← The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:06]
A
Hey, Jay.
- [00:07]
B
Hey. How's it going?
- [00:08]
A
I'm good, how are you?
- [00:09]
B
Good.
- [00:10]
A
So you've written a couple pieces lately about the state of political protest and dissent. And I'm curious, what in your opinion is the most recent example of a like, successful, effective or sustaining political protest in the United States?
- [00:28]
B
Yeah, I guess I could think of two examples, one on the left and one on the right. The first on the right would be the anti abortion movement, right, which started small and almost like obscure in terms of small Catholic organizers mostly, who mostly laughed at and thought of as very marginal, and then grew and sort of won a. They won a large Supreme Court decision that they always wanted recently. The second is the gay marriage movement, right, which became sort of took a synthesis of a lot of the gay rights movements that had been existing before and then put it under one political goal, right? And then normalized everything through activism, advocacy, influencing politicians. And then obviously now we have gay marriage, you know, every state in the country.
- [01:15]
A
Why those two examples? I mean, is it because it's a clear example of, you know, there's something that starts on the ground and then there is a policy change that happens through, you know, legal and political machinery. Like, is that kind of how we're defining effective here?
- [01:30]
B
Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think that if you look at something like Black Lives Matter, which started, I guess, if you trace it all the way back, it starts with, you know, before Mike Brown and then goes all the way to 2020 with George Floyd. But if you look at what happened after 2020, which was just a lot of, I guess, chaotic organizing and big, big marches and a lot of people in the streets, like, I think that what we can say about a lot of modern protests right now is that we have the ability to use social media and the Internet to get a lot of people out, a lot of people interested to raise like awareness, as people say. But what we don't know is what all that awareness does. And I think that one of the things that has happened since the Internet has become the main vehicle of social change, that if you look around the world, you look at something like Arab Spring, or you look at certain revolts in Brazil, around the world, maybe even in Hong Kong, that you see that things are very short lived, they flare up very, very intensely and then they kind of go away. And I guess that problem, you know, which is something that I, you know, even at the beginning, I was somewhat resistant to really declare that because it seems almost like too dismissive and also a bit short sighted, right like, we don't really know what the effects of all this stuff are until a year is out. So it's hard to judge a movement like that. But in terms of actually getting some sort of substantive change in the country, like, you know, like, what were the big wins from 2020? And George Floyd. Right. Like, other than having a lot of banks sort of make statements on Instagram or having some hiring practices. And I think that that problem is something that I've just been thinking about a lot recently.
- [03:19]
A
That's Jay Caspian King, a staff writer at the New Yorker, whose new column series explores the role of the church in politics and dissent. In response to the killing of Renee goode by an ICE agent on January 9, anti ICE protests and organizing have broken out across the country, with the highest concentration in Minneapolis, the site of the fatal shooting, as protesters demand that ICE agents leave the city. Over the weekend, a group of anti ICE protesters interrupted a church service in the city of St. Paul, demanding accountability from one of the pastors, who allegedly also serves as an ICE field director. This conflict raises questions about the relationship between the church and progressive social causes and about what realistic and effective demands or collaboration can actually look like. I wanted to talk with Jay about what's happening in Minneapolis, what this latest wave of protests reveals about the possibilities and limits of political dissent today, what history can tell us about the role of religious institutions in protest movements, and whether successful church driven movements for social change, like the civil rights movement are still possible in our current political and societal landscape. This is the political scene. I'm Tyler Foggatt and I'm a senior editor at the New Yorker. First, I want to talk about, you know, the very modern protests that's happening on the ground right now in Minneapolis, which are these anti ICE protests. So what can you tell us about this protest? Like, what exactly is happening in Minneapolis and what have you been seeing? I know that you're not in Minneapolis, but you've been following this story really closely. So I guess what have you been kind of paying attention to there?
- [05:01]
B
It's interesting because the shape that is taken is a little bit different than in 2020. Right. There's a. I think there's a tendency or at least an understandable desire to compare the two because they both happen in the same place, basically. I mean, Renee Goode and George Floyd are killed less than a mile away from each other. And so you just think, well, these are sort of the same people there. It's the same. It's the same. Mayor Jacob Frey. Right. And so A lot of it looks the same, but so far it seems like a lot of the resistance to ICE and a lot of the protests, or it's not even really protest that's been happening has been happening much more on a localized level. It's neighborhood based. It's organized through messaging apps like Signal. Right. It's not somebody tweeting out or putting an Instagram, here's a big march and everybody should come. Right. It's more like people in a neighborhood putting together some group of people who are going to show up and blow whistles and alert people and to try and sort of to try and get in the way of ICE as much as possible, or to at least show up and what they believe would be standing up for their neighbors, like that type of rhetoric. I think that's what is the organizing principle right now. Whereas in 2020, it was mostly like, let's be unified and let's all show up against police violence. Right. Or let's show up against white supremacy. I think that's very different. I think the localized nature of it both makes it smaller in scale, but I think it might also make it more durable because it's not just a whole bunch of people showing up. Right. That don't know each other. It's people who can draw upon this idea that this is their neighborhood, this is their place, and they don't want federal agents in there.
- [06:43]
A
So you think the community aspect of it and the fact that it's kind of this more narrow, localized thing might actually give it more longevity, even though it's something that, I mean, I guess you could see a version of it happening in communities around the country, since obviously ICE is going into a lot of neighborhoods in different states. But.
- [07:00]
B
Yeah. And it allows everybody to participate. Right. It doesn't mean that you have to be a certain race or a certain identity to participate. You just have to live in the neighborhood and you have to say that you care about your neighbors and then you're invested in it. And I also just think the fact that almost everybody is being touched by this right now. Right. Even if you are not the person who is being dragged out of their house, you're somebody who, if you live in that neighborhood, you've seen it or you have a neighbor who saw it. Right. Or you see the trucks going around, you see the cars going out with agents in them, and that puts a real fear in people and they feel very invested in it as a result. Right. It's not. A lot of it is just out of a sense of self preservation. It's not all just altruistic. It's. It's scary to see federal agents come in wearing masks and running around. And I think that that has made people on a local level much more invested than they might have been even in 2020, when there is like, well, every weekend this is what we're going to do. We're going to show up to the next march in this, you know, in the same type of plaza, and we're going to, you know, get tear gassed or we're going to showdown with the police, but we're not quite sure why. Here the objective is very clear. It's like, we don't want our neighbors taken away, so we're going to do what we can to prevent that from happening. That's just much more of a clear way of thinking about things, or at least a clear goal, regardless of what you think about that goal or not. Right. Like, it's just clearer and people can identify with it easier.
- [08:25]
A
Well, I do want to ask about, like, one form of protest that we did see over the weekend, which is there were these anti ICE protesters who interrupted a church service in St. Paul where an ICE field director is apparently a pastor, and they were yelling ICE out, which is, you know, kind of the call that a lot of protesters, not just in Minneapolis, but in, you know, other cities, have been. Have been calling out, and they were also yelling Renee Goode's name. And they had a confrontation with the pastor there, who was not the pastor, who was allegedly the ICE director. This is a different pastor before they eventually vacated the church. So the DOJ is now investigating this protest as a potential violation of the face act of 1994, which made it a crime to intimidate or interfere with any person seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. I want to talk more about, like, the intersection of the church and progressive social movements, or perhaps the lack thereof in a bit. But first, I'm curious about your reaction to this news, what you think of this demonstration that happened at this church and how it kind of overlaps with what you've been writing and thinking about about lately.
- [09:33]
B
It's far more in the vein of 2020, right, where you had a lot of disruptions. Like, you know, I remember black brunch was one that got a lot of attention, where people would walk into, like, a brunch place that served mimosas or something that was stereotypically like white suburban and would start yelling about police violence and white supremacy. That type of disruption tactic is much more from the 2020 era. And I don't think it's particularly effective anymore. And I think that it probably like, I don't think that any of these people should be brought up on federal charges, right. For storming into a church. And yet at the same time, I guess just, you know, if you want my opinion on it, I just think it's very counterproductive to go to provide that image of you disrupting a church service. And I guess overall, I've been thinking a lot about the way in which progressive movement or left movements, or even Democrat sort of center left movements interact with the church in general. And I guess that if you look back at the history of activism in America, there is always a strong tie in with the church for some of these successful movements, that it's almost impossible to do it without some religious aspect. And that's not because God is smiling down on your cause. It's because activist movements need infrastructure. And what my friend Wayne Shang, who is a animal rights activist, called scaffolding, right. It needs, it needs structure to exist. And the church can provide that structure. Now, example of this is that in 2016 or 2017, when Philando Castile was shot in Minneapolis, I went there and I talked to some of the organizers there. I followed them around the activists and all their meetings, all their planning meetings were held in churches, right? The church actually provided the physical building for these activists to organize and to meet and to get food and everything like that. And so I'm not sure if there is an if it's possible for these types of political movements, these political activist movements, these dissent movements, whatever you want to call them, to have much sustainability without some buy in from the church? Now, do I think that the fact that these guys went in and they disrupted this one church in Minneapolis means that the church will revolt and not want to work with this cause? No, I don't think that.
- [11:54]
A
Let's take a quick break and then when we come back, I want to talk more about protest movements and what kind of role the church should play in them. This is the political scene from the New Yorker.
- [12:14]
B
Come see Critics at large live. On February 19th, we're going to be at the 92nd Street Y in New York City for a conversation about Wuthering Heights. There's a new adaptation coming up starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, and we will certainly be getting into that, but we'll also do what we humbly, I'll say what we do best. Returning to the text, we're gonna go deep on the Gothic. And Emily Bronte. Join me, Vincent Cunningham and my co hosts Alex Schwartz and Nomi Fry for the discussion. And crucially, if you buy a VIP ticket, you'll join us for an after party too. Go to 92ny.org for more information. That's 92ny.org hope to see you there.
- [13:13]
A
So let's take a step back and talk about the U.S. s broader relationship to protesting and movements for social and political change. Specifically as it relates to your latest piece, can American Churches Lead a Protest Movement Under Trump? Which I believe is part of a series that you were working on about the place of the church in modern politics.
- [13:31]
B
Right, Right.
- [13:32]
A
So you opened this latest piece by focusing on the sanctuary movement, which began in the early 80s. Can you tell us a little bit more about that movement for people who aren't familiar with the history? And I guess I'm wondering how it served as the foundation for your new column. Like, what made you interested in returning to it?
- [13:48]
B
Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, in the early 80s, because of what was happening in both El Salvador and Guatemala. Right. Which is a US Sponsored war, and that the US did not recognize refugee status from those two countries. And that what you had was you had a lot of displaced people who were coming over and being tracked by INS or attempted to be deported and that there was a man down in the southwest who was working with a church. His name is Jim Corbett. He was like this very eccentric guy's philosopher, goat herd type of guy. And he began trying to conceive with some churches in Berkeley, California, and the church, his local church, of a way in which their churches could be used as a way to house some of these people. And you know, there are different variations of it. Like some of them were like, okay, the church is going to be a new underground railroad and we're going to take some of these people who are displaced and we're going to help them get to Canada. Right. And, and then some of the churches said, well, we're just going to actually physically house these people here. Right. And there was this broad idea of sanctuary, which is that if somebody is in great peril, that the church has a moral responsibility to help them. And because of the way in which the clergy was organized at the time, and that there's a lot of progressive churches, this spread very quickly. It had different iterations. Like it evolved into what became the sanctuary city movement, which is obviously huge in the news. I mean, that is why Minneapolis in some ways is being targeted in other cities in California because of this idea of the sanctuary city. And I found it really interesting because I felt like the last time that there was a big push on immigration, that the. The vanguard of that movement was the church. Right? It was. It was these pastors. It was people holding press conferences in front of churches and saying, we are going to take these people, and you. The government can. You can like it or not like it, but we're still gonna do it because it's our moral responsibility. And I guess I found that to be both interesting from a strategy standpoint, as somebody who thinks a lot about dissent, but also, you know, I think that it is a powerful moral message that was delivered, and I think that the reason why it was powerful is because it was delivered through the church.
- [16:06]
A
That makes sense. So there's a really interesting argument in your piece, which is. I'm just gonna quote you. You say, I do not believe that there can be any abiding movement for social change in this and support from the church. This is a pretty bold statement, although it's also very much rooted in historical examples. So I guess I'm wondering if you can just elaborate on this a little bit. Like, in your view, what does an abiding social or political movement need that a church can uniquely provide?
- [16:37]
B
Well, first, it needs a moral vision. It needs something like Jesus said, love thy neighbor type of message that people grew up understanding, or at least hearing one that people feel a great emotional outpouring about, whether positive or negative, you know, but some sort of moral message like that that is ingrained in their upbringing, their childhood, and which is they believe is part of the nation that they belong to right now. There's all sorts of problematic things about that that we don't have to get into. Right. Which is, you know, I'll just say I hear all of you, you know, Winston, right now.
- [17:14]
A
You know, I guess my immediate thought is just like, is there not a way for, you know, people who grew up in secular households to kind of have that same. A lot of those same, like, moral tenets kind of ingrained in them?
- [17:25]
B
Of course, yes, I think so. But I don't think that it will be as resonant with other people in a mostly Christian country or mostly, you know, a country where people are still, despite, like, declining numbers in church attendance, still feel some way about religion or idea that there is some sort of greater truth or a way to act that is important. And so I think that that's the number one, just sort of ideological reason. But the other reasons are just that churches provide a lot of infrastructure for protest movements and have in the past. Right. For dissent for any type of. Of political movement. And that they have a certain hierarchy within them and they have people who are respected, pastors, priests, Right. Bishops, whoever. That those people come with a certain moral authority, whether they should or not. Who cares? Right? They do. And that unless you activate that part of the country, or at least the main institution that people associate with adjudicating moral questions, which is religion, I think that any type of protest movement that would happen outside of that will feel like it is not quite as serious as one that involves the clergy and won't be as sustaining as a result of that.
- [18:43]
A
I mean, it's interesting, we began this conversation by talking about two examples of effective protest movements. And one of them was the anti abortion movement, which obviously involved the church to a pretty extreme extent. And then the other one that you mentioned was the pro gay marriage movement. And how much was the church involved with that?
- [19:05]
B
It's pretty involved, yeah. I mean, part of the buy in for gay marriage was that you had to have ministers who were willing to do it. Right. And so there was great outreach to the church and there were clergy members who were very involved in that. Right. Like, I think that is probably around the time when this habit of people wearing like clergy robes and stuff like that with rainbow flags and stuff on that, where pride became a way in which a lot of churches identify themselves. A lot of that came out of that organizing. I mean, the church was pretty involved in that. I don't think they would have succeeded if they didn't have clergy members who came out and said, we're willing to do this. Right. And so, yeah, the church was pretty involved.
- [19:44]
A
I mean, going off of that example, I guess I wonder if you would argue that the church is even more crucial for progressive social movements just because there's a certain amount of, you know, this person who has grown up reading scripture that might imply the opposite of whatever that progressive social movement is arguing for kind of coming out on the other side. Like if there's something inherent to that dynamic that makes the voices of the church even more powerful than say, you know, like the anti abortion movement, where it's like you would kind of assume that most people who grew up in an evangelical household are anti abortion.
- [20:19]
B
Yeah, I mean, I guess there is a little bit of like counterintuitive power that comes in from that. Right. Which is if the church, for example, like the Catholic Church and the new pope coming out in favor of treating immigrants humanely, for example. Right. It's quite powerful because it goes against this narrative that we've developed over the past 25 to 50 years, which is that the church is always going to be associated with right wing causes. But I just think that the problem is that progressives and the left don't use the church in the same way that the right does. Right. The right always uses the church. They ground every political movement that they have in the church, whether, you know, cynically or not. But it's always grounded in some sort of church. There's always some pastor saying something. Right. And that they actually use their churches as the centers of organizing in the way that the left does not.
- [21:08]
A
So, yeah, when you say that you want to see the left use churches more, I guess, what does that mean? Like you, you mentioned the call in your column. Like, you know, that there's leadership and support from the church is like the phrase that you use. Are they the ones leading the charge or kind of like a supplementary aspect? Like what is the. What's the vision?
- [21:26]
B
So I spoke to a pastor at one of the churches who was involved in the original sanctuary movement here in Berkeley, California. That's where I live. And she's a very thoughtful and I thought, intelligent person. But one thing she said struck me, which was that she doesn't think that the church should lead in this stuff. That she should. That young people should lead. Right. She's sort of echoing some of the sentiment from 2020. She's that young activist should lead and this church should be in a support role. It shouldn't always be just the Christian church speaking up and dominating all the voices. Right. And drowning out all the other interfaith organizations or drowning out what young people wanted. I don't think that that's right. I think that the church should speak up and I don't think it should worry about whether it becomes a dominant voice or not. I think that there are many churches in America, although the number is dwindling, that are interested in social movements that do have a moral idea about what is happening, especially when it comes to something like immigrants, which has a real valence amongst, amongst especially Catholics. And I think that clergy members who are, who feel that way or who believe that is part of their calling to have a certain political opinion and express it, should, should express those opinions more loudly and that people on the left, whether organizers or media or whatever, should pay attention to that. Right. That there is still a religious aspect to progressive movements and that, that, that it shouldn't just be ignored as being something that's of the past or just some, like, weird blip in a country that is all right wing when it comes to religion. Because I don't think that that's true.
- [23:00]
A
Yeah. I mean, what are the recent examples you've seen of the church kind of inserting itself in that way? I feel like I've been seeing some. Like, just before this conversation, I was on Instagram and I saw a post from Democracy now about the Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire who appears in your column who recently urged fellow clergy to finalize their wills and prepare for a new era of martyrdom. He said now is no longer the time for statements, but for us with our bodies to stand between the powers of this world and the most vulnerable. Which is a pretty powerful statement.
- [23:32]
B
Yes, absolutely. You know, I mean, think about the. I mean, I don't know if everyone here who is listening has, has seen that video of the bishop saying that, but, you know, it's incredibly powerful. I think it's moving to people. You know, the idea of being brave, the idea of, of sacrifice, the idea of personal sacrifice. Right now, martyrdom, like, I don't know, like, you know, sometimes it's like. Well, you know, like martyrdom. Yeah, yeah. Just like, it's intense, right? It's an intense thing to say.
- [24:00]
A
Yeah. The comments were all like. Didn't know they went this hard, like.
- [24:03]
B
Right, right. And so I think that when you have that level of conviction and you can say that it comes out of a. Out of a relationship of faith. Right. A relationship that you have with God, then people respect it more. You know, I think that it's better than. Than in terms of converting the public or convincing the public than somebody just saying, well, I believe this because of these moral ideas that I have, you know, that are born out of something that I can't tell you about. Right. This is just how I feel. I feel like X, Y and Z. I think that if you can connect it to a tradition and that you can present yourself as a person who has sacrificed in your own personal life to be a member of the clergy, that it has a lot of power to it. And I think that's why everyone was talking about that. What that bishop was saying. Right. Or why that went so viral, I guess, is because he was a member of the clergy. Right. If you or I said that, no one would, you know, people would just be like, calm down. Right. But. But the fact that, the fact that he said it, I think is quite different. And that's What I think if the left wants to harness that type of power or that type of moral clarity, that they should look towards the church and to people like that. Right. Because they do exist.
- [25:17]
A
You know, as we have this conversation, it seems like sometimes it sounds as though you are suggesting that, like, you really only have that kind of moral clarity if you are a person of faith. And then sometimes it sounds like the argument is that it is easier for the other people around you, people who could be persuaded to believe that you have moral clarity and to kind of listen to what you're saying if you are a person of faith who has then proved that they, you know, have that moral clarity. I mean, would you think that both are true? Or is it more about, like, you know, convincing the other side, which can, you know, be done most easily by being a religious person?
- [25:56]
B
I think both are true. But I also think, you know, maybe this is my own crisis of. I, you know, when I wrote this piece, I text my editor and I said, I apologize for sharing my existential crisis with you here, you know, but I've thought about it a lot myself, you know, like, what are the actual foundations of my convictions? Like, what are the. Why do I think the things I do about politics? Why do I think the things I do about basic questions of morality? Do I actually live those in my life in any type of way? And do I have a reminder of it? Right. And so in the column, what I say is I talk about a man that I talked to who has been part of this church in Berkeley since 1969, and he's been doing this type of sanctuary work since 1969, involved in different political aspects of it. I asked him why he had been doing it for 50 years. Right. And he said that, you know, he believed that as part of the ritual of being a Lutheran. Right. That when you break it all down, what it means is that every. Every person is a child of God and that he wants to live that in his real life. He doesn't want to just be confined to the rituals that he does every week in church. And my sense is that if you do those types of rituals, it doesn't matter what denomination or what type of religion it is. Right? Like, there is a ritualistic aspect to every type of religion that perhaps that reminder of something as basic as every man is a child of God, it becomes more forefront and more believable in your own mind. Right? And if I think about it, and somebody like myself who is secular and does not go to church has a lot of Ideas. And as an opinion columnist, right. Is always full of some moral righteousness or not. And I think, well, how close to me and how much do I actually remind myself of a very basic idea, like every person is a child of God. And the answer is I don't do it very regularly. Right. That the connection between me and that basic truth feels actually quite distant and unmoored in a type of way. And I feel morally wobbly. But I just think a lot of people, and I think especially a lot of young people right now feel that intensely. Right. They feel a lack of grounding in something, but they see the intensity online, they see the intensity on social media, but they don't really know where it all comes from. And that leads to either cynicism or at least a radicalization, either one of them. Right. And I think that we just have a lot of cynicism right now. And so I guess just from that aspect, which is more of like a spiritual, moral aspect. Yeah. I do think that some grounding in the church would be good for progressive movements, right. Not just because of it has more explanatory or it has more convincing power, but just because I think it would be good for people to be reminded of the basic tenets of what they believe more often. And from that I just take from my own personal experience.
- [28:55]
A
Couldn't that tenet just as easily be like, every person deserves basic human rights? I don't know. I feel like there are these progressive ideals that basically all left wing protest movements, like if you kind of boil them down, they kind of come back to that same basic idea.
- [29:11]
B
Do you feel like every person deserves basic human rights is as powerful and as, I guess, elemental of a position as every person as a child of God?
- [29:24]
A
Not really.
- [29:25]
B
Right. That's my point. Sorry, I didn't mean.
- [29:29]
A
But I guess from like a perspective of language, I think you're totally right. One sentiment just feels. Yeah, elemental is the word for it. And also invoking of like the, the concept of a child too. I think that's really moving. I guess it's just if the point is to try to get as many people as possible, I guess I just can't help but think about these things in terms of like, what about all of the left wing people who will inevitably kind of associate the church with the Christian nationalist movement and the Moral Majority and kind of like it's the way that it's evolved over time. It's like, is it likely that you're going to get a bunch of, you know, like progressive protesters to follow that versus, like, are you gonna get a lot of churchgoers to agree with this basic human rights idea?
- [30:15]
B
Well, I think that one of the things that would be positive that would come out of it is that these churches, and this is actually something both the pastors that I spoke to both talked about, right. Which was that Christian nationalism has been allowed to become the de facto face of religion in America, especially when it comes to politics. And that it is important for all of the people, and these are many, many denominations, millions of people who attend these churches around the country who are not Christian nationalist churches. Right. To reclaim some of that space back and to say that's not us. Right. And that that also is a reason why they should get involved in politics or take a moral stance or at least say something. Right. When they feel like something is going against them and the name of God is only being invoked in ways that they disagree with. And so I think that that type of association work. Right. I guess I have two responses. The first is that if there are some people on the left who think like, hey, I don't want to get down with this movement, or I don't to support this cause that is pushed by the church and a pastor like the one in New Hampshire, because I think that religion is bad, I think the number of those people is actually quite small that would be turned off just because of that. I think it's small number of people. But I also just think that the church does need to regain some credibility with a lot of young people as well. And part of the way that they can regain credibility, moral credibility, is to stop having Christian nationalism be the only voice that's out there for Christians in general. Right. And I think that that type of work will take years to do. Right. And I think that it just needs to start at some point. Like, I don't, I don't believe that every church in America is filled with like, right wing Christian nationalists. I don't, I don't. I think that's far from true.
- [32:05]
A
Not at all.
- [32:06]
B
But if you read the news and if you public statements or if you follow these types of stories, that it sort of feels that way. Right. And, and that type of warping of the face of actual churchgoers in America I think needs to be pushed back against.
- [32:23]
A
Let's take another break and then when we come back, I want to talk more about the evolving image of the church over time. This is a political scene from the New Yorker. We'll be right back.
- [32:37]
B
Right now we are living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick, and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Charlamagne, tha, God, and so many more. That's all on the New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [33:14]
A
So one issue that we've been talking about here is that there's this kind of uncomfortable dynamic, which is that you have these progressive political movements and groups that don't necessarily have much common cause with the church, or they do have a common cause with the church, but the church isn't necessarily seen as like, the place to go to for support. You know, they're kind of operating on different planes. Where did that come from? Because, of course, there's this history of, you know, churches being involved in the sanctuary movement and then, you know, the civil rights movement, which we haven't even talked that much about. I mean, maybe we should, since this is, you know, the week of Martin Luther King Day. But just how do we get from the churches kind of being one of the main places that you would go to for this progressive social energy to either being apolitical or seen as right wing?
- [34:00]
B
Yeah, that's a very interesting question. It has a very long history that has. Every single person has a different opinion on it. From what I found, I think that what it was was that we just had broad secularization in general. Right. The reason is because we have like a rap, we have a different economy that takes over. Right. It's not as community based. Before the 1950s, you had certain things organized around like a factory. Right. Or a town that was built around a certain industry and that the people all lived together, they all went to church together, they also worshiped together. And at the same time, I think that once that starts happening, especially amongst progressive churches, you have some churches that become very progressive and very political. Like some of the churches that were involved, let's say, in the gay rights movement. Right. And then you have a lot of churches that are afraid because they're like, well, we only have like 80 people left in our congregation and we don't want to scare away the 30 that have different political beliefs than the one that the clergy is going to express. I'm speaking very broadly here. Right. But like a lot of churches start to take on a defensive posture about being explicitly political and you know, depending on who you ask, that just hastens the decline. I'm not sure if I believe that that hastened decline, but the idea that the churches became a lot more reticent to express themselves politically, that part is definitely true. And, you know, that's part of what we're seeing right now, why the church is hesitant to take up a leadership position on a lot of these political.
- [35:27]
A
Issues, even though some of these political issues feel a lot less divisive than ones in previous eras. I mean, maybe they're not less divisive, but I guess less divisive in the sense of, like, I can see a. I guess like a good faith argument between members of a congregation about the subject of gay marriage, because that's kind of a disagreement that comes from, like, how you are interpreting the scripture.
- [35:52]
B
Right.
- [35:53]
A
But, like, you know, there isn't anything in the Bible about strong borders. And obviously, there's always gonna be, like, some difference in politics, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would immediately alienate, like, you know, 90% of your congregation if you were to say, like, hey, maybe, you know, we should treat immigrants well.
- [36:09]
B
Yeah, I think it depends on how public they want to be. Right. Like, one example I always think about is that, you know, I did a lot of reporting on homelessness, and in California, it is still true that much of the services that are provided to the homeless are done through Catholic organizations. And then you have the Pope, obviously, very publicly saying things that are anti the Trump administration's immigration policies. I do think that you will see quietly, a lot of Catholic people working with immigrants, and especially since a lot of the population in America, the Catholic Church going population, is Latino. Right. And so it's just how public they're willing to be about that is the question. Right. And are they willing to be the vanguard of this? Right. I think that one of the most exciting outcomes that could happen in terms of immigration advocacy would be if the Catholic Church was willing to take up this position. Right. I think that it would be the most powerful thing that could possibly happen. But. But how public can they be? It's a very, very intense hierarchy in that church, and it would require a lot of the bishops and everybody like that to sign on. But I don't know, maybe one of the churches or something like that would go rogue and get a lot of attention in that type of way. Those types of political possibilities, I think, are the way in which people should be thinking about this question right now.
- [37:33]
A
I'm going to read another question that you pose in your column. It's clear to me that progressive causes would be better served with the church in a leadership role. But it's also clear that this is a nostalgic vision out of touch with both the reality of church going today and the torpor of our screen bound lives. When so much dissent happens online, when even some religious services take place on the blurry rectangles of zoom, how does a church, synagogue, mosque or temple make itself heard? Did you figure out an answer to that question?
- [38:03]
B
No, no, I'm thinking through it.
- [38:06]
A
Like, let's say someone wants to. Yeah, like a church does want to make a big public stance and kind of involve themselves. I mean, I guess like the bishop in New Hampshire was able to go viral on my Instagram feed, but I guess. Do you have any ideas as to how a church could make itself heard in this impossible moment, you know, to be heard?
- [38:24]
B
Well, I mean, I think the grim reality of it is something that the way in which clergy exists right now in the sort of protest economy, which is a term that probably shouldn't exist, but I'll just use here. Right.
- [38:37]
A
Are you coining it right now or.
- [38:38]
B
Yeah, I'm coining it. Yes. Is that they're there to be martyrs. They're there like every time a clergy member goes viral, it's because they're getting tear gassed by ICE and people's responses. They're even tear gassing the clergy. Right. And that they're there to be the person who should be protected by, from state violence, who is yet also being affected by state violence. Right. It's, it's like, you know, if ICE goes out and they attack a bunch of people who look like protesters, who look like liberals. Right. A lot of the country is just like, oh, whatever, right. But person in like a habit. Right. A person in robes. Right. A person of faith, like they, they respond differently. And that's sort of the function of the religious clergymember within these protests which happen most people experience through social media videos. Right. Like they're, they're there as like the person who is assaulted, who should not be assaulted. That shows the excesses of the state. Does that make sense?
- [39:37]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because when you bring that up, I mean, even after, you know, Renee Goode was killed, there was a lot of coverage about how, you know, she was a Christian.
- [39:48]
B
Right.
- [39:48]
A
And I guess like it is something that people pay attention to, right?
- [39:52]
B
It's like you, it shows a level of aggressiveness and like a lack of discretion when A member of the clergy gets attacked. And that's their function right now. That is their function. They're like the people who will show up and say, even I was brutalized by ice, right? That's their function within this current protest economy. The question that I have is whether this protest economy actually works in any form, right? Like, whether or not it's just there to, like, stir up outrage and to make people angry, and then it just immediately dissipates because there's nothing to really hold it together. And I don't know the answer to that. I guess I've been thinking about it, to be honest, for, like, 10 years, right? Because I've mostly been covering protests for 10 years, and I don't really have an answer. My inclination is to say that I don't think it works. Like, I don't think that that digital protest or online protest or social media house protest works at all. But, you know, like, I don't understand outside of, like, this religious revival that I'm thinking about how to reverse that trend. I think that, you know, protests and dissent is going to happen online and in social media and therefore be pretty defanged. And that is concerning to me not just as somebody, not because of my own political beliefs, but just because I think that dissent of all kinds is important in America and that if it's all just, like, happening within on our phones and nobody knows the way out of the phone, right? Like, we're pretty helpless.
- [41:27]
A
I mean, it seems to me from reading your column and just from talking to you now that you've definitely lost faith, I mean, no pun intended, in mass protest as a concept, but that you still seem somewhat optimistic about community organizing as, you know, and, like, just sort of what you were saying earlier about, like, what we're seeing in Minneapolis is it's a lot of, like, organizing and tangible things with a tangible goal. And, you know, when you think about community organizing, it's like, is there any institution besides the church that is better at community organizing or even just kind of instilling a sense of community? And so I wonder if it all kind of comes back to that and like, these more localized efforts as opposed to expecting every single person at, you know, 12:00pm Eastern to take to the streets and yell that. That Elon Musk is a fascist?
- [42:19]
B
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that mass protest is good in one way. I think it is good in that. And here I'm talking about the big shows that we see, right? Like no Kings or even, like, a lot of 2020 right. Which is a lot of people marching around the country. I think it's very good in that it is cathartic for people who feel very constrained by their digital lives to go out and see other people and to let their frustration out in a community of people who feel the same way as them. I think that that's a very powerful thing and I would not discount that. Now, do I think that that type of stuff leads to political change? Well, in a very long term way maybe. Right. Like people meet each other and they like connect and they decide that they're going to start some sort of organization that does X, Y and Z. And maybe that becomes very powerful over time. Right. There's some examples of this, but in the abstract, does that type of thing actually work? No, because I don't think people feel very invested in them personally. Right. They don't feel like, hey, I'm important in this. Right. They don't feel like if I was not here then all of this would fall apart. If I was not here, if I was not doing and willing to step up and do the things that I'm going to do, my neighbor would not be dragged out of their house in their underwear in 8 degree weather. Right. Which is something that happened in Minneapolis recently. Now, if you live next to that person or you live two blocks from that person, if you know that person, or at least you know their sister, you know, their brother, you know, like their friend, you know, maybe you're connected in that type of way, then you're going to feel way more invested in that. Right? Because like you do feel important. You do feel like if I'm not here, then maybe this person is going to be brutalized in this way. And I think that that is far more powerful than showing up to something where the concept of you showing support or raising awareness is much more abstract. Right. And I'm not really just talking about left protest movement. The right doesn't really need advice on how to do protest movements. They're very good at it. You like, like every example I have from for how the left should do protest move is just like basically based on what the right does. Right. The less abstract you can make it, the more community based you can make. And the more important that you can make an individual who is involved in whatever the action is feel, then you're going to have more success because the person is like, well, if I wasn't there then this wouldn't have happened. Or they feel if I was there this wouldn't have happened. Do you know what I mean, like, like, if I was there, if I had done something, that I could have stopped it. And that can only really happen on the community level, but when it does, it's extremely powerful.
- [44:51]
A
Thank you so much for being here, Jay.
- [44:53]
B
Thank you.
- [44:57]
A
Jay Caspian Kang is a staff writer for the New Yorker. You can find his latest piece, can American Churches Lead a Protest Movement Under Trump? @NewYorker.com this has been the political scene from the New Yorker. I'm Tyler Foggit. This episode is Produced by John LeMay with mixing by Mike Kutschman and engineering by Vince Fairchild. Our executive producer is Steven Valentino. Our theme music is by Alison Layton Brown. Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back next Wednesday.
- [45:42]
B
From prx.