggle to deliver meaningful change when departments are siloed, staff lack the capacity to collaborate across mandates, public trust is low, and political leaders are unable to sustain collective action over time.  

"We are meeting the targets," one of Gálik’s colleagues observes, "but missing the point."

The Gendered Labor of Holding Society Together

The consequences of this invisible infrastructure are not distributed equally. Much of the work required to maintain relationships, build trust, manage conflict, and hold communities together is often performed by women, yet they remain largely unseen, undervalued, and uncompensated. 

Like many women working in politics, public institutions, and social change, Gálik is familiar with the invisible labor required simply to be heard.

Having lived in seven different countries, she has encountered remarkably similar patterns. Many women learn very early that they need to be significantly overprepared to be taken equally seriously. They watch as strategic contributions go unnoticed. They learn to manage their tone, language, appearance, and demeanor to navigate institutions that were rarely designed with them in mind. They learn to present as smart enough, but never too smart.

The endless examples of code-switching she’s collected from women around the world are both humorous and sobering: wearing glasses to appear more serious, wearing a ring to signal they have a husband and are therefore to be taken seriously, bringing brothers as stand-ins to unlock credibility during negotiations. 

But Gálik also sees an unexpected strength in these experiences.

Women, she argues, often become experts at reading power because they have spent their lives navigating it. They know how to build trust, maintain connection during conflict, and hold complexity without collapsing into domination. 

These are not secondary skills. They are precisely what modern democracies so desperately need.

Gálik has never accepted a passive role in public life. Nor has she believed that the capacity to initiate change should be reserved for those who occupy positions of formal authority. Her advice to women facing authoritarianism is practical and urgent: find each other, protect each other, document what is happening, and refuse isolation. Throughout history, women have created new forms of communication when official channels become dangerous—from underground publishing networks to other mediums of resistance (including quilts, sewing circles, and silent public gatherings). That creativity and resourcefulness remain one of democracy's most enduring resources.

Trust as Democratic Infrastructure

Throughout our conversation, Gálik repeatedly returns to one word: trust.

Not trust as a feeling, nor as a given. But trust as infrastructure, and daily practice.

Roads do not emerge spontaneously. Neither do water systems, bridges, or electrical grids. They must be built, maintained, repaired, and protected. Trust requires the same kind of investment.

When trust collapses, participation becomes performative. Citizens may still show up, but they no longer believe their contributions matter. Democracy continues as a procedure while losing its legitimacy as a shared project.

The question should not be whether citizens trust institutions. The question is whether institutions behave in trustworthy ways. Do they listen? Repair harm? Share power? Tell the truth? Follow through?

These are governance questions, Gálik argues. But they are also peacebuilding questions.

The Work Ahead

Just weeks before our conversation, Hungarian voters ended their sixteen years of increasingly authoritarian rule. Yet Gálik cautions against viewing electoral victories as endpoints. Removing an authoritarian leader is only the beginning. The deeper challenge is rebuilding trust, institutions, civic confidence, and the everyday habits of democratic life among a population long treated as invisible and disposable. 

The other challenge is dealing with the rightful resentment these governments leave behind. How might we see possibility in the widespread anger that results from an oppressive regime? Anger is a healthy and necessary response to injustice. It can be one of the most powerful motivating forces for change. The problem is what happens to anger when it has nowhere to go, when it is met with indifference, with the expectation to just move on, with contempt, or with further exclusion. There, it hardens into something more destructive.

As Gálik puts it, “The answer is not to suppress anger or to fear it. The question is whether we can create places where it can be transformed into agency, participation, and collective action. Democracies do not heal by asking people to suppress or forget what happened to them. They heal when people experience that their voices matter again.”

As our conversation ends, Gálik returns to the same idea that has guided her work from the beginning. She hopes that in ten years, Governing Together will have helped to build a serious field of practice around the relational foundations of democracy—one that nurtures both individual and societal wellbeing. 

Democracy is not solely defended in court or in government halls. Peacebuilding doesn’t only happen after conflict. Both depend on whether people still believe they have agency in shaping a better future together—and whether they feel their lives carry meaning and purpose within it. Democracy, then, must be something we practice every day in our workplaces, neighborhoods, families, institutions, and communities. These everyday acts are the nutrients of democratic life. They sustain the social microbiome—the living ecosystem of relationships from which trust, cooperation, collective agency, and the belief that change is possible can grow.

It is a deceptively simple idea. And perhaps one of the most radical democratic arguments of our time.

[post_title] => The Soil Beneath Democracy [post_excerpt] => Györgyi Gálik on trust, agency, and the invisible work of peacebuilding. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => gyorgyi-galik-governing-together-dark-matter-labs-hungary-democracy-peacebuilding-global-peacebuilders [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 20:28:56 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 20:28:56 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=10768 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A photo of Györgyi Gálik on a blue grid background.

The Soil Beneath Democracy

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9905
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2026-01-05 08:02:34
    [post_date_gmt] => 2026-01-05 08:02:34
    [post_content] => 

How door-knocking for Mayor Mamdani restored my faith in the power of organized people to defeat organized money.

The thought of knocking on a stranger’s door once filled me with dread. It sounded uncomfortable at best, and potentially humiliating, or dangerous, at worst. What if someone slammed the door in my face or said something memorably vicious? I’m a 43-year-old white woman, raised in an upper-middle-class home in Buffalo, New York. My parents, respectively descended from Eastern European Jews and Sicilian Catholics, discussed politics and occasionally attended protests, but knocking on strangers’ doors wasn’t a big part of my childhood. 

Yet in the last eight years, as I’ve gotten older and more politically active, I've begun to grasp the value of pushing through that discomfort. In April, before the summer’s Democratic primary, I started knocking on doors for then-New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, and continued through Election Day in November. Altogether, I knocked on approximately 2,000 doors, usually with a partner, which was more fun and comfortable, if less efficient, than going alone.

Door-knocking shifts for Mamdani regularly drew dozens of New Yorkers, even in terrible weather, and on Monday and Tuesday nights, when fewer people are motivated to go out after work. I mostly knocked on doors in Brooklyn, where I live, but my fellow canvassers came from all over the city. Some were ideologically motivated, while others had concrete, pragmatic reasons for showing up, like the woman I met who joined a canvass because “the bus I took to get here took 40 minutes to make two stops.” (Making buses fast and free was one of Mamdani’s signature campaign promises.) Or the 40-something Afro-Latino couple who said they came out for the sake of their children’s future, because “right now, things aren’t looking so good.” Other first-time canvassers I encountered included a soft-spoken young woman named Fatima, a heavily tattooed, outgoing 20-something Asian-American guy, a shy middle schooler with her immigrant dad, and a young white man who praised the campaign's “immaculate vibes.”

Together, we reportedly knocked on over 3 million doors. 

One reason Mamdani means so much to so many New Yorkers is that he assembled a 100,000-person volunteer army—the largest in municipal history, and one of the most diverse. His volunteer base included young and middle-aged progressives of all stripes, and a substantial subset of Jewish New Yorkers, South Asians, and Muslims. Getting to know my fellow canvassers for hours and months at a time as we worked to expand that coalition was an extraordinary project in a perilous time for democracy. It demonstrated the hope that tens of thousands of us still feel, and how hard we are willing to work to make life better for ourselves and our neighbors. 

Given how many doors we knocked throughout the city's five boroughs, the New Yorkers we reached were even more varied than the volunteers. During one general election canvassing shift in Kensington, a young Black woman opened the door to me and my friend Tania, who is Jewish. Although she didn’t initially recognize Mamdani’s name, as we went into our spiel, she realized he was the candidate her boyfriend had urged her to vote for. “Normally I wouldn’t tell a woman to do what her boyfriend says, but in this case, he’s right!” Tania said. (Our new friend smiled.) 

Another striking moment came when an older man in South Brooklyn’s Sunset Park unsmilingly asked if I were Mamdani’s daughter. He seemed to be trying to determine why I was volunteering for a man to whom I had no apparent ethnic or religious ties. Why else would I be doing this? Mamdani was not, in fact, my father, I explained, but I believed so strongly in his agenda that I was volunteering anyway. The man kept his face blank. I wondered when someone had last knocked on his door. 

Another day in Sunset Park, an older Spanish-speaking woman thanked me and my partner, who also spoke Spanish, for volunteering. She invited us into her home, where she and a small circle of relatives were celebrating her 90-year-old father’s birthday with balloons and cake. I’ll never forget the warmth and intimacy she offered us as total strangers.

In the last eight months, I’ve met Mamdani fans from Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, and Canada. None could vote or contribute to the campaign, but some shadowed canvassers and interviewed volunteers, most commonly because they belonged to left-wing political parties and hoped to reproduce his success at home. Although he often emphasized that he was running a local race to benefit New Yorkers, it was clear Mamdani was also inspiring admirers around the world.

In addition to many happy, surprising, and rewarding encounters, I had my share of the awkward, unsettling, and agitating. There was the woman who saw my “New York Jews for Zohran” shirt and pretended to retch; when I moved toward her, thinking she might need help, she screamed, “That was about you, because you want my children dead!” There was the super who ordered us out of his building because we were supporting a candidate who, he falsely believes, “wants to kill all the Jews.” Another woman called my friend Allie “Nazi scum” and said she should just “put on the burqa [Mamdani will require] right now.”

Moments like these were reminders of the ugly racism our politics so often exposes. They shook me: I am rarely around people who would speak this way to anyone, let alone a stranger. But they also strengthened my resolve to work for and with people who lead with love, respect, and decency, and model those traits for others.

As of last week, New Yorkers have made one such person our mayor.

Just before the polls closed on Election Night, Tania and I met a man with two little girls with him on the street in Park Slope. He hadn’t planned to vote and realized he couldn’t make it to his polling site in time with the kids. After he left, I joked that we should have offered to babysit: “We can start delivering on Mamdani’s promise of free child care right away!” We were giddy with pre-election anxiety, and desperate to turn out every last vote.

A short time later, once it was clear Mamdani had won, my friends and I experienced one of the happiest moments of our lives. We were weeping and hugging and singing and cheering at what we’d accomplished together. All the neighbors we’d met on the ground were reflected in the voting blocs he’d won: older, moderate Black voters; young voters, including but not limited to white socialists; and immigrants, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. I’d knocked on doors before, but Mamdani’s campaign showed me just how powerful it could be.

Later, I wondered if we’d ever find a way to recapture that feeling and use it to drive ourselves forward in less happy and hopeful times. Could we love each other enough to keep doing the work that only occasionally produces such moments, even in times when there’s no end, and no payoff, in sight?

I’m still not sure how we’ll navigate this fundamental challenge of organizing. But being part of a political project that attracted the passionate support of New Yorkers in all five boroughs, and sympathizers around the world, has restored my faith in the power of organized people to defeat organized money. And although a huge part of Mamdani's appeal is that he ran on improving New Yorkers' daily lives, he also showed that grassroots campaigning works—and that contemporary politics can be a joyful and loving project that brings people together, rather than an ugly spectacle that thrives on negative attention, exploits our fears, fills us with anxiety, turns neighbors against each other, and leaves us feeling empty, sad, bitter, and alone.

In canvassing for Mamdani and other DSA-backed candidates, I saw how much people are craving community, connection, and fun. We need to create more opportunities like this—to move joyfully toward something, rather than slogging through a sales pitch for a mediocre candidate who’s better than their opponent in hopes of slowing what feels like an endless parade of horrors. In the last year—still emerging from the long shadow of a global pandemic—I’ve embraced more near-strangers than I had in the previous five. Now, there’s a bracing sense of possibility in the air—the unfamiliar feeling that good things can still happen, and we can make them.

[post_title] => Knocking On Hope's Door [post_excerpt] => How door-knocking for Mayor Mamdani restored my faith in the power of organized people to defeat organized money. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => hope-week-door-knocking-new-york-city-mayor-zohran-mamdani-politics-election [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-01-13 18:46:44 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-01-13 18:46:44 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9905 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
An illustration of a woman facing a man and opening a door where the front of his face should be.

Knocking On Hope’s Door

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9814
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-12-03 18:41:15
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-12-03 18:41:15
    [post_content] => 

How women play a crucial role in the country's struggle against dictatorship.

Andreina Baduel, a 39-year-old activist from Caracas, Venezuela, had a happy childhood. Growing up with 11 brothers and sisters, she fondly remembers the love and support she received from her parents—how her father frequently took all his children to the beach, or out to dinner at their favorite restaurant. From an early age, she says, her father also instilled in them an appreciation for education, allowing her, in her own words, to "cultivate an intellect and become a better human being.” But at 23, life as Baduel knew it came to an abrupt end when her father was sent to prison. 

“My life came to a standstill,” she recalls. “It was a turning point in our lives that affected so many things.”

Baduel is the daughter of Raúl Isaías Baduel, a retired general of the Venezuelan armed forces and former defense minister under former President Hugo Chávez’s regime. In 2009, he publicly broke with Chávez over constitutional disagreements, and accused the then-president of becoming “increasingly authoritarian.” For his dissent, he was sent to prison for the majority of his remaining life, until his death in 2021. 

After her father’s imprisonment, Baduel became her family’s main source of moral support. The Baduel family has now been considered dissidents for nearly 17 years, and she also acts as their public mouthpiece—speaking out on their behalf, and ensuring their stories continue to be heard, both in their country and beyond. This has included aiding two of her brothers over the years, who were respectively detained, arrested, and subjected to torture and ill-treatment in prison, under both Chávez’s and current President Nicolás Maduro’s regimes. 

“We have been persecuted, harassed, silenced,” Baduel says. “[But] the truth cannot be killed, [and] faith cannot be extinguished. My father’s voice lives in every word we speak.”

Baduel’s story is not uncommon. Like many women in Venezuela, she is known both as the relative of a high profile political prisoner, and as an outspoken activist. Her advocacy on her family’s behalf also exemplifies how Venezuelan women play a crucial role in fighting against the country’s dictatorship, amid Maduro’s human rights violations and in the face of his “reelection” last year. (The win was deemed fraudulent by election watchdogs such as Transparencia Electoral, as well as the international community, including the U.S. and some of the country’s Latin American neighbors, like Brazil and Colombia.)

“Women have a very important role in the opposition movement; but also in sounding the alarm after last year’s election,” says a leader of a Venezuelan women’s rights organization, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons. Referencing María Corina Machado—one of the country’s main opposition leaders, who recently won a Nobel Peace Prize for her democratic struggle against the country’s dictatorship—the organizer says Venezuelan women have long “been a leading force and a leading voice” in speaking out about the government’s infractions, both at home and abroad. “[Many] women in exile and in the diaspora are also playing a key role,” she says.

This includes women like Violeta Santiago, a Venezuelan human rights activist and journalist who was forced to flee the country after receiving death threats by government-led armed groups. She now continues to write about injustice and the state of human rights in Venezuela from Chile. 

But at home, the risks are higher, both for those who speak out and those who don’t. Because of this, everyday women like Baduel have been forced to partake in this fight for their entire adult lives, defining the parameters of their existence from within the nation they call home.

First Arrest 

On the day Baduel’s father was arrested by the Venezuelan military, he was shopping with his family. None of them could have known that, except for a brief period of house arrest in 2017, he’d languish in prisons for the rest of his life. This included spending time in La Tumba, or The Tomb, a prison infamous for inflicting white torture on its prisoners. This torture is comprised of, but not limited to, isolation, a lack of access to natural light, constant freezing temperatures, no access to water, and nearly no food. 

In 2021, while detained in El Helicoide, one of Caracas’ most notorious penitentiary facilities, Baduel’s father died at 66, over a decade after his initial arrest. According to the official report, he died from “cardiac-respiratory failure” after contracting COVID-19. But his family believes his death was actually caused by neglect, torture, and ongoing health conditions sustained after years of imprisonment without medical care. Juan Guaidó, the main opposition leader at the time, publicly supported this claim on social media, and the United Nations called for an independent investigation. A separate UN fact-finding mission has since concluded that crimes against humanity have been perpetrated in the country, particularly in relation to political persecution and prison conditions. 

Through all of it, the Baduel family has remained steadfast.

“We knew our father’s imprisonment and death would change us from within,” Baduel says, wearing a t-shirt that reads “Ser Baduel No Es un Delito” (“Being a Baduel Is Not a Crime”). “We understood it would either bring up the best of us, or the worst of us. And we decided to confront it with faith and hope.” 

Brutal Torture

Years before Baduel’s death, two of his sons—Raúl Emilio Baduel and Josnars Adolfo Baduel—were also imprisoned over conspiracy charges. Raúl Emilio, now 45, was detained while attending a peaceful protest in 2014, and released four years later. Josnars Adolfo, now 37, was detained in 2020 and sentenced to 30 years in prison, which he’s currently serving at Rodeo Uno, also known for its brutal torture of prisoners.

“He is imprisoned in a cell of two square meters, where he only has a cement bed and a latrine,” Baduel says. “They physically torture [him]—they beat him, suffocate him, and use electric [torture] on him.” She also says she’s only able to speak to Josnars for 15 minutes each week, from behind a glass wall. “They want to annihilate him, and make other prisoners scared of what awaits them,” she says.

Despite facing an onslaught of harassment, death threats, and government surveillance, Baduel plans to keep fighting. Recently, she received support from The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, who granted her precautionary measures “in the belief that she faces a serious, urgent risk of suffering irreparable harm to her rights to life and personal integrity.” But while there is still no guarantee that her rights will be respected under the current regime, Baduel believes that she and the many other women stuck in the same fight as her are “a fundamental pillar” in defending human rights in Venezuela. “I am the voice of my family,” she reiterates, ”and of all the victims of this regime who are in prison, and who cannot speak for themselves.” 

Constant Fear

Sairam Rivas, 32, is another Venezuelan activist fighting for a loved one who she says was unjustly imprisoned by the regime: Her partner, Jesús Armas, 38, has been imprisoned since December 2024. 

Rivas is also a former political prisoner herself. In May 2014, while attending Caracas’ Central University of Venezuela for social work, Rivas, then a leading student organizer, was a part of a public camping protest in the capital’s streets. They were speaking out against the militarization of public space, and protesting the recent deaths of multiple young protestors at previous demonstrations. Along with 200 other young people, Rivas was arrested and later incarcerated at El Helicoide, the same prison as Raúl Baduel. With support from her university and international NGOs like PROVEA, Amnesty International, and Foro Penal, she was released after five months, unlike other young people detained that day, some of whom she says were imprisoned for up to three years. 

“But the [political] situation then was different to what it is now,” Rivas says. “Back then, we could hire private lawyers, and there were no forced disappearances of dissidents.” 

A photo of Sairam Rivas standing in front of a glass wall. She is wearing a white t-shirt with black text that reads, "Liberen a todos los presos políticos."
Sairam Rivas. (Photo courtesy of Sara Cincurova.)

She also says she believes the only reason she was not subjected to sexual violence and torture is because her imprisonment was “very famous.” “As a student leader, my case had a lot of visibility on social media among young people,” she explained. The notoriety of her case did not avert all ill-treatment, however. “We had to sleep handcuffed on the floor,” she says. “We were threatened to be transferred to harsher prisons and face torture if we continued to protest in the future.” 

A decade later, on June 10, 2024, Rivas would experience a new horror: Her partner, Jesús Armas, was nowhere to be found. Neither she nor his family had received any information about him for seven days, only to discover he’d been “kidnapped” by the government. 

Armas had been a part of María Corina Machado’s campaign team, and as punishment following the 2024 election, he was detained, interrogated, imprisoned, and then tortured by Maduro’s regime.

“At this moment, Jesús is still isolated in El Helicoide, and doesn’t have any contact with me or his family,” she says. “The feeling of fear is [constant] in Venezuela, but you cannot think about it because then you become paralyzed.” 

Rivas is acutely aware of the pain many Venezuelan women experience, not only as prisoners, but often, as the caretakers and public resistors on their family’s behalf. But she also notes that many Venezuelan women are transforming this pain into action. As she sees it, beyond activism, women must also take on key roles in the opposition, as Machado has, and lead movements that will restructure the civil and political order destroyed by the dictatorship. “Women have a crucial role to play in the construction of a movement of families of political prisoners—a movement that not only fights for their freedom, but also for the creation of historical memory, so that justice can be done and [similar] crimes are never repeated,” she says.

A Venezuelan university professor of social sciences, who also requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, echoes Rivas’ assessment that it is a particularly scary time. She tells The Conversationalist that “every [new] day has become a possibility of chaos.” But despite the enormous risks, women across the country continue to fight however they can. 

“After having spent my entire active life as a professor at the Central University of Venezuela, it is very difficult to keep my mouth shut when I see how [our] country is being destroyed,” she says. “But when you open your mouth, [the government] can come and look for you—regardless of whether you are young or old, or whether you live in a middle class or lower class area.”

According to the professor, women’s rights violations have a long, multifaceted history in Venezuela. “More covert at one time, more open at another, more hidden in some places, more open in others—it is permanent and constant,” she says, adding that political prisoners are always treated worse than other prisoners, especially those detained for democratic activism.

Still, fear of imprisonment has not silenced opposition to the government for some, despite the potential cost. As Machado recently wrote on X—while still living in hiding within the country's borders––in the face of a brutal dictatorship and the suffering, torture, and extrajudicial killings it has caused, Venezuelans have continued bravely forging a “formidable civic movement,” overcoming the barriers “the regime built to divide us.”

For Baduel, the years of persecution, and witnessing her family members being tortured, also forced her to confront a personal choice: “to become the best version of myself, or the worst.” 

Despite her suffering, she says she deliberately chose to cultivate her humanity, something necessary in the continued fight. “I decided to transform my life for the better, not for the worse,” she says. “To fight for justice in Venezuela; to demand accountability, and to build a historical memory for my family and all those who were tortured.”

[post_title] => The Fight to Free Venezuela's Political Prisoners [post_excerpt] => How women play a crucial role in the country's struggle against dictatorship. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => venezuela-dictatorship-activist-adreina-baduel-raul-isaias-caracas-prison-political-persecution-sairam-rivas-jesus-armas [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 21:07:38 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 21:07:38 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=9814 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Venezuelan activist Andreina Baduel talks upon arrival at the headquarters of the Scientific, Penal, and Criminalistic Investigation Service Corps (CICPC) in Caracas on December 16, 2024. Andreina is the daughter of General Raul Baduel, an old ally and former minister of Hugo Chavez, who died in prison in 2021 after breaking with the government. She has dark brown hair, parted to the side, and is looking above the camera, with one hand raised as she gestures while speaking.

The Fight to Free Venezuela’s Political Prisoners

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 7742
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2025-01-23 00:13:35
    [post_date_gmt] => 2025-01-23 00:13:35
    [post_content] => 

Last year was considered one of the biggest election years in history. Here's a quick overview of some of its most influential results.

In 2024, it was estimated that half of the world’s population would have the chance to participate in what observers called “the biggest election year in history,” with over 60 countries holding national elections throughout the year. Now, in 2025, people around the world may begin to experience the consequences. 

Despite the varied histories and contemporary politics across countries and regions, a number of noticeable themes were evident in last year’s elections. The biggest one being that, from Portugal to Indonesia, right-wing parties were successful at the polls. This comes as young populations have become more electorally influential: In Iran, 60% of the population is under 30 years old and over 60% of people in Botswana and South Africa are younger than 35. Meanwhile, across the various elections that took place, only five women were elected heads of government, and globally, a mere 27% of parliament members are women. Opposition parties also gained considerable success, most notably in Senegal, South Korea, and Ghana. 

Over the next few years, the aftermath of these outcomes will reverberate throughout their respective nations and throughout all of us together, as a global community. In the meantime, here’s a roundup of some of 2024’s most consequential elections, and where to pay attention in 2025.

Senegal

In late March, opposition candidates Bassirou Diomaye Faye and Ousmane Sonko were elected president and vice president, respectively. Faye, who was relatively unknown before the election, was endorsed by Sonko, who had been arrested in 2023 in what some supporters and international observers alike determined was “political prosecution.” Both Sonko and Faye were in jail until just before the election. The election was originally slated to take place in February, but was postponed by then-president Macky Sall, leading to protests around the country. Faye’s victory was celebrated as a potential shift away from Western dependence; one proposal of his was to create a currency that is independent from the Euro, unlike the West African CFA Franc, which is what the country currently uses. At 44, Faye is also currently Africa’s youngest president. 

Indonesia

Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the son of former Indonesian president Joko Widodo, announced victory in February. Subianto, 72, was the former Indonesian Defense Minister and there were concerns of Subianto’s human rights record from when he was in the military; activists allege that he was involved in various abuses, which led to him being banned from the United States and Australia until 2020. It was Subianto’s third time running for president in the “world’s third-largest democracy.”

Russia

Vladimir Putin, who has been president since 2012 but involved in Russian politics as either president or prime minister since 1999, was re-elected in March in what the European Parliament described as a “carefully staged legitimisation ritual.” Alex Navalny, one of Putin’s most prominent critics, also died in prison the month prior. Russia’s Central Election Commission claimed that Putin secured over 87% of the vote, but a watchdog group noted that “voter intimidation” occurred, which likely affected the integrity of the votes. Putin’s win means that he will be in power until at least 2030.

Iran

Elections were held in the Western Asian country around 6 weeks after the sudden death of then-president Ebrahim Raisi. Two rounds of elections were held and reformist Masoud Pezeshkian won. The race, in which less than half of the eligible population voted, was described as a “silent protest” of dissatisfaction with previous regimes. Pezeshkian, a former heart surgeon, will have to balance reformist politics with Iranians’ frustration at conservative policies. Notably, in Iran, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, actually holds the highest title in the nation and the president ultimately reports to him, which may limit what Pezeshkian can actually achieve.

Venezuela

Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s incumbent president since 2013, once again won last July’s election. His main opponent, Maria Corina Machado, was banned by the country’s Supreme Court from running against Maduro due to alleged “financial irregularities that occurred when she was a national legislator,” which was considered a politically motivated move as Machado was a popular opposition candidate. Venezuela’s elections have been widely criticized by various countries, including the United States and Denmark, as “fraudulent.” According to the US, Edmundo González, another candidate who ran, should have been considered the winner. But González fled to Spain in September 2024, saying he was forced to recognize Maduro’s win before being allowed to leave. This is not the first time Maduro has claimed victory in a disputed election; he also did so in 2013 and 2018. Maduro remains a controversial figure, his government having led the country while it continues to experience severe inflation and inflicts human rights abuses, including the torture of political critics. 

Ghana

In early December, citizens of Ghana cast their votes, and opposition candidate John Mahama won against incumbent vice president Mahamadu Bawumiua in “the biggest margin of victory in the country for 24 years.” Mahama, who had previously been Ghana’s president from 2012 to 2017, ran with Jane Naana Opoku Agyemang, who became the nation’s first female vice president. Parliamentary elections also took place, and all 276 seats were up for election. In addition to Maham’s prior term as president, he has also occupied a number of other roles, including “MP, deputy minister, minister” and “vice-president.” While running, Mahama pledged to transform the cocoa industry. 

Mexico

In early June, Claudia Sheinbaum won Mexico’s presidential election. Sheinbaum, a former Mexico City mayor and scientist, became the country’s first female president. According to one election observer, despite some reports of polling stations facing “various threats, the voting process seemed to roll out relatively smoothly in most places, even if the process was slow in some stations.” Multiple candidates for various offices, including mayoral roles throughout Mexico, were killed during the general election season.

United Kingdom

Last July’s general election marked a rare swing to the left last year, with the Labour party winning a majority for the first time in over a decade, and its leader, Keir Starmer, elected Prime Minister. The Labour party gained 211 seats for a total of 412 out of 650 total seats in Parliament, in contrast to the Conservative party’s 251-seat loss. This win has been aptly described as a “landslide victory.” 

Namibia

In November, the southwest African nation elected its first female president. However, Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s victory has been called into question by one of her opponents, Panduleni Itula. Nandi-Ndaitwah has a long history of involvement in Namibian politics; she was also once in exile as a result of her work with South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), which was once a liberation movement and is currently a political party. SWAPO has been Namibia’s ruling political party since 1990, when it gained independence from South Africa, but the most recent election reflected its lowest levels of support so far.

El Salvador

Nayib Bukele declared victory in the El Salvadoran presidential election last February. The self-described “coolest dictator in the world” has been head of the Central American country since 2019 and was previously mayor of El Salvador’s capital, San Salvador. He has been responsible for jailing over 70,000 people in El Salvador in order to “fight organized crime,” which has made him “popular” across the country, but human rights groups have raised concerns over potential violations. Bukele’s New Ideas party won 54 out of 60 National Assembly seats. Of his win, Bukele said, “El Salvador has broken all the records of all democracies in the entire history of the world.”

Tunisia

Kais Saied was declared the winner of the North African country’s October presidential race, but the election has been described as “Tunisia’s first undemocratic presidential election in almost fourteen years.” Saied, who has been head of state since 2019, won more than 90% of votes. However, fewer than 30% of voters cast their ballots, representing a general lack of enthusiasm among Tunisians who were eligible to vote.

South Korea

The opposition party won 175 out of 300 parliamentary seats in South Korea’s April 2024 general elections. This was a reflection of South Koreans’ dislike of incumbent President Yoon Suk Yeol, who has been in office since 2022. In December, Yoon declared martial law, but it was reversed a few hours later after parliament opposed it. Then, a few days later, an impeachment attempt was blocked, but a later effort was successful. The government has been thrown into chaos since, and a few days ago, Yoon was arrested.

Botswana

October’s general election saw the end of the Botswana Democratic Party’s (BDP) rule after almost 60 years. The BDP, which had been in power since the country’s 1966 independence, lost to the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC). “Recent poor economic growth and high unemployment” were among some of the factors that affected the BDP’s loss of power. Duma Boko, the head of the UDC, replaced BDP’s Mokgweetsi Masisi as president. BDP is a center-left party, which may reflect Botswana’s youth leaning left, unlike elsewhere.

South Africa

South Africa’s late-May legislative elections marked a shift in the nation’s political history. The African National Congress (ANC) party, formed from a “liberation movement" for Black South Africans, and which had been in power since the country ended apartheid, lost its majority. The ANC, once led by Nelson Mandela, still has a plurality of seats, meaning it has more seats than the other parties, but it no longer has more than half the seats. The ANC and “centre-right party,” the Democratic Alliance (DA), formed a coalition in June, which gave incumbent Cyril Ramaphosa enough votes to remain president. The DA and ANC “have been rivals for decades,” and this coalition reflected a change in how the ANC had to operate in order to remain in power. The ANC’s loss of majority reflected many South Africans’ frustration with “the state of the country, and a desire for change.”

[post_title] => The Global Elections That Led Us to 2025 [post_excerpt] => A quick overview of some of the most influential elections of last year. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => global-international-elections-2024-right-wing-conservative-opposition-party-russia-senegal-indonesia-iran-venezuela-ghana-mexico-united-kingdom-namibia-el-salvador-tunisia-south-korea-botswana-south [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 23:36:42 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 23:36:42 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7742 [menu_order] => 31 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Photo portraits of the UK's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Senegal's President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum, Indonesia's President Prabowo Subianto, and Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

The Global Elections That Led Us to 2025

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 7331
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2024-10-23 04:23:19
    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-23 04:23:19
    [post_content] => 

Why you should pay attention to the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.

As voters around the United States prepare for a tight presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, they will also have to make pivotal decisions on ballot referendums in their respective states. In Wisconsin, one of the questions this year revolves around noncitizen voting. 

Noncitizen voting is illegal at the state and federal level in the U.S. On voter registration forms, people must sign under the penalty of perjury that they are a citizen, facing punishment of fines, imprisonment, or deportation if they are not. But on a local scale, noncitizen voting is allowed in some cities and towns in Vermont, California, and Maryland, allowing residents to cast a vote in school board and city council elections. 

At this time, there are no elections in Wisconsin that allow for noncitizen voting. Wisconsin previously allowed noncitizen voting in 1848, but that was disallowed by 1912. In a ballot initiative on deck for Nov. 5, however, a coalition of Wisconsin Republicans are seeking to change language in the state’s constitution around citizen voting, making it as explicit as possible that noncitizens cannot vote in any election in Wisconsin. 

Currently, the state’s constitution reads “every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.” The referendum, however, would change the language to “only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.”

A yes vote for the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment would allow the language change and a no vote would prevent any changes to the constitution. 

Behind the bill

There are 14 Wisconsin state senators and 41 state representatives behind the push to pass this referendum, an effort which began in September of 2023. 

While several members of the Wisconsin Legislature did not reply to requests for interviews, Sen. Julian Bradley, a Republican among the coalition that introduced the ballot measure, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that their goal is to make it extremely difficult for noncitizens to ever have an opportunity to vote in Wisconsin. He also said he wants less room for interpretation around the law. 

"If you want to vote in elections, then you have to declare your citizenship, and you have to go through the process," he told the Sentinel.

However, Debra Cronmiller, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, says the initiative is unnecessary and could foster misinformation. The league was one of 30 organizations that has endorsed a no-vote on the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment and also released a toolkit with information about the ballot. 

“It creates an opportunity to suggest, imply, whatever word you want to insert there, that this is a problem. This is not a problem. That's been documented time and time again,” she says. “It makes me wonder, is the real motivation here not to change the constitution to prohibit noncitizens from voting in municipal races, but is it to fuel a conversation that is more about us and them, who should have the rights and who shouldn't have the rights.”

Cronmiller compared the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment to a 2011 push by Republicans in Wisconsin to require voter IDs during elections. She said that on its surface, both sound good: ensuring that only citizens of Wisconsin are voting in elections. But she also pointed out the unintended consequences of these policies. In the case of voter IDs, not everyone has a driver's license or works for the state or is a member of a tribal community. And in 2017, the Associated Press reported that the law ultimately turned eligible voters away as a result. 

“There's too many people who were unnecessarily disenfranchised because of what sounded like a good idea,” she says. “We suspect [the same] in this instance, where only a citizen should vote sounds good, but the constitution actually already guarantees that.”

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, a six-member board created in 2015 to oversee election processes, reported 30 potential cases of fraud from July 1, 2023 through September 12, 2024. However, none of the cases were related to citizenship, and most were related to people voting twice or involved people with felonies. 

In October of 2023, a woman in Wisconsin was charged with election fraud for voting in an April school board election, despite not being a citizen. But she admitted to the act, saying that it was a misunderstanding and that her daughter-in-law completed the paperwork due to an English language barrier, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. She has since entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and the charges will be dismissed. 

Anti-immigrant concerns

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, a Wisconsin organization that works with the civil rights of immigrants, says the drive behind the ballot initiative is anti-immigration sentiment and disinformation.

“My greatest concern is that this is being used to create a narrative that is intended to motivate part of Trump’s MAGA base to turn out on election day and based on how people look, and if they’re not English dominant, they will try to intimidate and harass U.S. citizen voters to try to steal the elections,” she says. 

Neumann-Ortiz is also concerned that the ballot initiative is part of a longer-term strategy of voter suppression.

“It’s been a very calculated agenda by the right wing,” she says. “There’s been a relentless attack on eroding voting rights.”

She pointed to a lawsuit, Cerny v Wisconsin Elections Commission, filed by a citizen in Wisconsin in August. In the case, Ardis Cerny, a resident of Pewaukee, sued the commission and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to challenge how the state verifies the citizenship status of voters with drivers licenses. Cerny alleges that the commission does not check the registration of applicants with the Department of Motor Vehicles list of driver’s licenses and identification cards to ensure they have citizenship. The lawsuit is still ongoing. 

Neumann-Ortiz believes that the amendment would “disenfranchise so many people,” because when residents become naturalized U.S. citizens, they don’t have to go to the DMV to update immigration status, meaning the documentation isn’t always aligned. When they register to vote, however, they have to show evidence of citizenship, she says. 

Immigrants who are working to gain citizenship are not interested in registering to vote illegally and jeopardizing their future, Neumann-Ortiz added. 

“It’s more anti-immigration rhetoric, it’s more disinformation, and it’s voter suppression for all voters,” she says. “It’s an attack on democracy.”

The Wisconsin constitution has been amended 148 times, with the most recent change in April of 2023. In regards to voting, previous amendments have been made to expand rights based on race, gender, and age. It will also not be the only state where noncitizen voting is on the ballot in November: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina also have ballot measures regarding noncitizen voting this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislature, a coalition of members of state legislatures around the U.S.

“This question on the ballot sounds pretty good, but what you have to do as a conscientious voter is look behind the question. Why is it being asked? What could be the unintended consequences?” Cronmiller says. “Our elections are fair, they're safe, they're accountable, only the people who should be getting ballots are getting ballots. There's no problem to fix here and I think we're actually potentially creating a future problem by enacting this particular constitutional change.”

[post_title] => Is Noncitizen Voting Actually a Non-Issue? [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => noncitizen-voting-wisconsin-citizenship-voting-requirement-immigration-local-state-federal-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 23:55:04 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 23:55:04 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7331 [menu_order] => 40 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A colorful illustration of a city hall, with red tape over its front doors. The top of the roof mimics a vote-by-mail drop-off box, with a completed ballot halfway into it.

Is Noncitizen Voting Actually a Non-Issue?

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 7086
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2024-07-29 07:42:52
    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-07-29 07:42:52
    [post_content] => 

Now that the Democrats have chosen a nominee, it's time to focus on reversing the damage done by the Supreme Court.

Corrupted by years of dark money, political attacks, and propaganda, the United States' democratic institutions aren't holding, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the protracted lead-up to the 2024 election. In the last couple weeks alone, Donald Trump was shot at, Hillbilly Elegy’s JD Vance was announced as his running mate at the Republican National Convention, and President Joe Biden withdrew his bid for reelection after a geriatric debate performance led to weeks of bullying from media, donors, and party leadership, all demanding he drop out. What's worse, all of it happened under the backdrop of the extremist, unaccountable Supreme Court taking a sledgehammer to rule of law right before summer recess.

Despite a bleak election year thus far, there’s been a surge of new hope and enthusiasm amongst Democrats after Biden immediately endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the nomination, spurring a flurry of endorsements from party leaders and potential opponents, and a record-setting $81 million spike in small donations in the first 24 hours. By Monday night, Harris had garnered enough delegates to clinch the nomination—and thank fuck she did. Contested conventions are good for ratings, but historically, they’re also election losers, and it was far from obvious we’d avoid the chaos of a mini-primary, which was supported by heavy hitters like Barack Obama, Mike Bloomberg, and the New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards, plus a slate of pundits with inflated egos and billionaires with their own personal preferences. (Obama has since given Harris his endorsement.) 

Safely on the other side, the party will inevitably face questions about how this went down come November, but for now, time is precious, and the looming, ongoing threat to democracy remains. Biden's withdrawal was, for all the rifts it created, the right move, and seemingly, a calculated one. For a man alleged to be incompetent, he deftly outplayed Republicans and the media by timing his announcement after the RNC and Sunday morning talk shows, depriving them of a splashy platform to respond. In one afternoon, he orchestrated his succession, neutralized GOP and media attacks against him, and reinforced the most fundamental of democratic norms—the peaceful transition of power. Coup-loving Republicans are furious and scrambling, having wasted their convention trashing a candidate that's no longer running. They have also recommitted to a convicted felon who, with Biden out of the race, is now the oldest candidate in history, with zero plans for how to face an energetic, younger, Black and South Asian woman who intends to run on protecting abortion. Trump, hilariously, has asked for his money back. 

It comes as a huge relief that the public infighting among Democrats is largely over, because it allows us to focus on the bigger story of the past few weeks, which is the far-right entrenching itself via the judiciary and gutting the state from within. What the extremist hacks on the Supreme Court have accomplished at the behest of their fascist mega-donors this summer has virtually remade our government overnight: The Federalist Society just delivered a judicial coup, and didn't even need the executive branch to do it.

Thankfully, there's fresh hope now that with a Harris candidacy, various factions on the left and center will align, as France just did, to rebuke the far-right. But even if the Democrats win in November, and Republicans don't start a civil war in response, it’ll be a long road to undo all the damage that’s been done in the last couple months alone. The decisions in Trump v. United States and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in particular, are two of the worst opinions in Supreme Court history—which is wild considering the Roberts era already has so many doozies to choose from, like Dobbs, Shelby v. Holder, and Citizens United, along with more recent disgraces like Grants Pass v. Johnson or Snyder v. United States. 

I've been raising the alarm about plutocrat-funded Christian nationalism for close to a decade, but there's no satisfaction in being right, only sorrow that we're here. Political instability is an eater of dreams and a threat to people's lives. The uncertainty of this moment is overwhelming, the losses too large to digest, and it's created a rush to prophesize and pronounce definitive outcomes. Deniers, doomers, and accelerationists have all entered the chat, and all of them risk self-fulfillment. Our only option is to form a unified front against them and get to work.

In Trump v. United States, a case most legal experts thought the Court would dismiss outright, the far-right majority delivered their delayed decision on Trump's coup,  inventing presidential immunity from criminal liability for official acts, while retaining the right to decide what counts as "official." It's a self-destructive move that undermines the most basic tenet of rule of law, which is that everyone is subject to it. The majority's reasoning focused entirely on hypotheticals, deliberately ignoring the very real January 6th coup attempt that precipitated the charges, and greasing the way for more far-right political violence, particularly as trigger-happy Republicans warn in advance of the 2024 election that they won't accept a loss. 

Years spent reading Soviet legal documents prepared me for the smug, dishonest, means-to-an-end mindfuck that is Trump v. US, though we don't have to look outside American legal tradition for our own authoritarianism. The United States is infamous for treating people as property and corporations as people: We're seeing the active legacies of the Fugitive Slave Act, Jim Crow, and the Comstock Act in the GOP's endless voter suppression efforts, attempts to ban abortion medication by mail, and tracking of people seeking abortions across state lines. And still, Trump v. US lowers the bar. The opinion is a grotesque power grab that fundamentally upends the Constitution by magically bestowing criminal immunity on a criminal president, effectively making it legal for a (Republican) president to stay in power by any means “officially” necessary. (Richard "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal" Nixon was ahead of his time.) 

It's a curious feature of American exceptionalism that headlines on the decision jumped immediately to monarchy, not autocracy. It suggests a romanticism about domestic authoritarianism as something British we defeated in the 18th century—a period piece rather than a contemporary dystopia. In reality, we're poised to elect an autocrat for the second time, not crown a king or queen for the first. 

As I've written about before, the US brand of white Christian fascism is both unique and on trend: Demonizing migrants, trapping women, and persecuting the LGBTQ community is the glue binding the global anti-rights movement. Republicans have been open about their desire to emulate far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban's success at purging Hungarian universities, media, and business sectors. The people who wrote Project 2025, the 900-page Heritage Foundation manual for dismantling the country, looked explicitly to other autocrats for strategic advice on how to better end democracy. 

King George is certainly self-referential, but he's far less relevant to our situation than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress to a standing ovation with Elon Musk as his guest, Orban visiting Mar a Lago earlier this month, or Jared Kushner promoting ethnic cleansing while drooling over Gaza's "waterfront property." President Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov are openly celebrating Trump's pick of JD Vance for VP because Vance has loudly advocated for letting Russia devour Ukraine and, relatedly, letting husbands abuse their wives. Former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Sherrilyn Ifill recently posted on Threads about the formative influence of apartheid South Africa on the grievance-driven tech billionaires Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and, again, Elon Musk—all of whom have thrown in for Trump, not that Musk's support lasted long. Trump himself has been the least subtle of all, shouting out President Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un at rallies, and ominously referencing Nazi talking points about Weimar Germany's inflation in his acceptance speech at the RNC. 

The influence of oligarchs like Harlon Crow and Peter Thiel—who personally nurtured Vance—is especially insidious within the judiciary. If the immunity case demonstrates the Supreme Court's open alliance with Trump, they similarly delivered for their billionaire backers with the end of Chevron deference last month and the corruption of our federal regulatory system. Loper Bright covers less sexy subject matter, but its impact on the functioning of our government is arguably as tremendous as the immunity case. Decided in 1984, Chevron created a separation of powers between the judiciary and federal agencies, who employ thousands of career civil servants to administer the vast majority of federal rules that affect our lives, whether related to food and drug safety, air quality, or any number of rules that prevent corporations from preying on people. Under Chevron, courts deferred to agency interpretations of statutes for policymaking purposes. Now, thanks to Loper Bright, the judiciary has the last word on even the most minute agency rules, and any schmuck with enough money can sue and ask a judge with limited staff and zero technical expertise to veto federal regulation. If you think the US is scammy now, just wait. 

The challenges we face from Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo and Justice Sam Alito wouldn’t feel so daunting if corporate media weren't also on their side. David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros Discovery, the parent company to CNN, was recently quoted saying that what mattered most in this election is that the next president is friendly to business. "We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate," Zaslav told reporters in Sun Valley, Idaho. How embarrassingly short-sighted to throw away the rule of law, and to treat press freedom as a nice to have, not a necessity. Does he expect to survive autocracy intact? 

The hypocrisy is not new. At the same time that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was sentenced to another 16 years in Russian prison for doing his job, the WSJ editorial board was copying Putin's playbook and accusing Democrats who pointed out Trump's dictatorial ambitions of being responsible for his getting shot by a fellow Republican. It's hard to trust that the same corporate media that has soft-pedaled fascism and developed tunnel vision a la Hillary's emails over Biden's debate performance won't also find new ways to tear down Harris, who will face horrifying levels of misogynoir and disinformation that, for obvious reasons, other candidates will not. Media coverage of Harris’ campaign launch has so far been positive, but already there are rumblings of people who "just don't like her for some reason," not to mention a birther campaign, reviving all the greatest hits from Clinton ‘16 and Obama ‘08 and ‘12, respectively. The conservative mediasphere is taking the cheapest shots, accusing her of being a DEI candidate, of sleeping her way to the top, and, horror of all horrors, of laughing too much.

It's generally bad news for democracy when the far-right captures essential institutions, staffs them with loyalists, and threatens political violence, all while aligning with big business and media for profit. Republicans are also itching to make legal trouble over any changes to the ballot, with Rep. Andy Ogles filing articles of impeachment against Harris, and Speaker Mike Johnson threatening to sue to keep Biden in the race. Considering the switch happened before the convention and before state deadlines have passed, this seems to be mostly posturing. That said, there's still real concern that any case arising from this election ends up before a corrupt SCOTUS, giving them another opportunity to hand down a breathtakingly bad decision. The last thing we need is another Bush v. Gore, but on steroids.

So what can be done? A lot, actually. The goal in drawing attention to rising fascism has always been to catalyze opposition, precisely because resignation is so tempting. Harris, who is already walking off to Beyonce's "FREEDOM" at her rallies, has provided a much needed contrast to the gerontocracy, and is generating the excitement American voters look for. Her campaign has moved quickly to calling out her opponents as creepy losers, delighting Democrats who've longed for the party to stop pulling their punches. And she’s gaining momentum. The Divine Nine Black frats and sororities are mobilizing for their AKA sister. Singer Charli XCX tweeted "Kamala IS brat." Zoom's Indian American COO, Aparna Bawa, made it possible for 44,000 Black women to join an organizing call the night Harris announced. Young people are signing up to vote for the first time, and the campaign has already seen an influx of over 100,000 volunteers. With Harris set to secure her party’s nomination at the DNC, the future feels less grim today, which is good because the fight is so far from over. 

The Democrats’ sudden return to life brings to mind Miracle Max from The Princess Bride: "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead… Mostly dead is slightly alive." The boring truth is: Harris can win if people vote for her. She has a lot going for her as the incumbent VP, and as the prosecutor taking on an aging gangster, and as a woman running on reproductive rights against a rapist. Crucially, she and Biden both take court reform and expansion seriously—a necessity for us reversing the damage wrought by an extremist Supreme Court, and for preventing it from happening again in the future. She can also take credit for Biden's strong legislative record, low unemployment, rising wages, and record-low violent crime rates—conditions that get incumbent administrations re-elected. 

Harris is, like any political candidate, an imperfect one; her prosecutorial record has earned her the leftist badge of "imperialist cop," and uncommitted voters who’d been boycotting Biden for Gaza have vocalized outrage with Harris following her meeting with Netanyahu this week. Others are concerned that she's been set up to fail via the so-called "glass cliff," where women are only given responsibility in a crisis after men have made a mess of things. Because we are still a democracy, voters can and should be able to vocalize these concerns without fear, and to hold our representatives to account. But as even some of her critics have pointed out, Harris has the chance to not just be a strong candidate, but a genuinely decent one, simply by addressing voters’ concerns directly, righting the wrongs she can, calling out the far-right’s bullshit, and delivering on her campaign’s promises in order to preserve our democracy. Our job is to support her in these efforts and get us through November. Then we can fall apart.

The far-right is taking a victory lap, but it’s premature. Republicans are overplaying their hand after their court victories, with the Heritage Foundation president announcing a second American revolution and threatening violence unless the left rolls over. How quickly the creators of Project 2025 forget how much they’ve relied on plausible deniability, credulous institutionalists, and media normalization to get this far. As Harris said of Project 2025 in Milwaukee last week, "Can you believe they put that in writing?"

Let them mistake arrogance for invincibility. Abortion bans have been destroying Republicans electorally, including in red states. Trump is now saddled with an unpopular, brutish, 900-page manifesto that is penetrating popular consciousness across generations—on TV, social media, in conversation—and a thirsty VP "with the integrity of a Boeing 737" whose primary contribution to his campaign is more white male resentment and unpopular views on ending no-fault divorce. Even Appalachia doesn't claim him. As Kentucky Governor and VP hopeful Andy Beshear said of Vance, "He ain't from here." And let's never forget that Trump needed a new VP because he tried to have the last one murdered. Even Kim Jong Un won't be his friend. Nobody especially cared that Trump almost got assassinated, either. 

The bigger issue is not that Trump is poised to win, but that Republicans are unwilling to lose. They've already shown their support for coups and stochastic terror, and they've captured the court. If we're going to have any shot at undoing their grip and saving what's left, court reform and expansion have to be the highest priority. And to have any hope of that, we have to vote our people in while we still have the chance, because with democracy on the line, the right to vote itself is on the ballot, too. So is bodily autonomy, and LGBTQ+ rights, and concealed carry laws, and Obamacare, and countless other policies that people depend on to live. We already exist in a violently racist status quo: Sonya Massey's murder by police is a heavy reminder that Black people and other communities of color are especially vulnerable to state violence. A second Trump administration would further politicize the Justice Department to target prosecutors who investigate police abuse. Trump himself is personally promising to deport 20 million people who are "poisoning" the country via expulsions and camps. 

When I saw Masha Gessen speak several months ago, they described people lining up for Alexei Navalny's funeral with power banks, water, and food, expecting to be arrested for expressing condolences. It was a bleak reminder that things can always be worse. We don't have to end up that way, but that requires us to not be fucking stupid about dictatorship. Look at French voters who turned against Marine Le Pen once the threat of a far-right government sunk in. Last year in Poland, voters ousted the Law and Justice party and began trying to heal the damage, including plans to restore independence to a stacked judiciary. It's harder to rebuild the rule of law once it's gone, so it's essential we prevent further backsliding. It’s doable for us to stave off fascism and reinforce our democracy, but only if we can keep the presidency, regain the House, and expand the Supreme Court. We have no choice but to aim big—and to demand that our representatives deliver on what they’ve promised.  

So gather your courage, your rage, your despair, and channel it into something for your community. Don't be scared of good news, or to feel hopeful about the future. It's in imagining better that we grow and move forward. Get active locally when national politics feel like too much. Sign people up to vote, knock on doors, and tell your people about the dangers of Project 2025. We have momentum against the threat of autocracy. Let's get this done.

[post_title] => The United States v. The Rule of Law [post_excerpt] => Now that the Democrats have chosen a nominee, it's time to focus on reversing the damage done by the Supreme Court. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => kamala-harris-2024-election-nominee-democrats-republicans-supreme-court-rule-of-law-trump-loper-bright-autocracy-democracy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-04 16:58:32 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-04 16:58:32 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7086 [menu_order] => 52 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A black and white photo of the United States Supreme Court Building, with the pieces scrambled out of order. In color, there is a photo of VP Kamala Harris laughing and clapping down the center.

The United States v. The Rule of Law

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 5265
    [post_author] => 15
    [post_date] => 2022-11-08 23:23:28
    [post_date_gmt] => 2022-11-08 23:23:28
    [post_content] => 

What the mall tells us about American need.

I know what it feels like to want.

As a young girl, I had a spunky friend, who bossed me and dressed me, and she'd stand in her driveway, hand on her hip, taunting me, "How does it feel to want?"

It was a line in a film she saw.

At that time, I could not afford to want. But still, I wanted to have her hair, the way hairspray and crimping irons gave her that perfect Who’s The Boss, Alyssa Milano flair; her capacity to pick up dance moves, jumping off a chair like Janet Jackson in the “Pleasure Principle” video. I wanted her mom, how she sat with us at night and tickled our backs until we fell asleep, how she stocked the kitchen with healthy food, wheat germ, and honey.

Later, in foster care, I was nothing but a meat sack of want. I wanted privacy, time alone; I'd sometimes sit in the bathroom, door and eyes closed, blocking out everything outside. I wanted a home—a real home, with a dog and a family. I wanted to go back to my school where I was enrolled in accelerated classes—where I still had the freedom to dream of becoming a neurosurgeon, or a lawyer, or whatever profession would pull my mom and me out of poverty.

And the less I have, the more I want: Even now, I want ridiculous things with no purpose, the little capitalist elves getting to work on my brain. I want nail polish and lipsticks, nonsensical outfits—jumpers, one-pieces—boots, espadrilles, soaps and face creams. I want accolades, acceptance notices from fancy literary journals, and fellowships. And underneath it all, what I really want is love—to be seen, to be touched, to be held, to be kept, to be possessed wholly with all my good and all my naughty bits, a no turning away kind of love. 

I want to move through the world with ease.

~

We try hard to make sense of things in a senseless time. My friend, who I'd spoken to every day before all this, but who's since been exposed to the virus, or some other cruel thing that has her sleeping and using an inhaler, says wistfully into the phone, "I miss malls." 

Of malls, Frederic Jameson wrote in Postmodernism, “Overwhelmingly, our daily life, our psychic experiences, our cultural languages are processes performed in and contingent on commercial space.” 

In the early days of the pandemic, I wonder what happens when we no longer have that commercial space or when that space becomes virtual.​​ Where do we go when that pinnacle remains burning inside us, but the space to make it grow—disappears? What is America without the physical space to Want?

~

After World War II, Americans embraced the ideal of the suburbs. People moved away from big cities, and malls were a new indication of what LIVING would be like. For all those suburban households, the mall became the epicenter of activity, a place where we could brush arms with the Joneses. And all of us drove there—a luxury in itself. As Joan Didion writes in her essay "On the Mall," "as a child in the late Forties in California, I recall reading and believing that the 'freedom of movement' afforded by the automobile was 'America's fifth freedom.'" 

The previous four were outlined in Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union address: 1. Freedom of Speech, 2. Freedom of Worship, 3. Freedom from Want, 4. Freedom from Fear. 

As for the third, what better homage is there to Want than the mall?

~

America's first malls were outdoors; they were to be community centers—our zocalo—where people could come together for social interaction. These first malls appeared in the 1920s. One of the earliest was opened in the California boom town of Lakewood. With its 154 acres and sprawling parking lot, the Lakewood Shopping Center transformed fields of lima beans into a big city suburb—a precursor for what was to come.  

J.C. Nichols, generally regarded as the father of the shopping center for his role in developing Country Club Plaza in Kansas City (1924), established many of the mall’s fundamental merchandising and management concepts. Nichols’ 1945 Urban Land Institute publication, Mistakes We Have Made in Developing Shopping Centers, codified the tenets of the modern mall with a list of 150 maxims, which covered everything from strategies to ensure local political support to adequate ceiling heights. 

In 1956, the first enclosed mall—Southdale, in Edina, a suburb of Minneapolis—changed everything. It also firmly cemented Austrian architect Victor Gruen as one of America's great mall pioneers. Gruen created a completely introverted building by enclosing once-open spaces and controlling the temperature, establishing the prototype for how we think of most malls today. As William Kowinski illustrates in Malling of America, once inside, the commercial potential of enormous spaces was realized in theatrical "sets" where "retail drama" could occur. Southdale was covered for practical reasons; Minnesota weather allows for only 126 outdoor shopping days a year. But the contrast between the freezing cold or blistering heat outdoors and the mall's constant 72 degrees was only accelerated by its atrium centerpiece, the Garden Court of Perpetual Spring, filled with orchids, azaleas, magnolias, and palms.

~

Kowinski identifies mal de mall (literal translation: bad of mall, which could be interpreted as mall sickness) as both stimulation and sedation, characterized by disorientation, anxiety, and apathy. Margaret Crawford writes in her essay “The World In A Shopping Mall” of The Gruen Transfer (named after Victor Gruen), which “designates the moment when a ‘destination buyer’ with a specific purchase in mind is transformed into an impulse shopper, a crucial point immediately visible in the shift from a determined stride to an erratic and meandering gait.”

These effects, in part, might help explain the expansion of the typical mall visit from twenty minutes in 1960 to nearly three hours today. Eventually, the mall became a place to cruise. For teenagers to hang out, and work, and steal, and kiss. Gallerias everywhere achieved a reputation as a safe place for singles to meet, and where "mall walkers"—senior citizens and heart patients seeking a safe place to exercise—could arrive before the shops opened to walk a measured route around the corridors.

To that end, terrazzo tiles were introduced in the '80s because developers thought the carpet would slow shoppers down. Architects also gradually increased lighting to create the illusion of longer afternoons. Finally, in 1992, the Mall of America opened, eventually featuring a whopping 5.6 million square feet of retail. The largest mall in North America, the mall sits just south of the Twin Cities, in Bloomington, Minnesota, and was built on the site of the former Metropolitan Stadium. To honor the location of home plate, the mall houses a plaque in its amusement park that commemorates a home run hit by hall-of-famer Harmon Killebrew on June 3, 1967—definitively placing this shopping center, and its absurd representation of excess, alongside America’s favorite past-time. 

By the mid-90s, malls were being constructed at 140/year.

~

I was a latchkey kid when the Westside Pavilion finally arrived in Los Angeles in 1985; my young spunky friend who quoted movies about Want would raid her mother's empty Sparkletts of change, and we'd walk the two miles to the mall. We spent all day trying on clothes at Wet Seal and Contempo Casuals; we'd spend any money we had on Mrs. Fields' cookies or slices of pizza from Sbarro. We’d ride the escalator up and down. 

Later the mall became a site for me to act out what feminist theorist Lauren Berlant calls "cruel optimism": “A relation of cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing.” During the holidays, I'd go to the mall and finger all the items, look on longingly at the shoes and handbags, listen to the music, and see the line for Santa, and a part of me secretly hoped that perhaps someone would see me, and take pity on me, and offer to buy me all the things. But no one ever did.

~

There is, of course, a conventional association between women and mall space. Iconic films like Valley Girl and Clueless. Roseanne Barr's television show, wherein her title character worked in the mall. And then, there's the music. 

I’m shuttin’ shit down in the mall

And tellin’ every girl she’s the one for me

And I ain’t even planning to call

I want this shit forever man, ever man, ever man, ever man

—Drake, “Forever”

For rapper Drake, girls are granted equivalence to stores as sources for reaffirmation of male dominance and economic success in the hip-hop market. As early as 1998, mall space provided a similar referent for Jay Z in "Can I Get A?":

Do you need a balla? So you can shop and tear the mall up?

Brag, tell your friends what I brought ya

Jay Z directs his curiosities about mall space to female listeners, engaging end rhyme between “mall” and “balla,” a term initially used to describe wealthy athletes but which now refers to anyone or even anything admirable. While these dialogues with mall space certainly perpetuate the same anti-feminist stereotypes—positioning women as shoppers and as “shopped” by the male speakers—they reproduce the very real social relations that occur in mall space, both through the exchange of money for clothing, and sexually, through the bodies of the spatial practitioners.

For example, around 10 AM on April 12, 2019, a woman and her 5-year-old son were standing outside the Rainforest Café on the third floor of the Mall of America when 24-year-old Emmanuel Aranda approached. She asked him if they were in his way and should move. Mr. Aranda, without warning, picked her son up and threw him off the balcony. When asked why he did it, he said he was sick and tired of years of being rejected by women at the mall.

~

My generation, Generation X, could also be aptly named the Mall Generation, as we were around in the before times of malls and now in the after. The before times, for me, were riddled with trips to the local Kmart. A store that allowed for layaway, where we posed for studio-like holiday photos, drank bright blue or red slushies, and ate at the Kmart Cafe. 

The first Kmart opened in San Fernando, California, in January 1962; 1500 miles north, and five months later, Sam Walton opened the first Walmart in Rogers, Alaska. Both were the blueprint for what a mall could be. In our small military town in northern California, Kmart was one of the few places to hang out. I touched and longed for all the items, imagined a need and a stealthiness with the camping gear, and extended the fictive dream of Capitalism—that somehow being near Jaclyn Smith's discount clothing line put me in closer proximity to becoming one of Charlie's Angels myself. 

In the ‘80s, Ma got a job as a security officer for Kmart, and when they were robbed, she was blamed and then let go of. Years later, I worked graveyard at the Winchell's Donut, and I, too, was robbed and then fired. In reality, Jaclyn Smith's discount clothing line just put me closer to who I always was, a girl whose Ma's bounced check was on display at the Food King on Westwood Blvd. A girl who was called to the front of the class with all the other poor kids to get her lunch tickets. The tickets she tucked into the side of her Payless Shoesource ProWings, a brand of shoes all the kids talked smack about.

~

In researching genres, I recently discovered a form of ‘80s minimalist literature called “dirty realism,” also known as "Kmart realism." Author Paul McFedries, in the craft book Word Spy: The Word Lovers Guide To Modern Culture, defines the precursors of Kmart realism as “trailer park fiction, Diet-Pepsi minimalism, and hick chic.” Miriam Clark writes in Studies in Short Fiction that it  "represent[s] and reproduce[s] the disintegration of public life [and] the colonization of private life by consumer capitalism." 

Authors Bobbie Ann Mason and Joy Williams are most known for this genre, likely coined by author Tom Wolfe in reference to stories that mention Dairy Queens and third-rate motels. In his introduction to Patchwork: A Bobbie Ann Mason Reader, George Saunders writes, "You could say, as critics have, that Mason is writing about a particular form of late-twentieth-century American sadness, a moment during which something has fundamentally shifted in the American ethos. The way I would say it is that she is bearing witness to our descent into a new era of pure materialism."

~

If Bobbie Ann Mason is representative of Kmart realism, then I wonder who or what literature would represent Caruso realism. I'm speaking here of Rick Caruso, the Los Angeles mall developer and mayoral candidate. Caruso's The Grove and The Americana at Brand are the epitome of Los Angeles' animated spaces, spaces that are part fairy ground and part extensions of the body of Los Angeles. Caruso's intentional use of mall space and large multi-use dwelling-consumer spaces have become LA's theme park phantom limbs, filling the ghost imprint of the homes and apartment units bulldozed in the mid-20th century.

Both The Americana at Brand and The Grove are organized upon the idea of a city center—with a mix of architectural styles, building heights, materials used, and vast open spaces at their center. The Grove is reminiscent of 1930s Los Angeles; meanwhile, The Americana reflects the brick factory facades of the industrial era, with its massive elevator shaft with exposed steel beams. 

Each of the two intends to appear to be a public space but is private property and is protected as such. But if mall decor and design are not explicit enough to tell young people of color or the unhoused that they are not welcome, more literal warnings can be issued. A bronze plaque placed at the Grove's southern entrance spells out the house rules: "The Grove is private property and has not at any time been dedicated to public uses," listing 18 activities from which visitors must refrain. While the two-acre park in the center of the Americana is technically public property, the private security force that patrols it prevents anyone from photographing with professional equipment without permission. "Sitting on floors, handrails, stairs, escalators, trash receptacles and other areas not specifically designed for seating” is also restricted. The Americana at Brand allows dogs on the property—except on its grassy area, and unless the dog in question is a pit bull. 

Still, in a city that lacks accessible public space, The Grove and The Americana provide a peek into an alternate reality. Pedestrianized streets. Seamless sidewalks. Reliable transit. Shady trees. Alissa Walker writes in New York Magazine, “Yes, in theory, the Grove represents the dystopian future where billionaire developers have cordoned off our public spaces into oversurveilled fortresses. But in reality, elements of this future are very appealing to Angelenos. That’s why they go there. If they don’t readily admit that they do, they’re lying. Everybody loves the Grove.”

I will confess here that in recent years, I, too, have found some joy at my local outdoor mall—Americana at Brand—after one winter, as the fake snow blasted upon us, my now-wife bent down on one knee and proposed beside the iconic dancing water fountain.

~

In 1787, Grigory Potemkin, former lover of Empress Catherine II, supposedly erected phony portable settlements along the banks of the Dnieper River to impress the Russian Empress and her guests on their way to Crimea. He would then disassemble and reassemble the village along the way. Today, the term "potemkin" is used in politics and economics as any construction whose sole purpose is to provide an external façade to a country that is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is faring better. 

As I write this, Caruso is running for mayor, and some Angelenos are concerned that he will try to apply these same guidelines and principles to the entire city. "You go to the Grove; it represents everybody in this great city of ours. It's every background. It's every color. It's every creed," Caruso told the Los Angeles Times editorial board earlier this year. Often compared to Walt Disney, the 63-year-old is known for a similar pseudo-urbanism, equal parts utopianism and nostalgia. He’s also known for switching his party affiliation for the race, as he was very publicly registered as a Republican three years ago. Caruso is now making it to the general election after sinking millions of his own money into ads for his campaign, featuring actors and personalities such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Snoop Dogg. The Americana, as I see it, is the modern-day Potemkin Village; and Caruso, the modern day Potemkin.

~

Being an off-brand kid—a Kmart kid, sometimes even in the time of malls—I was always consumed with desire; that achy want. The word consumption from the late 14th century to mean "wasting of the body by disease"; from Old French consumpcion, "A using up, wasting"; from consume, "the using up of material, destruction by use."

For me, it is a truly American experience to be overwhelmed with this desire to consume, to waste. I walk around my college campus and cut through USC’s University Village, a Caruso-endorsed project. In this instance, University Village is a $700 million multi-use development described by the LA Times as “a fantasia of just-add-water heritage, equal parts Disneyland and Hogwarts.” As trustee and longtime donor, Caruso has been quoted as stating, “It makes it a much more vibrant neighborhood.” 

University Village is home to an Amazon pick-up center, a Target, a Trader Joe’s. But there’s most reliably a line outside of Dulce, an artisanal cafe and donut shop. I spy a plump matcha donut in the window dusted with sugar, a dollop of cream winking on the mouth-hole. I want it. Between classes, sweaty, and arm aching from my heavy book bag, I rush past a spa called Face Haus, where customers can stop in for an afternoon facial; I see the aestheticians, their face masks, an advertisement of a woman, her hair wrapped in a towel, eyes closed, relaxing beneath a cool layer of serums. I want it. Some days when I’m in need of comfort, a hug, words of encouragement, I linger a bit too long in front of Honeybird, with their southern fried chicken, banana cream pie; it smells like somebody’s home. I want it, too. 

This year, I’ve received notice from two of my undergraduate students stating they had to leave the school after tuition was raised from the already-staggering $60k/year. They do not want to leave. I do not want them to leave. But they do not have what they need to stay. Money. 

~

In 1943, The Saturday Evening Post published a series of oil paintings by the Americana artist Norman Rockwell that came to be known as “The Four Freedoms,” along with corresponding essays for each. “Freedom From Want” was published alongside an essay by Filipino writer and labor activist Carlos Bulosan. At the time, Bulosan was a migrant laborer working intermittent jobs when the Post tracked him down to contribute the essay. Initially, the Post lost it, and as there was no carbon copy, Bulosan had to track down the only other draft he had stashed at a bar in Tacoma. 

Ultimately, Bulosan's essay proposed that while citizens had obligations to the state, the state had an obligation to provide sustenance to its citizens. Unlike Roosevelt, Bulosan presented the case that the New Deal had not already granted freedom from want as it did not guarantee Americans the essentials of life. 

Lately, walking through University Village, I find myself thinking of Want. The facials, the nail salon, yes—but also, the grocery store. As an undergrad, every week, I’d buy a loaf of bread, a can of sweetened condensed milk, and a container of instant coffee. I’d pour the milk on my toast for breakfast and dinner and use it to lighten and sweeten my coffee. I remember the anguish of passing the fast food restaurants on my campus; how the credit card companies would set up tables right outside the Burger King. It worked. 

In 2022, it costs up to $30 a day to park on campus, but if you can nab it, there’s free parking on Frat Row off of Hoover. Here, there are people tabling, too—but rather than signing students up for credit cards, they’re selling test strips people can put in their drinks to make sure they aren’t roofied. It works.

If you travel about twelve miles southeast from USC, you’ll hit The Compton Towne Shopping Center, a mall not designed by Caruso. You likely won’t find many USC students there. Compton, a city of 95,000 residents, acutely faces issues of racial injustice and structural inequality—issues that largely haven’t touched USC. Many of Compton’s residents are either unemployed, poorly paid, or ineligible for government assistance. Upwards of 1 in 5 Comptonians live in poverty—double the nationwide average. Compton also happens to be home to the largest city-based guaranteed income pilot project in the country, The Compton Pledge. According to the Compton Pledge website, “Local housing assistance in Compton is at capacity, presenting unaffordable hardships for a city where 46% of residents are renters. In Compton, rates of unemployment have risen to 21.9% since the beginning of COVID-19, and a growing number of residents regularly rely on food pantries.”

Ninety years after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and local governments and private nonprofits are still trying to deliver on its promise. Ninety years after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and we still haven’t achieved his promise of “Freedom From Want.” Because ninety years after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, America can’t even deliver on freedom from need.

And what we need, of course, a mall can’t give us.

A small portion of this essay originally appeared in Lenny Letter.

Additional fact checking by Apoorva Tadepalli.

[post_title] => Freedom to Want [post_excerpt] => What the mall tells us about American need. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => freedom-to-want-malls-america-need [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-04 20:12:17 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-04 20:12:17 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=5265 [menu_order] => 104 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
A chrome package of cigarettes with "Capitalism Kills" on the label. Each of the cigarettes is a shopping back. One has been "put out" on a silver coin to the left, and two more silver coins lean against the back of the box.

Freedom to Want

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 4008
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2022-04-08 12:01:03
    [post_date_gmt] => 2022-04-08 16:01:03
    [post_content] => 

A non-exhaustive list of cruel, corrupt, and extreme actions taken by Republicans of late.

With so many overlapping global crises happening at once, and Democrats in charge of the Presidency and Congress, it's especially hard to keep track of all the ways the US GOP continues to radicalize. This is partly by design. The cascade of oppressive laws and disinformation from Republican legislators and media is meant confuse and overwhelm. The following is a list of GOP and related far right news worth your attention.

  • Jamelle Bouie, Ezra Klein, Jane Coaston and Lulu Garcia-Navarro discuss how the GOP fringe took over American politics for the New York Times.
  • Gabriel Rosenberg, Duke Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies, wrote a Twitter thread about how the latest "groomer" panic is categorically different and more violent than what we've seen before.
  • Writer Jude Doyle does a deep dive into the growing connections between anti-trans feminists and the far right. “It’s a grim irony that, by insisting on a ‘feminism’ without any trans women in it, TERFs have wound up constructing the tool by which fascists aim to destroy feminism altogether.”
  • Roxanna Asgarian writes in NY Mag about how Texas became the most virulently anti-trans state in America, including directing the state’s child-welfare agency to conduct abuse investigations of parents who provide their children gender-affirming care.
  • For the Editorial Board, Mia Brett writes about how Republicans are close to legalizing child marriage in Tennessee. 
  • Also in the Editorial Board, John Stoehr speaks with NYU Law Professor Melissa Murray about Ginni and Clarence Thomas and how their relationship affects perceptions about the Supreme Court's legitimacy. 
  • The editorial board of the Boston Globe wants the January 6 Committee to subpoena Ginni Thomas already.
  • Elie Mystal argues in The Nation that post-Roe, Republicans are coming for marriage equality next.
  • Gerren Keith Gaynor interviews Preston Mitchum about the harm to Black LGBTQ youth of the "Don't Say Gay" Laws.
  • The Oregon GOP is running three QAnon and Proud Boy candidates. 
  • Trump admitted to speaking to key Republican figures at the time of the riot on 1/6. Greg Sargent argues that Merrick Garland should use this admission to launch a full investigation into Trump's communications that day.
  • Speaking of which, there are 7 hours missing from Trump's phone records that day. Historian Tim Naftali writes in The Atlantic that Trump can't just erase history like Nixon did.
  • On the bright side, the DOJ plans to investigate the boxes of records Trump illegally brought with him to Mar a Lago.
  • The Child Tax Credit expiring is pushing voters towards the GOP. Meanwhile the GOP plus Joe Manchin are why it expired in the first place.
[post_title] => What has the radicalized GOP been up to? [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => media-roundup-what-has-the-radicalized-gop-been-up-to [to_ping] => [pinged] => https://www.editorialboard.com/while-republicans-in-florida-debate-dont-say-gay-republicans-in-tennessee-are-close-to-legalizing-child-marriage/ [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:11:28 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:11:28 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=4008 [menu_order] => 126 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

What has the radicalized GOP been up to?