The Battles We Pick

Send us a text

The Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center is well known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate and extremist groups. So it was great to have one of their researchers, Hannah Gais, as a guest on the podcast. Discussing her work on White nationalist and Neo-Nazi groups, Hannah told me about the extremist voices and ideas that the MAGA Republicans have welcomed into their Party. As one example, Hannah gave the back story on the Holocaust-denier who appeared recently on Sean Hannity's show, arguing that America was on the wrong side of World War Two.

The conversation was a sobering reminder of the authoritarianism poisoning our politics and society—and the stakes of the upcoming election. Hannah talked about an authoritarian strategy called entryism, which focuses on reshaping institutions to serve autocratic purposes. It sounded a lot like Project 2025. 

In a discussion of how women feature in white nationalist narratives, I mentioned a pair of historians. Kathleen Belew's Bring the War Home is about the emergence of the American white nationalist movement in the 1970s-1990s, and Tim Snyder's Road to Unfreedom similarly traces how Vladimir Putin cemented his position as Russia's strongman. Both accounts talk about the narrative of the need to protect women from sexual violence or perversion.

Looking beyond the dangers posed by Donald Trump as a chief executive or nominee, there is the larger problem of millions of Americans abandoning democratic principles in favor of authoritarianism. To help grapple with this difficult problem, Hannah and I listened to a clip from the classic post-WWII US government propaganda film Don't Be a Sucker. 

Send us a text

It is often noted that the last time Congress enacted comprehensive immigration reform was in the 1980s. Charles Kamasaki was not only deeply involved in shaping that legislation as an advocate, but he's also written an authoritative history of the effort titled Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not Die. Kamasaki has for several decades guided the work of  the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization, Unidos US, formerly known as the National Council of La Raza. The Migration Policy Institute has been the sponsor and outlet for much of Charles' research, including his book.

With the MAGA movement having  stoked fear and made immigration a hot-button issue, this episode was a chance to explore the challenges of one of the most vexed issues in US politics. Charles and I traced the issue’s political roots back to basic questions of what it means to be an American. As the country becomes more diverse, how will we hang onto a national identity based on ideals rather than race or ancestral lineage? 

Drawing on the history of the 1980s reform law, comparisons with healthcare reform and Obamacare, and Charles' extensive experience, we discussed key fundamentals of advocacy such as: 

• Battles over narrative 
• Bipartisan cooperation 
• Splits within coalitions 
• Keys to legislative success

Charles argued that achieving reform isn't as impossible as it seems, but will require a reckoning with political realities. He makes an interesting case for advocates to battle as well as reach out to opponents, expand their approach to narrative, and accept some splintering of their coalition.  

Send us a text

Cornell Law School Professor Sabeel Rahman is coauthor of an important recent book, Civic Power, about the urgent need to revitalize American democracy with much closer links between government and those it's meant to serve. The only path to meaningful equity and true government "by the people" is to engage affected communities as genuine agenda-setting and decision-making partners. 

Putting the traditionally disempowered at the center entails a fundamentally new approach to reform. Sabeel and I discussed some of the traditional frameworks for reform such as civility or transparency—abstractions that skate right past America's longstanding power disparities. The only real answer is a shift where affected communities go from getting the policy short shrift (for instance as neighbors to all the worst polluters) to co-governing and actual authority.

This will entail multiple shifts, including for longtime public interest advocates like your humble podcast host. One is a change of focus to a different level of government: from high-profile political debates to day-to-day administration that has more immediate impact on people. Another is for advocates to get our cues on agendas and issues from these communities. It was great to get Sabeel's extremely important and useful guidance toward more equitable and inclusive governance.

Send us a text

Lolo Cynthia is an African reproductive health activist, social entrepreneur, and experienced communicator. She shared some of the negative experiences that led her to focus on healthy sexuality and talked about how she gets schools to open up to the curriculum on sex and relationships that she developed. 

Drawing on what she’s observed about various advocacy efforts, Lolo has clear advice to offer on the best way to develop narratives as the basis of your advocacy on. It was also interesting to hear Lolo's perspective on the dangers of having advocacy efforts coopted—particularly by political forces and leaders. 

In an earlier conversation I had with Lolo, it was clear that she follows US events and politics very closely. So I asked what she does—and what she reads—to keep up with American politics. We concluded with a discussion of neurodiversity, with Lolo and I comparing notes about our ADD / ADHD brains. 

Send us a text

Suzanne Nossel leads the US chapter of PEN, the international network of professional writers dedicated to promoting and protecting the basic right to freedom of expression. Suzanne's book on the subject is titled Dare to Speak: Defending Freedom of Speech for All. Recently she highlighted the broader global struggle between freedom and autocracy in a Foreign Affairs article on The Real Culture Wars. I asked Suzanne how we got here, how a society that had prided itself on commitment to democracy could have lost touch with those values. She pointed out all the ways the MAGA movement had prepared the battleground with relentless gaslighting.

We talked about schools, libraries, and efforts to ban books as a key battlefront in the struggle to preserve freedom. Top political strategists see the threat of book-banning  as an issue that could help draw pro-democracy voters to the ballot box this November, and Suzanne shared PEN America's successes in defeating book bans. As she said, book-banners don't just keep books out of their kids hands, they block access to books for all kids. In our conversation, we discussed the particularly high stakes for gay, lesbian, and gender queer students who are often the target of harassment and abuse.  (Your humble podcast host recently researched and wrote about such a battle in a local Iowa school district.)

Suzanne and I also talked about wider attempts to make school curriculum conform with ideological agendas. Digging deeper into the roots of the issue, Suzanne pointed to demographic trends and an increasingly diverse society that are motivating those resistant to change. And as Suzanne said in our conversation, the uncompromising winner-take-all political dynamic of our times has helped fuel the fire.  

Send us a text

After Tyre Nichols was killed by Memphis Police officers who had pulled him over for a trivial traffic infraction, City Councilwoman Michalyn Easter-Thomas "had never seen so many CNN cars and trucks and people in my life trying to see what was the next step for Memphis." With all that interest and scrutiny, colleagues on the Council assembled a package of police reforms. For Councilwoman Easter-Thomas, most notable was a big gap in the proposed ordinance: no reforms of the types of pretextual traffic stops that led to Nichols' death at police hands.

Finding herself cut off from the normal support she would usually get in crafting legislation, the councilwoman turned to Local Progress, an advocacy group that connects local elected officials with a network of peers around the country.  As Michalyn details in our conversation, Local Progress linked her with Philadelphia City Councilman Isaiah Thomas (no relation), who successfully sponsored a new ordinance keeping police there from using traffic stops for minor infractions like broken tail lights.  Actually, I met Michalyn through a Local Progress webinar last winter to highlight their new resources on Driving Equality Ordinances.

Beyond Councilwoman Easter-Thomas' fascinating story of receiving legal advice from a city council a thousand miles away, what I found most interesting was her handling of the politics. First off, her decision to briefly step back when the police reform package went through without driving equality. Her instinct was that the omission would only become more of a glaring injustice. Next was her careful drafting of the driving equality ordinance. The core of any such legislation is a list of minor infractions that police are not supposed to stop drivers for. The councilwoman knew it was necessary to leave some natural items off the list (tinted windows or the smell of marijuana) or lose the support of others on the Council. Her assessment proved shrewd, given that her proposal ultimately was approved unanimously. We also talked about a topic I always find interesting: dealing with opponents spreading misinformation. 

Send us a text

One interesting angle on advocacy are the effort some people  devote to prodding certain key players to get more involved. In sectors like philanthropy, there can be a reluctance because it seems too political. As founder of the Center for Community Foundation Policy Leadership, longtime criminal justice reform advocate Stephen Saloom has been focused on encouraging and supporting community foundations to advocate on their issues.

As Stephen shared on the podcast, the strongest case for doing so traces back to these organizations' stated missions. Community foundations' missions typically commit them to the well-being of the local populace in the broadest terms—as broadly as any governmental body or public official. So it's only logical, Stephen argues, that community foundations should get engaged in questions of policy that affect the local community.

We talked about one of the deterrents that make organizations hesitant about taking up advocacy: tax laws prohibiting lobbying. But we also gave an immediate disclaimer that we are not tax lawyers offering counsel. For excellent info on such questions, we both recommend the Alliance For Justice's Bolder Advocacy program.  Next was a really interesting conversation about what constitutes politics in a democracy (something more basic than just partisan competition). 

And because of Stephen's extensive experience with criminal justice reform, we made sure to discuss his view of what progress has or hasn't been achieved since the advent of Black Lives Matter. While the horrific series of high-profile police killings of Black Americans has sparked some new awareness, Stephen pointed out how deeply entrenched the racial injustices of the system are—and how powerful are the politics of racist fear-stoking. 

Send us a text

First episode back after a hiatus of several months, so I needed a great guest.  Sarah Stachowiak is CEO of the Seattle-based evaluation consulting firm ORS Impact and has been an important role model for me and helped steer me toward becoming an evaluation consultant. Sarah's firm not only does great work for clients, but they provide vital thought leadership through the excellent resources they publish. Sarah and her colleagues advise some of philanthropy's most influential foundations, giving them a broad overview of the work of making change. In our conversation, For instance, Sarah offered an update on foundation attitudes toward supporting advocacy, a realm that some donors have approached with trepidation.

This episode was a chance to speak with someone who relates to advocacy as a social scientist and analyst, a great perspective to bring onto the podcast. Sarah and I talked about the challenges entailed in trying to change the deep-rooted narratives and assumptions that underlie the debates on so many issues. We talked about the trade-offs between seeking small incremental progress versus transformation of an unjust society. We talked about the problems of having a professional class of advocates, and why marginalized communities should have a greater agenda-setting role. We talked about “defensive advocacy” and what organizers do during political tough times. And we concluded with a discussion of clearly defining terms in our field, and why that’s important.  

Send us a text

This episode is a special holiday edition featuring a conversation with my daughter when they were home for Thanksgiving. Sadie Bender Shorr is in the early phase of a career in social work, currently working in the University of Arizona's counseling center and planning to begin studies next fall for an MSW.

Social workers talk about the micro and macro levels—which translate, respectively, as service provision versus advocacy—and that's where we started our discussion. For instance health care reform makes a huge difference in opening possibilities for the uninsured through new programs, rules, and resources. But it takes additional on-the-ground work to help people actually receive medical care. 

Sadie explained that much of their own work is a matter of helping University of Arizona students navigate the paperwork and hoops the students encounter as obstacles. With Sadie's special interest in transgender and other LGBTQ people, there is often an issue with students' reliance on parents' health insurance. Many of them haven't yet come out to their parents. 

As another challenge of prodding bureaucracies to truly serve the populations they're supposed to help, Sadie talked about their earlier job as a case manager for unaccompanied minor migrants. That position with a nonprofit family services agency entailed facilitating family unification for kids with relatives in the United States as well as advocating for kids in a group home who didn't have that option. 

Send us a text

This episode's guest is a journalist rather than an advocate, the author of one of the best books focused on advocacy work. Political reporter Sasha Issenberg's The Engagement tells the story of the 25-year fight for same-sex marriage, documenting the various efforts, strategies, course-adjustments, and outcomes from the perspectives of proponents and opponents alike. 

Sasha says he was drawn to the subject particularly because of the way same-sex marriage burst onto the agenda quite suddenly in the early-1990s—then coming to the fore as a hot-button topic in national politics. It was fascinating to hear Sasha talk about the complexity of a struggle playing out in Washington as well as state capitals, while also alternating between the judicial and political arenas. Sasha said when he started this project, he assumed proponents would have "this big national plan, but there wasn't one." He said it was a fight where both sides were simultaneously on offense and defense on different fronts.

Sasha recounted a key messaging shift by marriage proponents going from a fairly dry and clinical argument for legal protections and eventually opting for an emotionally resonant case for recognizing two people's commitment to each other. In our discussion of the differences between litigation and political battles, Sasha stressed the higher stakes of losing in court and being stuck with a negative legal precedent. 

One thing that enriches Issenberg's account in The Engagement is the way personalities play into advocacy and strategy. Sasha begins the book by focusing on a Hawaiian LGBTQ activist who decided it would be dramatic to hold a mass wedding to celebrate gay pride. Bill Woods' impulsive gadfly style won him few fans or allies among methodical litigators, but he played a crucial role as an originator—though he's often left out of other accounts of the struggle. As Issenberg told me, "We would not have had the Obergefell Supreme Court decision in 2015 if it hadn't been for Woods starting this ball in motion in 1990."

The podcast ends with the same question as Issenberg's book: the rights of trans people that were left aside by the marriage equality struggle. Sasha predicted that the fight for trans rights will gain momentum as the public takes the cue from science that gender is an innate part of identity just as sexual orientation is.