No Question: A Case for the Voting Rights Act

Greetings all!

This post comes just days before the so-called “sequester” in the United States, among other things. However, I have had my eye on a smaller issue that seems to have gone unnoticed among most of us. Namely, that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has received a new challenge, this time by a small county outside Birmingham, Alabama. Most Americans turn away at news of this because we feel the outcome is inevitable; section 5 will likely be upheld by the Supreme Court, and nothing will change. However, this passivity strikes me as dangerous. America was a nation built on racism, and racism is alive and well in our nation, that is clear. That we automatically accept that section 5 is under no threat proves how foolish we may be. In this post, I intend to show why our inaction on this may cost us severely. This week’s quote comes from Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, an agrarian populist president of Guatemala prior to a CIA-backed and United Fruit Company-sponsored coup against his democratically elected government.

First, we must know what section 5 states. In the Voting Rights Act, section 5 notes that 9 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—must receive permission from the DOJ or a federal court before any state voting laws are changed. The provision was included in the law to ensure that states with a history of oppressive voting practices would comply with the new law no matter what. Of course, most of the states are primarily in the south, outside Alaska, as the south was the primary battleground of civil rights issues in the 1960s. While the north suffered from de facto segregation that it had to confront, the south legislated de jure segregation which made section 5 absolutely necessary to progress. Without it, the Voting Rights Act would have been moot because many states would find ways around the law in order to prevent minorities from voting.

The reason states challenge the law, as noted in the link earlier, is that many claim the south has “outgrown” the racist policies of its past. This is often based on population and representation statistics, in that the south is more racially diverse than its past and its state government make-up reflects these demographic changes.

However, we should know by now that these are mistruths. Having minorities in leadership positions does not a diverse government body make; what matters is how much power and equality the common minority has. If they have less in any way, no amount of representation makes up for that. Given, the south is more racially diverse and less oppressive than the past. Racially based policies are outlawed, and about 56% of African-Americans reside in the southern states. But this does not change the fact that 74.1% of Americans are white, meaning that all American minorities still do not constitute much power in governance. This is especially true of the southern states section 5 applies to; while they may have large representative amounts of African-Americans, other minorities are not represented as well in these states as compared to the rest of America.

And we should also not be foolish enough to believe that racism is not apparent in the governance of these states. While it is rare to get legislators on the state level openly proposing racist policy, racism is still reflected in socio-economic inequality between whites and minority groups. Even Fox News, the bastion of the Republican Party which absorbed racist southern Democrats after the civil rights movement, acknowledges that racism still exists in America. Racism towards African-Americans is not our only problem; we also have become less tolerant of Arabs and Muslims in exchange for more tolerance of Hispanics. Note that this does not mean that we have overcome our intolerance of Hispanics, either. This becomes especially easy to see when we consider such American policies as the war on drugs, in which blacks constitute 13% of drug users, yet also represent 38% of those arrested for drug offenses and 59% of those convicted.

It should be clear now that the arguments these southern states make for abolishing section 5 are false, and as such the Voting Rights Act in its entirety should be upheld. I contend that, because section 5 is for the good of minorities, it should in fact be extended to all states. This way, we can prevent racist policies in voting for all states. We already know that racism is not limited to these 9 states the law originally applies to; this was proven by Pennsylvania, which tried to pass new restrictive voter ID laws ahead of this year’s presidential election. Not only did this law disproportionately harm Democratic voters (and democracy), it easily targeted immigrants, the elderly, and other minority groups which were not prepared for the law. And while the law failed, the fact that such propositions are still made is symptomatic of our troubles. Therefore, we must extend section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to all states, to protect all Americans from discriminatory policies in the present and the future.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning. I can be contacted through the comments section here, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. I can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.  

Living By Your Means: A Case For Raising the Minimum Wage

Greetings all!

This post comes as Americans celebrate President’s Day, an agglomeration holiday meant to declare our gratitude towards our great leaders of the past. Sadly, we seem to always look backwards for an example of a great chief executive, and while not without reason this is disappointing. Much of our dislike for the office of the presidency in America has centered on our last president, George W. Bush, and the current president, Barack H. Obama. And while the former deserves every criticism thrown his way as a war criminal, neither he nor Obama is truly the worst president in American history. This is true regardless of what those on the extreme end of the GOP establishment may claim. I was particularly surprised by the outpouring of hate this week after the State of the Union address, when the president’s remarks about raising the federal minimum wage were touted as more socialist, anti-American policies intended to destroy us and our economy while attacking the very values our country was established upon. And so, in order to wash these rumors away, I’ve decided to write something in support of raising the minimum wage. This week’s quote comes from Adam Smith, an economic philosopher widely renowned for his ideas about economies and how governments should be run in order to prosper.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama noted that our economy is on the rise, but our loyalty to our workers and our treatment of labor is in decline. While saying comparatively little about unions as I had hoped, the president then pledged support for raising our federal minimum wage to nine dollars an hour. Should this be instituted, a person working full-time for 5 days a week would earn under 19,000 dollars a year, and this figure excludes holidays and other reasons for not working a few days. For a single person, this easily reaches over the federal poverty line (although it still ignores typical costs of living in America). For a family in America, however, this is still barely enough even with some small tax exemptions for those in the lower classes. In essence, it is similar to the stimulus package of 2009; it does not do enough to address the problem.

While raising the federal minimum wage to nine dollars may be small, it is still a necessary and beneficial step we can take. I would love if the minimum wage were $21.72 as it should be, but if we are going to raise wages we might as well start somewhere. Of course, raising that wage level starts at Congress, and we should hope that something which seems like common sense will at least be viewed favorably by some conservatives.

Arguments which argue against raising minimum wages are plentiful. One of the most prominent arguments tends to flow in the same “common sense” direction that raising the minimum wage does. This is a very basic economic argument which states that if employers have to raise wages for employees, they will start hiring workers less and start firing workers more to save money. It seems simple, and therefore it is easy to listen to and believe. However, economics are not quite so simple, and there are far more variables at play in a large economy than just business profits versus worker benefits. We must consider the realities of our so-called market economy if we wish to analyze what a raise in minimum wages would do to business and consumers alike.

For example, we must examine how consumption would be affected by such a raise. Obviously, we must exclude all people in the U.S. not working for the minimum wage. This still leaves about 30 million Americans as consumers on the minimum wage, when excluding those whom live in poverty above the minimum wage. So, that means we have just fewer than 10% of our population on the federal minimum wage. Now, remember that in a mixed-market economy business and trade is driven by consumption and production. This cycle is fueled by the amount of money consumers have to spend on items beyond necessities, otherwise known as disposable income. At the poverty line, disposable income does not exist; poverty is a state where wasting money on anything besides necessities is foolish. And while such spending occurs, it is fairly rare (hopefully) and does not do much to improve our economy.

By introducing a new factor like a raised minimum wage, the situation is altered. Now, there is more cash in the pockets of consumers. Undoubtedly, some of this will be put towards increased living standards, getting through bills, covering debt, etc. However, any leftover cash which does not get put towards these things only really has two uses from there on: investment and indulgence. It’s fair to say some of those experiencing this windfall of cash will invest it in retirement funds for themselves, college funds for their children, etc. But chances are that most people, when suddenly experiencing extra cash, will not make the wise forward-thinking decision of investment and will instead spend that cash on other things. People are impulsive with money, especially when there is so little to go around. And so consumption would likely rise dramatically with a wage increase for those earning the minimum wage today, thereby benefiting the economy and decreasing business incentive to cut down on employees to make profits. While paying a higher wage may be more difficult for employers on the surface, it becomes more than worthwhile in the long term.

Another common argument against the minimum wage increase is that doing so decreases a person’s incentive to work harder. This essentially compares a minimum wage increase to an automatic promotion that people do not necessarily deserve. The major problem with such a comparison is the implications it creates; do people not deserve a living wage? In what case could it be feasible to subject any person to life-long poverty? Why would any person ever deserve that kind of suffering and scraping by? It is hard to make the argument that any person making minimum wage deserves that kind of pay, even if they have a meager work ethic. The truth is that “welfare queens” do not really exist, as current American welfare programs are simply not enough to live any kind of comfortable life. We do not provide a hammock for the poor to rock in; the poor are called poor for a reason. Those in the lower classes of society do not live well, and no amount of food stamps helps enough to de-incentivize work. The same can be said of wage increases; even at $21.72 an hour, people will still always desire more than a living wage because they are greedy and envious. People want luxuries in order to make themselves feel successful and to lord these things over others. This is what capitalism breeds, so we may as well make it happen.

The only other argument I have encountered when opponents of raising the minimum wage stand up is that by requiring greater pay for workers, we take money out of company and entrepreneur pockets. If employees are not then fired to make up for lost revenue, we lose out on the private sector investment and expansion that our economy finds useful. However, this is a flimsy claim at best; private sector investments do not absolutely even have to buoy our economy if we increase public sector investment. Plus, increasing the minimum wage would not truly hurt a business unless the majority of its workers get the minimum wage. All those minimum wage employees in America do not work for one company, they work for thousands. Spread amongst the owners of these companies, the raise is not harmful. Even with some cash out of pocket, these companies and entrepreneurs will easily make up for it in new revenue through consumer spending.

That is all for this week, and I hope I have provided solid reasoning. I am still open for feedback through my email at zerospintop@live.com, as well as my Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr accounts. I also now have a Reddit account as well, just look for KnoFear. And this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Treating It Right: Gay Rights As Civil Rights

Greetings all!

This post comes after a brief break in posting last week which I undertook to focus on other pressing work. Fortunately, in the meantime I had a bit of an idea concerning the movement towards LGBT rights that would only be helped by an extra week for the necessary research I had to do. I’m certain that someone has already had this idea before, but that does not diminish its possible impact on American and global society. This week’s quote comes from Fidel Castro, a leader of the Cuban Revolution decades ago and head of the Cuban state for decades. I respect and admire him for keeping up one of very few nations which still has an economy that is entirely centrally planned without ever breaking from his commitment to his ideals.

LGBT rights have only slowly progressed in these last years. In America especially, it has been quite difficult to ensure equal protection under the law for those of different sexualities and gender identities. Since 2000, just eleven countries fully allow for same-sex marriage rights. Many countries deem the practice to be illegal or at least not practiced by the state, and some nations even actively fight against it through brutal means. It is not as though there is no hope; slowly but surely more American states are beginning to recognize same-sex marriage, and the speed with which some countries have recognized equal LGBT rights is promising in some ways. For example, the U.K. currently looks to be the next nation to legalize same-sex marriages after a House of Commons vote strongly in favor of the new law. It’s not often for David Cameron to support a cause typically branded by the left, so it’s somewhat doubtful this will go poorly.

And yet we continue to see hate speech and religious dogma thrown casually in America to fight against the legalization of gay marriage. We tout our hatred for gays and lesbians on our sleeves, and then claim that we fight for ridiculous notions of preserving the “sacred institution” or “definition” of marriage. And while I’d love to rant about how these notions are silly and pointless, there would not be a reason for me to repeat something I made a point of on this site in its early days. Instead, I’d like to present an idea for how we can make progress, rather than why we should. The why should be more than clear by now.

I commend us on the ways we have fought for same-sex marriage rights over the years. By challenging DOMA, holding public protests, and passing state laws legalizing the practice, we are making good progress. At the same time, it will not be enough until we have federal laws which force states to recognize the rights of all couples, whether they like it or not. A question we supporters of gay marriage rarely ask ourselves in America is why it is so difficult to get people to accept the legality of gay marriage. If we are asked this question, we would normally respond by saying it is due to a history of long-held religious prejudice and homophobia which runs deep in the American psyche, especially in the South. By now, we should not excuse the lack of progress on the opposition to ourselves; we should predict exactly what they will say and do because we know what they will say and do to fight us. We must consider that perhaps we are lacking in the strength of our fight. We must consider new ways to challenge status quo of marriage, and that is primarily what I wish to discuss.

We like to note that the fight for gay marriage is not a question of gay rights, but a question of civil rights. This is the truth, of course. However, we consistently do not match our actions with our words. The last time there was a civil rights movement in America, those fighting to change society were not doing so as quietly as we are now. The last civil rights movement we experienced was not one where those fighting to change the status quo did so by legal means. In order to ensure equal protection under the law for African-Americans, civil rights leaders staged boycotts, sit-ins, and marches to demonstrate our need for change. These actions were not legal at the time, but that did not matter to them. What mattered was the injustice done to those of color, and anything that could be done had to be done. The reason that Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered so well and laid so thickly upon students is because of the example he set of non-violent resistance. By not advocating for riots or planning to endanger the state unnecessarily for his cause, he is touted as a man with a perfect methodology for change. He led by example, and it is time we applied his teachings and the teachings of other civil rights leaders of his time.

By this, I mean that we should not be allowing the LGBT crowd to be repressed without fighting back by necessary means. And if this means taking things to a slightly illegal measure, then so be it. When civil rights activists participated in the Greensboro sit-ins, they were not following the laws of the day. It was not legal to do what they did, yet they did not back down. We must learn to follow in their footsteps. This means that if you are a same-sex couple trying to get married and a church or other institution refuses, you must tell them that you won’t leave until they let you get married. This means that if you are a same-sex married couple that moves to a state which does not recognize your marriage, you must sue the state for your right to that marriage. This means that we should not just stand outside churches and demand equal rights, but that we should enter the churches and demand those rights face to face with our opposition. This means that our protests must be strong and large, and must not break apart when threatened by law enforcement. We must be willing to receive the business end of a fire hose, we must be willing to receive the teeth of police dogs and the harsh strikes of batons. We must be willing to be sprayed with pepper spray, just as protesters in the Occupy movement were. Most importantly, we must not sit silently by and watch ourselves be oppressed. We must follow in the footsteps of those before us, and change our society without violence. If we lead by example and put everything we have into it, we cannot fail. History is on our side this time, and this is the idea I’ve been hoping to express.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided a full explanation of my ideas. If you have feedback of any constructive kind, I encourage you to leave a comment below. Otherwise, I can be reached for contact at my email at zerospintop@live.com, as well as my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.