Ruth Gilmore’s interpretation of whiteness is the association of racism and whiteness as not only a social construct in racism, but also an economic and politically privileged social ranking construct with institutional support structures sustaining it. In an economic and social context, together with racism in the capitalism system, there exists a social class structure. The social structure further reinforces and maintains a class system of inequality. According to Gilmore, racism provides the social fabric to the class structure that maintains the privileged system of support to the elite and positions the rest of the population as expendable or criminallized. Social class system is institutionalized, racism is also institutionalized. Most of the social institution structures are embedded with racism. Therefore a social system is also an economic and political framework in support of racism, for social injustice. That’s the feminism perspective neo-marxism signifying philosophy behind Gilmore’s thought.
Gilmore argues that prison systems are designed to create lifelong “criminals.” Once individuals are given the “criminal” label, barriers that are almost impenetrable are created, repeatedly directing these individuals into the system. Obtaining employable work, finding housing and education, and even basic social acceptance are extremely challenging to obtain for formerly incarcerated people. Because of this, the system further perpetuates a lack of opportunity, and it becomes increasingly difficult to not be treated as a “criminal” once again. Gilmore argues that prisons not only fail to address social issues, but they also perpetuate an unfair, and punishing, equality. I agree with her to some extent as I, too, believe people are released back onto the streets with decreased, and sometimes nonexistent, opportunities, which further encourages a cycle of crime.
Gilmore concludes the video by saying that “liberation struggle” is working together to build a society that is more humane and just. Gilmore says the essence of liberation is building systems that care for and sustain people, and support people, like education, healthcare, housing, and community care. Liberation struggle puts an emphasis on working together, organizing, and tackling the root causes of social inequality, and goes against the supply and demand of punishment. I took her message to encourage people to design and build alternatives that sustain people, and not just the mechanization and expansion of prisons and policing.
According to MLK, laws can be classified in terms of being just or unjust through the lens of moral ethos and dignity of humanity. A just law maintains an alignment with a moral law and fosters the dignity of a person. In contrast, an unjust law misaligns with moral law and, as a result, diminishes the dignity of a person. He further explains laws lose their validity in the context of justice and morality when they are applied in an arbitrary and uneven manner among certain groups of people. In the absence of a just legal order, MLK urged that people maintain the obligation to obey the just laws, and at the same time, are entitled to breach the unjust laws
I agree that the distinction is important and its consequences for justice at the individual and the societal level are significant. People following the law unquestioningly legitimizes the existence of discriminatory or inequitable law. On the other hand, people will challenge inequitable law and, as a result, demand change. This notion most definitely impacts politics because, in this arena, most discussions and arguments are about law, and whether or not those laws are just. This also impacts everyday life by shaping whether people are inclined to abide by certain rules and regulatory measures or critique and oppose them, especially if those measures or rules are institutionalized inequitable and discriminatory practices.
Voter ID laws can be currently viewed as an example of an unjust law as it may present difficulties for certain groups of people to participate in one of America’s democratic processes, in this case, low-income and minority communities to obtain identification. Because these laws are in place to create unequal treatment among citizens, they can be construed as unjust laws. An example of a just law may be civil rights laws for people to be free from discrimination in the civil and social administration to provide a system of protections and rights. Civil rights laws seek to promote and advocate for the protection of people. This justification is consistent with community morality and equity.
In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled against certifying over 1 million female employees’ gender discrimination claims against Walmart into a class action suit. The lawsuit focused primarily on gender discrimination regarding compensation and promotions. However, the Court argued that they did not fulfill the requisite conditions in the law to be considered a class member. The Court’s justification was centered on the principle of commonality. Commonality suggests that the class members share a common question of law or fact that can be answered in a singular manner. Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that the plaintiffs failed to show that Walmart’s general policies of discrimination fractured in the manner that unequal discrimination against women would have occurred in the same manner. Walmart’s discrimination provision allowed regional managers autonomy in organizational discrimination. The Court ruled that, as a consequence, the claims, and the allegations, lacked commonality. In this way, while a myriad of employees may have suffered discrimination, cases would not have been able to be collectively resolved given that they were, in fact, largely disparate in nature. Due to the determinant lack of commonality, the lawsuit could not continue as a class action, and employees were essentially forced to file separate claims.
One of the positive features of the court system is that judges have a greater opportunity than elected officials to defend the rights of individuals because judges are not subject to the pressures of re-election, voting constituencies, or popularity contest politics. Elected officials, such as members of Congress and the President, have to support the majority, even if it is to the disadvantage of the minority, to secure re-election. On the other hand, judges are politically insulated and neutral on the law, and make constitutional interpretations and decisions to uphold the law, even if it is politically unpopular. This is the reason courts may check other governmental branches on unjust laws and actions. An example of this is the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education. Many elected officials at the time socially accepted or politically supported racial segregation because it was a politically acceptable position in the southern regions of the USA. The Supreme Court of United States of America struck down racial segregation in public schools. The Supreme Court was politically unpopular because it protected rights of black students as a minority. This is an evident illustration of the role of court system in defending rights of individuals and to both the general elected branches.
An argument can be made that the highest court in the land can be considered “anti-democratic” in that its Justices are not voted in by the people and are given lifetime appointments. This allows them to make enormous decisions with no accountability to voters. This could be seen as a flaw in the system but can also be viewed as the opposite. The Court should not be guided by the will of the majority but should act to defend the Constitution and the rights of “creatures” of the state, including the rights of individuals and minorities, the protection of which will be at odds with the majority. This thought is related to the Federalist No. 10, the one that warns that majority factions that can assail the rights of others are a threat to the republic. The system of appointing judges, as opposed to electing them, insulates the system from the widespread and passing whims of the people, and allows decisions to be made according to reason, logic, and the law. This also indicates the presence of the educated and elite layer of society, who were seen as better placed to take rational and calculated decisions. So while the Court is likely seen by many as being “anti-democratic”, in fact, it is very democratic in the sense that it protects the society from majority tyranny.
P. Williams views the War on Terror as a fundamentally different type of conflict. Unlike most other wars which are fought between specific countries with identifiable armies, the War on Terror has opened up a kind of borderline warfare with no defined enemy. Neither the enemy nor the endpoint of the conflict are discernible. Most importantly, because of the indefinite nature of the conflict without a defined beginning or ending, the scope of government authority expands into areas where the boundary between everyday life and warfare are increasingly vague such as civilian surveillance and detention. The redefining of the enemy as “unlawful combatants” post 9/11 has also meant that the U.S. can detain such enemies without affording them the protections of due process.
The government can use a single warrant to tap a number of different types of devices through roving wiretaps. This includes devices like computers or phones, Thus, they can bypass specifications on which device exactly will be tapped. This raises issues of the Fourth Amendment, which protects from unreasonable searches, as well as requirements for warrants. Their lack of specificity raises the risk of wider surveillance than intended. There are also arguably impacts on the First Amendment as people may be more reluctant to exercise their right to free speech when they feel they may be watched. It expands surveillance power in a way that appears to violate the Constitution.
With “sneak and peek” warrants, police can search a person’s home or business, and delay any notification for as long as possible. This practices impacts the Fourth Amendment. People have the right to be notified of searches, and defend their right to be searched. Under-the-radar searches bypass transparency and accountability mechanisms; and expand government search and surveillance authority without scrutiny. Such searches violate protections against unreasonable searches and show people that protecting their rights is futile.
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment states the government can’t make or endorse a religion. It allows individuals to have the freedom to practice a religion or not. The Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman case helps determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause. For a law to be in accordance with the Establishment Clause, it must be neutral concerning religion, must not aid or inhibit a religion, and it can’t have excessive government involvement with the religion.
The First Amendment does protect the act of burning the U.S. flag. Burning a flag falls under symbolic speech which was defended in the Supreme Court case Texas V. Johnson. Despite being offensive, the act of burning a flag cannot be prosecuted due to the fact that the act is considered and protected under the freedom of expression clause in the Constitution.
An aspect of the Fifth Amendment is that people cannot be forced to answer questions that could get them into trouble legally. When people say, ‘ I’m taking the Fifth,’ it means it is possible that they may have to answer the question in a way that could get them into trouble. So, they decline to answer the question.
A unitary system puts most of the power at the national level of the government. The local or regional governments can only exercise power that the national government has delegated to them. In contrast, in a system of confederation, most of the power rests with the regional governments, therefore, the national or central government is much weaker. In that situation, the regional or state governments influence the citizens more. The federal system, like the U.S. Constitution, involves a more or less equal distribution of power between the national government and the state governments. This results in citizens being governed and governing at both levels, therefore combining national integration with sub-national self-rule.
The division of power system involves how different tiers of government share authority. In the federal scheme, there are power centers in the national government, such as national defense, immigration, and foreign policy. There are also power centers in the state governments, such as policies on education, local policing, and some public health decisions. There are also divisions of power concerning both federal and state government laws/policies. It divides power among state governments so that no single government level becomes overly powerful, and it enables the states to meet the diverse needs of their people.
The actions of state and local governments can be shaped by the federal government through funding, the creation of national programs, and policy guidance. One example is how New York State and local governments were affected by the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal government provided funding to New York through the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan and provided billions to support public health responses, testing and vaccination efforts, and to help schools and the economy recover. Despite New York State’s own subjective decisions, like lockdowns and public health restrictions, federal funding and guidelines significantly influenced how state and local governments responded to the pandemic.
The authors of readings 6.1 and 6.2 argue that most of the authors of the Constitution came from the wealthy propertied class. Parenti notes that the men in Philadelphia were landowners, merchants, bankers, and slaveholding creditors, all of whom wanted a stronger central government to protect their finances, control trade, and pay off debts. Beard similarly argues that those holding “real and personal property” including money lenders, holders of public securities, and commercial interests stood to benefit most from replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. In contrast, large portions of society were excluded from participating. Beard identifies slaves, indentured servants, property less men, and women as disenfranchised groups who had no real political voice. Parenti also points out that in most states only property-owning White men could vote, which meant that Native Americans, African Americans (enslaved and most free), women, indentured servants, and poor White men were excluded. The key divide was between creditors and debtors, wealthy investors and struggling small farmers. The Constitution was written by those with property, while those without property had no meaningful role in shaping it.
I certainly would agree it was different in structure, but not in the case of inequity. In 1787, the political rights of citizens were explicitly linked to the ownership of property. Voting was a privilege and a political power held in the hands of men with wealth. The division of class was both visible and sanctioned by law. Presently, there are no property restrictions, and the right to vote is extended to all citizens over the age of eighteen without regard to race, gender, or wealth. Nonetheless, economic disparity is still instrumental in the distribution of political power. In this regard, class divisions and the utilization of wealth to influence politics were more explicitly exclusionary in the early years of America.
The framers had irrational fears of a democracy that consisted of citizens utilizing their newfound ability to participate in government, particularly a democracy that consisted of the “property-less majority”. Parenti states that leaders such as Madison believed that the unequal distribution of property created “factions”, and that the government’s role was to “preserve and protect” property. Events such as Shays’ Rebellion, in which indebted farmers defied and protested the seizing of their property and demanded a “lien” foreclosure and relief, strengthened the elite’s fears that the lower class would exercise their democratic power to perhaps “cancel” indebtedness or even take away the “wealth” of the upper class. Beard states that Creditors were fearful of a more democratic government and of the laws that gave relief to the indebted, such as paper money and relief measures. A government with more power would be able to control such laws and protect contracts and investments. A democracy would primarily be a government of the class that had no money; this would threaten the interest of the upper class, as the majority of the voters would be of a lower economical status. The framers constructed a government that seemed as if it had popular support, but, to a certain extent, incorporated “safeguards” such as the Electoral College, biased senate selections, and a multitude of checks and balances to constrain and limit the direct control of the majority of citizens. Overall, the “fear” that the framers had of a democracy was primarily due to class conflict; democracy would allow the large majority of property-less people to create a government that would take away the rights and power of the upper class.
The concept of “faction” reminds me of social class conflict and competing class interests. In Federalist #10, Madison defines a faction as a group united by a shared passion or interest that is adverse to the rights of others or to the overall community. From what we’ve discussed in earlier readings (Parenti and Beard), this sounds very similar to the conflict between creditors and debtors, or between the wealthy property-owning class and the property less majority. Madison makes it clear that factions naturally arise from different interests in society. In class terms, this means people who own property will have different political goals than people who are in debt or struggling economically. So “faction” really connects to the idea that society is divided into groups based on wealth and economic position.
Madison says, “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate…”. The term faculties means the abilities, talents, skills, and capacities of people. He posits that due to the existence of different faculties, people will, by nature, possess different amounts and types of property. In simpler terms, Madison infers that the disparity in individual abilities is what drives economic disparity. Because of unequal skills, economic possession will also be unequal. He argues that the government is meant to safeguard these faculties and the possessions that are derived from them. Madison’s explanation suggests that inequality is some sort of natural phenomenon, or that poverty is not an issue of structure, but individual ability. The intent of Madison’s ideas is that the founders saw the issues of class and economic disparity as the byproduct of unequal individual ability, not as a system that is political or economic, which can be altered.
I believe this explanation is lacking. While personal attributes are important, history, education, social systems, laws, and even access to land and inheritance affect a person’s wealth or poverty. Madison fails to consider structural inequity and historical debts.
Madison clearly states that “The protection of these faculties is the first object of government”. Since faculties lead to property, this means that the first object of government is to protect property. This connects directly to what we read in Parenti and Beard about how the Constitution strengthened protections for creditors and property owners. The core mission, according to Madison, is not equality or democracy it is the protection of property rights. This is somewhat surprising because today we often hear that the government’s purpose is to promote equality, protect rights, and serve “the people.” While property rights are still important today, we don’t usually describe protecting unequal property ownership as the first purpose of government. Federalist #10 makes that priority very clear.
After reading this, I’m not surprised at all. Madison argues that a pure democracy cannot control the “mischiefs of faction”. If the majority of citizens are poor or property less, they could unite as a faction and pass laws that harm the wealthy minority such as canceling debts or redistributing property. From a class perspective, this makes sense. The wealthy minority feared majority rule because the majority did not own much property. A pure democracy would give political power directly to the property less class. A republic, with representatives and a larger sphere, filters popular opinion through elected officials and makes it harder for the majority to act quickly against elite interests. So Madison’s support for a republican (representative) government over direct democracy reflects concern about protecting the propertied class from the majority. When viewed through the lens of social class, his argument is consistent, the structure of government was designed to control factions especially a majority faction that might challenge wealth and property. Overall, Federalist #10 shows that fear of democracy was deeply connected to fear of class conflict and the protection of property.
What surprised me the most was the statistic stating that the top 1% of the population of the United States owns between 40% and 50% of the nation’s total wealth, which is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90% of the population. This statistic is shocking and staggering and is contrary to the belief that the United States is a middle-class society. and proves that the country is actually a top and bottom class society and wealth is concentrated on a small elite class. Inevitably, the bottom 90% are a working class. It is evident that the country is a top bottom class society and the top class owns almost everything. It is clear that the balance of the economy is totally unequal. This is the statistic that stood out to me the most and made wealth inequality more real.
Wealth concentration inequality can have an immense impact on the political structure of a society. When the top percent of earners gain wealth, they also gain power. The reading notes the more financially powerful people become, the more they gain control of prices. This market control ultimately hurts the average person placed in the role of consumer by powerful people. This example demonstrates the experience many people face. The average full-time worker receives a low wage, even though they are working the same hours. This wage is often not in line with the market current wage to price ratio. This is visible in increasing housing market, student loan, and debt problems, as well as the need for more than one job to be able to meet the basic needs of a person. Quick balance shifts can also be seen in neighborhoods where luxury apartments are built during an increase of visible homeless people in the surrounding area. The divide created by wealth inequality can be seen in healthcare as well. Consequently, the person with little money may choose to not visit a doctor due to the price of the service. The invite inequality of a community causes harm to the social standing of the community, quality of life that also encompasses the safety, and opportunities available.
