#Leadership Institute for Political and Public Impact

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

by Anissa Durham

It’s time to get your updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine. Here’s how Americans are responding to the update.

With the amount of vaccine misinformation and disinformation out there, it’s no surprise many Americans don’t plan on getting an updated COVID-19 vaccine. This growing skepticism is happening against a backdrop of shifting political and cultural dynamics that could significantly impact public health efforts in the coming year.

In a new Pew Research Center survey, 60% of Americans say they won’t get an updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine, which is available in pharmacies and doctors’ offices right now. Republicans are the most likely to say they won’t get the vaccine. But Black Americans are the most likely to have already received the updated vaccine, ahead of cold and flu season.

Why does this matter? Getting the annual COVID-19 vaccine can help protect Americans from long COVID, heart disease, and other respiratory complications. But forgoing vaccination, can make people more susceptible to avoidable illness.

In November, FrameWorks Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, held a virtual event that examined the rise of anti-public health narratives in American discourse. Dr. Julie Sweetland, a senior advisor at the institute, provided an in-depth analysis of the growing influence of anti-vaccine messaging and its implications, particularly as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine advocate, has been nominated to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The event highlighted the cultural dynamics enabling such rhetoric to gain traction and raised questions about the future of public health leadership in the United States.

Some common mindsets or cultural beliefs Americans across the country hold include the idea that nature is pure, modern technology is a threat, and the system is rigged. Regardless of any demographic or political affiliation, Sweetland said, these mindsets help explain why Americans are becoming less trustful of science and government.

“The majority of Americans agree with the idea that the system is rigged,” Sweetland said. “This is not a right wing or left-wing sentiment. This mindset can help explain why the ideas that RFK puts forth resonate across opinion groups. Many of his opinions rest on and reinforce the mindset that the system is rigged.”

What does this mean? The belief that a powerful few are rigging the government, health care system, and economy to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of Americans isn’t necessarily right or wrong. But it has influenced the way Americans think about medicine, vaccination, and the health care system.

In the Pew report, most Americans are choosing not to get the updated COVID-19 vaccine because they don’t think they need it and are concerned about side effects. These are the top two reasons regardless of age, party, race, and ethnicity.

“Many of these mindsets that RFK is speaking to, or reinforcing are long standing,” Sweetland said. “I think the pandemic certainly made these mindsets stronger, but it didn’t create them. There was a COVID effect on these mindsets.”

In a 2021 study researchers found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to believe anti-vaccine misinformation. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, science became more and more politicized which directly contributed to the uptake of vaccine hesitancy, the report states.

Even now, 84% to 85% of Republicans ages 18 to 64 don’t plan to get an updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine. Which is in stark contrast to 34% to 47% of Democrats in the same age groups who don’t plan to get the vaccine.

Bottom line: Vaccines are proven to be a safe and effective way to prevent avoidable illness and death. Navigating vaccine misinformation isn’t easy but it’s better to be factual informed than misled by the overwhelming amount of vaccine misinformation and disinformation.

[ngdrb]

Positives about Joe Biden and Negatives about Donald Trump

Positives about Joe Biden

Over the years, Joe Biden has demonstrated an evolution on key issues. Notably, on criminal justice, he has moved far from his much-criticized "tough-on-crime" position of the 1990s. His proposed policies aim to reduce incarceration, address disparities in the justice system, and rehabilitate released prisoners .

Accomplishments: Throughout his extensive political career, Joe Biden has dedicated himself to serving the American people. As a U.S. Senator and Vice President alongside Barack Obama, he has been involved in various initiatives and policies aimed at fighting for Americans .

Leadership and Resilience: Despite facing challenges and uncertainties, President Biden has demonstrated resilience and leadership. His administration has achieved significant milestones, such as the passage of the infrastructure bill, which had been a longstanding goal for previous administrations.

Public Perception: Joe Biden's favorability ratings have been relatively positive, with a net favorability rating of +9 points in recent high-quality live interview polls. His favorability rating is above his unfavorable rating in almost all polls, reflecting a generally positive public perception .

Health and Vigor: Despite facing health challenges, including testing positive for COVID-19, President Biden has shown vigor and determination in fulfilling his duties as the head of state.

Likability and Personal Conduct: According to a Pew Research Center study, voters are more likely to view Joe Biden as warm and likeable compared to Donald Trump. A larger percentage of voters give Biden warm ratings, with about one-in-three voters expressing intensely positive feelings about him .

Accomplishments: President Biden has outperformed Trump on various fronts, including inequality, green spending, and crime. His third year in office was marked by an economy that remained resilient despite challenges like inflation and surging borrowing costs.

Personal Qualities: Despite a decline in public impressions of Biden's personal qualities, he is still perceived as able to manage government effectively. Additionally, a significant percentage of voters believe that Biden cares about the needs of ordinary people.

In summary: Joe Biden's presidency has been considered highly positive due to several key factors. His administration managed to implement significant legislation aimed at economic recovery, infrastructure development, and climate change mitigation. Biden also re-established international alliances and restored a sense of stability and decorum to the presidency. His efforts in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, including successful vaccination campaigns, were pivotal in saving lives and reviving the economy.

Negatives about Donald Trump

Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by various controversies and criticisms, as evidenced by a range of factors and public opinion.

Worker Safety and Health: The Trump administration has been criticized for disregarding negative impacts on worker safety and health, such as proposing rules that could endanger young workers and patients.

Handling of Race Relations: Trump received negative marks for his handling of race relations, with a majority of adults expressing concerns about his approach and the divisions along racial, ethnic, and partisan lines.

COVID-19 Response: Trump's legacy has been defined by the controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread criticism of his administration's response to the crisis.

Controversial Statements and Actions: Throughout his political career, Trump has been associated with a series of controversial statements and actions, including derogatory remarks about immigrants and divisive rhetoric.

Erosion of Democratic Institutions: Trump has been criticized for questioning the legitimacy of democratic institutions, including the free press, federal judiciary, and the electoral process, leading to concerns about the erosion of democratic norms.

Tax and Financial Practices: Trump's financial practices, including tax-related issues and potential conflicts of interest, have been the subject of scrutiny and criticism.

Policy Priorities: Critics argue that Trump's policy priorities have favored corporations and the wealthiest few at the expense of other segments of the population.

Public Perception: Public opinion reflects stronger negative views on the potential downsides of a Trump presidency, with concerns about his personality traits, views on immigration, and the economy.

In summary, Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by a range of controversies and criticisms, including concerns about worker safety, race relations, the COVID-19 response, controversial statements, erosion of democratic institutions, financial practices, policy priorities, and public perception. These factors have contributed to a complex and divisive public perception of his presidency.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Relationship Between Responsibility and Power

The relationship between responsibility and power is a significant topic in philosophy, ethics, and political theory, encapsulating the idea that with greater power comes greater responsibility. This relationship explores how power, which is the ability or capacity to influence or control others and outcomes, inherently involves responsibility—the duty to act ethically, justly, and in the best interests of those affected by one’s actions.

Key Aspects of the Relationship Between Responsibility and Power:

Ethical Obligation:

Moral Duty: Those who hold power are often seen as having a moral duty to use it responsibly. This means making decisions that consider the well-being of others, the potential consequences of actions, and the ethical implications of those actions. The greater the power, the more significant the impact of one’s decisions, and thus the greater the responsibility to act ethically.

Justice and Fairness: Power carries with it the responsibility to promote justice and fairness. This includes ensuring that power is not used arbitrarily or oppressively, and that those in power are held accountable for their actions.

Accountability:

Answerability: Responsibility involves being answerable for the exercise of power. This means that those in positions of power should be transparent about their actions and decisions, and should be willing to justify them to those affected. Accountability mechanisms, such as checks and balances, are often put in place to ensure that power is exercised responsibly.

Consequences of Power: When power is misused or abused, the responsible party should face appropriate consequences. This is crucial for maintaining trust and integrity in any system where power is distributed.

Political and Social Power:

Governance: In political philosophy, the relationship between power and responsibility is fundamental to concepts of governance and leadership. Leaders are expected to use their power to serve the public good, protect rights, and promote the common welfare. Failures in these responsibilities can lead to loss of legitimacy and authority.

Social Influence: Individuals or groups with social power (e.g., celebrities, influencers, or institutions) also bear responsibility for how their words and actions influence public opinion, social norms, and behaviors. This includes the ethical responsibility to avoid spreading misinformation or promoting harmful ideologies.

Power Dynamics:

Imbalances of Power: When there are significant imbalances of power, the responsibility to act ethically becomes even more pronounced. Those with greater power have a duty to ensure that they do not exploit or oppress those with less power. This principle is central to discussions of social justice, human rights, and equity.

Empowerment: Responsibility also involves the obligation to empower others, particularly those who are marginalized or disadvantaged. This can mean sharing power, enabling others to make decisions, and creating conditions where all individuals can exercise their rights and responsibilities.

Philosophical Perspectives:

Spiderman Principle ("With great power comes great responsibility"): Popularized by the Spider-Man comics, this phrase encapsulates the ethical maxim that those who wield significant power must do so with a strong sense of responsibility. It reflects the idea that power should be used for the greater good, rather than personal gain.

Existentialist Views: Existentialist philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, emphasize that individuals are responsible for the freedom and choices they possess. Power in this context is seen as the capacity to shape one’s own life and the lives of others, with a profound responsibility to make authentic and ethical choices.

Corporate Responsibility:

Corporate Power: In the context of business and corporations, the relationship between power and responsibility is often discussed in terms of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Companies with significant economic and social power are expected to act responsibly toward their employees, consumers, communities, and the environment.

Ethical Leadership: Corporate leaders have a responsibility to use their power to create ethical cultures within their organizations, promote sustainability, and ensure that their business practices do not harm society.

Personal Responsibility:

Power Over Self: On an individual level, everyone has some degree of power over their own actions and decisions. Personal responsibility involves using this power to make ethical choices, consider the impact of one’s actions on others, and take responsibility for the consequences.

Empathy and Compassion: Exercising power responsibly often requires empathy and compassion—understanding the needs and perspectives of others, and using one’s power to support and uplift rather than dominate or harm.

The relationship between responsibility and power is a foundational concept in ethics and philosophy, underscoring the idea that those who have the ability to influence or control others must exercise their power with a strong sense of moral duty, accountability, and justice. This relationship is critical to ensuring that power is used in ways that promote the common good, protect the vulnerable, and maintain social and ethical integrity.

[darkmaga-returns]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), headed by Secretary Jennifer Granholm, released its long-awaited study related to the Energy, Economic, and Environmental impacts of U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) Tuesday afternoon. To no one’s real surprise, the study’s release immediately resulted in controversy between representatives of the domestic oil and gas industry and its critics in the climate movement.

A Wealth Of Conflicting Responses

Industry opposition group Food & Water Watch got a head start, issuing a release headlined “Biden's LNG Export Study is a Weak Response to Inherent Harms of the Industry” hours before the DOE report itself was released. “This study mirrors the Biden administration’s entire four-year approach to advancing a clean energy future: weak and half-hearted,” said the activist group’s policy director, Jim Walsh.

American Gas Association (AGA) president and CEO Karen Harbert to a competing stance, labeling the report “a clear and inexplicable attempt to justify their grave policy error,” adding that AGA “look[s] forward to working with the incoming administration to rectify the glaring issues with this study during the public comment period.”

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said, “It’s time to lift the pause on new LNG export permits and restore American energy leadership around the world. After nearly a year of a politically motivated pause that has only weakened global energy security, it’s never been clearer that U.S. LNG is critical for meeting growing demand for affordable, reliable energy while supporting our allies overseas.”

[mariacallous]

SONNEBERG, GERMANY—First, in true German fashion, the rules were outlined: no alcohol on site, flagpoles capped at three meters, no protesting past 8 p.m. The demonstration followed, with hundreds congregated in the town square shouting insults at the incumbent government; cracking jokes at the expense of refugees, the LGBTQ+ community, and the media; and waving a sea of German flags, with a few Russian ones dotted among them.

“Anyone who dares call us Nazis will be reported to the police,” one of the protesters shouted from a makeshift stage propped up outside Sonneberg’s City Hall, a white mansion built between the world wars. “Germany first,” the protester continued, beckoning the crowds to join in singing the national anthem under a rainy, dark sky.

At 8 p.m. sharp, the crowd quickly dispersed—but they’ll be back next Monday, as they are every week. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they rallied against lockdowns. Now, they call for the overthrow of the current government coalition, and in recent months, the numbers of agitators have started to swell. Many are affiliated with the right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AfD), and although members say they strongly reject what Nazi Germany stood for, a regional chair of the party, Björn Höcke, is on trial for concluding a 2021 speech with the phrase “Everything for Germany”—a slogan widely used by the Nazis. (Under German law, the use of speech, propaganda, and symbolism associated with the Nazi Party and other terrorist groups is prohibited.)

Sonneberg district, home to 56,000 people, is where AfD has celebrated its biggest success to date: Last year, Robert Sesselmann, 51, was elected as the district administrator in a runoff with 52.8 percent of the vote, making Sonneberg the first county in Germany to elect a far-right candidate since the Nazi era. But Thuringia’s AfD branch—where Sonneberg is located—has already been questioning the legitimacy of state institutions and asserted that the Federal Republic of Germany is not a sovereign state, but rather controlled by external powers.

The Thuringia branch of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has legally classified the AfD’s Thuringia branch as “right-wing extremist,” and the federal office is now deciding whether the party may be classified as a suspected case of right-wing extremism on the national level.

The question is pertinent, since the AfD is gaining in popularity not just in Thuringia, but nationwide. This trend picked up around the time of Germany’s last federal elections in 2021. Nationally, the AfD’s support base has grown to 22 percent, compared to 10.4 percent in 2021. Three states in the east—Thuringia, as well as Brandenburg and Saxony—head to the polls this fall, and a win for the AfD looks likely, as it’s polling around 30 percent in all three states.

“This is a stress test for Germany, and 2024 is a defining year,” said Olaf Sundermeyer, an editor at the Berlin-Brandenburg Broadcast (RBB) and longtime expert on right-wing extremism in Germany. Sundermeyer said that since the AfD was founded in 2013, “the party has continuously radicalized.”

Initially starting out as a euroskeptic party that primarily criticized the European Union’s handling of the eurozone crisis, the party—and its leadership—have continuously shifted toward more nationalist and populist positions, especially since 2015, when former Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed around 1 million refugees into the country.

The legacy and shame of Nazi Germany continue to influence the nation’s politics, and until the AfD’s rise, German society strongly rejected far-right ideologies. But the economic impact of both the 2008 financial crisis and the 2015 refugee crisis have—at least partially—resulted in shifting public perceptions.

“The AfD has successfully managed to alter people’s perception of right-wing extremism, moving it away from its historically charged stigma of Nazism and thus effectively rendering it socially acceptable,” Sundermeyer told Foreign Policy. This, he said, is exactly what has happened in Sonneberg.

The AfD’s new heartland, a remote part of the countryside, was part of the communist German Democratic Republic until reunification in 1990. Surrounded by hills in the Thuringian Forest, Sonneberg’s cobblestone main street and stately houses date back to the Wilhelminian era before the First World War. The nearest major highway is about a half-hour’s drive.

Since reunification, scores of people have migrated westward, leaving many homes empty. Residents say that young people here struggle with drug abuse; that there are few places for them to hang out; and that public transport isn’t adequately connecting the district’s farther, remote villages, making it more difficult to access educational and job opportunities. Since reunification, the country’s east has been catching up to the former West Germany in terms of economic opportunities, but in Sonneberg—and throughout former East Germany—many people continue to feel acutely disadvantaged.

A group of young men lingering after the demonstration echoed these complaints as they chain-smoked Marlboros and packed up whistles and flags. They had opted to move into practical professions—such as construction work, plumbing, and roofing—one explained, to help “build Sonneberg, and Germany overall.”

Attending the demonstration wearing their company uniforms—grey overalls and work pants—the men were initially hesitant to speak to the Lügenpresse, or “lying, mainstream press,” as they described it. “No names please,” they asked politely after agreeing to talk. (“Lügenpresse,” a term used by the Nazis, has resurfaced in Germany’s right-wing circles, as well as among allies of former U.S. President Donald Trump.)

“People call us ‘rats,’ just because we support the AfD,” one of the men said. “There’s no freedom of speech here, no freedom of thoughts. Our country gets involved in wars we don’t want to be part of. The government manipulates the press, our German culture, and our traditions are vanishing due to mass immigration—food and energy prices have skyrocketed. It’s worse than during the German Democratic Republic, and we desperately need change—we need an alternative.” He paused to take a long drag on his cigarette, then added: “Germany is for Germans first—we can’t help others if we’re not helping ourselves.”

“It’s a possibility that the party drifts too far to the right,” he said, “and that’s certainly not what we want. We don’t want a return of Nazi times, but we need change.”

The party’s policy platform is unabashedly far right. For instance, AfD’s stance on immigration is that “the ideology of multiculturalism is a serious threat to peace and to the continued existence of the nation as a cultural unit.” The party advocates for a “German dominant culture” based on the values of Christianity instead of multiculturalism. Africa, the party’s website states, is a “house of poverty,” arguing that migration from the continent needs to be capped.

During a covert meeting last November, uncovered by independent German investigative outlet Correctiv, AfD politicians, together with neo-Nazis and several wealthy business owners, discussed the “remigration” of millions of people—including German citizen—on the basis of racial and religious criteria.

The group of young men in Sonneberg who spoke with Foreign Policy talked about the need for the “remigration” of immigrants, too, and some even had written it on signs. After the rally, though, they headed to dinner at the only restaurant still open: a kebab house owned by an Iraqi Kurd. Their waiter was a Syrian man who arrived in Germany three years ago.

According to the Federal Statistical Office, at least 28.7 percent of Germany’s population—more than 1 in 4 people—have a migration background, meaning that they immigrated to Germany themselves or were born into families with a history of migration. Migration is on the up, with 2.1 million people arriving in Germany in 2015, and 2.6 million in 2022. Germany’s coalition government has said it aims to attract 400,000 qualified workers from abroad annually to tackle labor shortages and demographic imbalances.

The desire for strong leadership is also on the rise in Germany as Russia’s war in Ukraine continues. Several of the AfD’s members have called for a separation from NATO and even the EU; many have turned to Russia, at least rhetorically, arguing that Germany needs to work with its neighbors. Sundermeyer told Foreign Policy that “the AfD is deeply anti-American but pro- Russian; anti-NATO and -EU, but in favor of turning toward alternative government structures such as authoritarianism.”

Meanwhile, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser continuously calls right-wing extremism the “greatest extremist threat to Germany’s democracy.”

Still, for all the Sonneberg residents who voted for the AfD’s candidate, Sesselmann—who did not respond to interview requests by Foreign Policy—there are almost as many people who did not. And unless it’s during the weekly Monday demonstrations, people don’t usually flaunt their political opinions. The day after the weekly protest, at a food stall selling bratwursts during the lunch hour, conversations revolved around work, the weather, increased food and energy prices, and even Germany’s reunification—“before it, everything was better,” several people agreed.

“In Sonneberg, many voted AfD out of spite, while others don’t take an interest in politics but cast their votes for the AfD regardless,” said Regina Müller, a 61-year-old Green Party voter who owns an organic store decorated with anti-war slogans.

But, she added, “what many here don’t see is that [the AfD] are wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

[raymondduggantravel]

5 Types of Surveys You Should Participate In—And Why It Matters

In today’s fast-paced world, businesses, organizations, and governments rely on accurate data to make decisions. One way they gather this valuable information is through surveys. You might have encountered many types of surveys online or in person, but did you know that your participation can significantly impact change? In this blog, we’ll explore five types of surveys, highlighting why they’re important and why you should consider participating.

1. Customer Satisfaction Surveys

Why They Matter:

Ever wondered why companies ask for your feedback after a purchase? Customer satisfaction surveys are a tool businesses use to gauge how well they meet customer expectations. The insights gained help companies improve their products, services, and overall customer experience.

Why You Should Participate:

Shape the future of products: By providing honest feedback, you influence how companies refine and develop their offerings.

Get better service: Your input helps businesses identify areas where they can improve, which could result in better services for you in the future.

Exclusive rewards: Many companies offer discounts or rewards for completing these surveys, making it a win-win situation for both you and the business.

2. Employee Engagement Surveys

Why They Matter:

Employee engagement surveys are conducted within organizations to understand how employees feel about their workplace. These surveys cover job satisfaction, management, work-life balance, and team dynamics.

Why You Should Participate:

Voice your opinion: If you’re employed, these surveys provide a safe platform to express your thoughts on management, company culture, and work conditions.

Improve your workplace: Honest feedback from employees can drive positive change, improve work environments, and increase job satisfaction for everyone.

Build better leadership: When management understands the concerns and suggestions of their teams, they can create policies and make decisions that support a more motivated and productive workforce.

3. Political Opinion Polls

Why They Matter:

Political opinion polls measure public sentiment about political issues, elections, or government performance. Polls like these inform political leaders, policymakers, and the media about public concerns and opinions.

Why You Should Participate:

Influence decision-making: Your voice adds to a collective view that could influence policy decisions and political discourse.

Shape the political landscape: Politicians and leaders often adjust their priorities based on what the public wants. Your input helps ensure that your concerns are addressed.

Understand trends: Participating in these surveys allows you to see where you stand in comparison to others and gain insight into broader societal trends.

4. Market Research Surveys

Why They Matter:

Market research surveys are used by companies to understand consumer behavior, preferences, and market trends. This research helps businesses decide what products to launch, how to price them, and how to market them.

Why You Should Participate:

Influence new products: Companies rely on feedback from people like you to decide what features to add or what products to create. Your opinion can directly affect future innovations.

Stay ahead of trends: By participating in market research, you often get a sneak peek at new products or services before they hit the market.

Get rewards: Many companies offer incentives such as cash, gift cards, or discounts for participating in market research surveys.

5. Health and Wellness Surveys

Why They Matter:

Health surveys are often conducted by government bodies, research organizations, or healthcare institutions to assess public health trends, study diseases, or improve healthcare services. These surveys play a critical role in shaping health policies and medical research.

Why You Should Participate:

Contribute to scientific research: Participating in health surveys can contribute to advancements in healthcare and medical research, potentially saving lives or improving the quality of care.

Raise awareness: Health surveys help identify trends in public health that may need attention, such as the rise of certain diseases or health conditions.

Improve healthcare services: Your participation allows healthcare providers to understand what patients need, leading to improved services, more targeted treatments, and better patient care.

Why Your Participation Matters:

By participating in surveys, you are helping companies, governments, and organizations make better decisions based on real data. Surveys allow decision-makers to better understand consumer and public needs, ultimately leading to improved products, services, policies, and societal well-being.

Here are three key reasons why you should participate in surveys:

Be heard: Surveys provide a platform where your opinion can directly impact the world around you.

Drive positive change: Whether it's about the workplace, healthcare, or politics, your input can lead to real, actionable change.

Gain benefits: In many cases, surveys come with rewards or incentives, allowing you to get something back in exchange for your time.

So the next time you come across a survey in your inbox or on a website, take a moment to consider participating. Your feedback matters more than you think!

Conclusion: From customer satisfaction surveys to political opinion polls, the surveys we take part in help shape our society. By sharing your thoughts and experiences, you contribute to a better future for everyone. Plus, it’s an easy way to ensure that your voice counts, while sometimes reaping personal rewards along the way!

CLICK HERE TO JOIN and REFER.

[careermantradotorg]

Tata Institute of Social Sciences: A Hub for Social Change and Academic Excellence

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) is one of India's most renowned institutions dedicated to higher education and research in social sciences. Established in 1936, TISS has evolved into a premier academic institution offering programs in a wide array of disciplines like social work, public policy, health, and education. Its legacy of contributing to social development and policy-making has earned it a reputation as a critical player in shaping India's social landscape.

Historical Background

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences was founded as the Sir Dorabji Tata Graduate School of Social Work. It was Asia's first school of social work, highlighting the foresight of its founders, who envisioned the need for well-trained social workers to address the pressing social issues of that time. Over the years, it grew into a multidisciplinary university, officially recognized as a Deemed University in 1964.

Mission and Vision

TISS’s mission is to create a humane and just society through education, research, and outreach. It aims to develop professionals who can address complex social, political, and economic issues with innovative solutions. The institute’s programs are designed to focus on human rights, social justice, and sustainable development.

Academic Programs and Courses

TISS offers a wide range of programs at undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral levels. Some of the key areas of study include:

Social Work: TISS is well-known for its Master’s program in Social Work (MSW), which prepares students to engage in community-based development work, social welfare, and advocacy.

Public Health: The institute offers programs that focus on health policy, health systems, and public health administration.

Human Resource Management: TISS is a sought-after institute for its postgraduate program in Human Resource Management and Labor Relations, recognized as one of the best in India.

Development Studies: This program addresses issues related to development policy, rural development, and urban studies, offering critical perspectives on national and global socio-economic challenges.

Education: The institute also has a strong presence in the education sector, providing degrees in education and teacher training programs aimed at transforming India's educational landscape.

Research and Impact

Research is one of the cornerstones of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The institute conducts cutting-edge research in areas like gender studies, poverty alleviation, mental health, disaster management, and governance. Its findings often influence national policies and contribute to positive social change.

TISS collaborates with government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international institutions to implement its research on the ground. The research centers at TISS include:

Centre for Social and Organizational Leadership (C SOL)

Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies (CSSEIP)

Centre for Human Rights

Each center focuses on a specialized area of social research, enabling TISS to contribute to a wide range of social and developmental issues.

Campuses and Facilities

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences has several campuses across India, with the main campus located in Mumbai. Other campuses are in Tuljapur (Maharashtra), Hyderabad (Telangana), and Guwahati (Assam). Each campus offers unique academic programs tailored to the socio-economic context of the region. The Mumbai campus, in particular, is known for its vibrant student life, state-of-the-art research facilities, and commitment to community engagement.

Admissions and Eligibility

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences conducts its own entrance exam known as TISS-NET for admission into various postgraduate programs. The eligibility criteria vary based on the program, but a bachelor's degree from a recognized institution is a minimum requirement. TISS-NET tests candidates on general awareness, English proficiency, and logical reasoning.

Notable Alumni and Contributions

TISS alumni have made significant contributions to various sectors, including public policy, social work, academia, and the corporate world. Many TISS graduates are working in leadership roles in NGOs, government bodies, international organizations, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

Conclusion

The Tata Institute of Social Sciences stands at the forefront of social science education and research in India. Its commitment to social justice, equity, and sustainable development makes it a unique institution. Through its academic programs, research initiatives, and community outreach, TISS continues to play a crucial role in addressing the most pressing social challenges of our time.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump is trying to normalize his fascist rantings by just repeating them a lot. That way they are no longer considered news and subject to outrage. But it still allows him to fire up his unhinged and violent base.

Donald Trump, just weeks after using the fascist terminology “vermin” to describe sections of American society he dislikes, again declared at a New Hampshire rally that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”. [ ... ] “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done,” Trump told the crowd. “They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America … but all over the world. “They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.” It is the second time Trump has used the poisoned blood phrase, which has been widely condemned for echoing white supremacist rhetoric. The first time he did so, in October, Joe Biden said the former president, who faces 91 criminal charges, was starting to use language heard in Nazi Germany.

Donald Trump is the true poisoner of public discourse in the United States. Things were notably nicer before 2015.

Trump probably is a cinch for the GOP nomination. Even if Nikki Haley does surprisingly well in New Hampshire, that will have little impact on Republican primaries in places like Texas, Tennessee, or Missouri. Trump's rhetoric is focused on the general election.

Mehdi Hasan describes Trump's strategy for fascist normalization.

The broadcaster Mehdi Hasan said on Saturday: “Classic Trump: say something crazy outrageous, neo-Nazi-like and it gets headlines, creates outrage. “So wait a little. Then say it again, no one notices, no coverage, and it gets normalized and mainstreamed. “Let’s be clear: migrants ‘poisoning the blood’ is Hitler rhetoric.”

In this rally Trump was quoting Vladimir Putin. That should give us some idea of whose best interests would be served by a Trump victory. Putin and Trump are certainly on the same page regarding hating liberal democracy.

Trump quotes Putin condemning American democracy, praises autocrat Orban

“Donald Trump sees American democracy as a sham and he wants to convince his followers to see it that way too,” said Jennifer Mercieca, a professor at Texas A&M University who researches democracy and rhetoric. “Putin hates western values like democracy and the rule of law, so does Trump.” Trump quoted Putin, the dictatorial Russia president who invaded neighboring Ukraine, criticizing the criminal charges against Trump, who is accused in four separate cases of falsifying business records in a hush money scheme, mishandling classified documents, and trying to overturn the 2020 election results. In the quotation, Putin agreed with Trump’s own attempts to portray the prosecutions as politically motivated. [ ... ] He went on to align himself with Orban, the Hungarian prime minister who has amassed functionally autocratic power through controlling the media and changing the country’s constitution. Orban has presented his leadership as a model of an “illiberal” state and has opposed immigration for leading to “mixed race” Europeans. Democratic world leaders have sought to isolate Orban for eroding civil liberties and bolstering ties with Putin. [ ... ] In the speech, Trump also repeated his own inflammatory language against undocumented immigrants, by accusing them of “poisoning the blood of our country” — a phrase that immigrant groups and civil rights advocates have condemned as reminiscent as Hitler in his book “Mein Kampf,” in which he told Germans to “care for the purity of their own blood” by eliminating Jews.

Calling out Trump and pointing out his dictator comments will have no effect on his hardcore MAGA fanatics. But the more wishy-washy Trump-curious voters might be a bit more open to well targeted criticisms – as long as we don't use the same type of rhetoric that liberals are usually associated with. In close elections, small groups of voters count a lot.

[indigenouspeopleday]

States must support leadership roles of Indigenous Youth.

The importance of ensuring meaningful decision-making for Indigenous Peoples is reliant on their youth, especially young Indigenous women and girls’ leadership and empowerment, a UN expert said today. Ahead of the International Day of World’s Indigenous Peoples, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cali Tzay urged States to take affirmative action to guarantee their full public and political participation as a crucial element for the realisation of Indigenous People’s right to self-determination. He issued the following statement: 

“Indigenous youth are particularly impacted by threats to their rights, livelihoods, and culture, including intergenerational impacts of the negative legacies of colonialism and disproportionate underrepresentation in formal decision-making, affecting even more young Indigenous women and girls. Racism and racial discrimination, stereotypes, and the lack of financial resources, support or engagement by public institutions and private entities remain persistent challenges for meaningful participation of Indigenous youth in decisions affecting them.

As we strive to address climate change and proceed to green transition, it is essential to adopt a human rights-based approach that upholds and integrates fundamental human rights principles, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples into the process. Indigenous youth should have a strong voice in “green transition” projects to address the social and environmental interventions and safeguards needed to protect the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples when economies shift to sustainable development practices to combat climate change and biodiversity loss.

Indigenous youth – especially young women and girls – are active change agents in society and champions of sustainability. Their scientific knowledge has a key role to play in safeguarding ecosystems, combating climate change and ensuring environmental justice and equity.”

ENDS

[worldwatcher3072]

Examining Democratic Norms:

Analyzing Concerns Surrounding Donald Trump's Policies

In the realm of politics, no figure has been as polarizing in recent memory as Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States. During his tenure from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, his policies and leadership style elicited varied responses from the public and experts alike. While some praised his efforts, others expressed concerns over the potential erosion of democratic norms. In this blog, we will analyze some of the policies associated with Trump's administration that raised questions about authoritarian tendencies and their implications for democratic institutions.

Attacks on the Media: Preserving Press Freedom

One of the key tenets of a robust democracy is a free and independent press. Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump frequently criticized the media, particularly when faced with critical coverage. The "fake news" label became a common refrain, creating an atmosphere of hostility and mistrust towards journalists and media outlets. Critics argued that this rhetoric undermined press freedom and the role of the media as a check on government power, which is a crucial safeguard in democratic societies.

Executive Orders: Balancing Executive Power and Checks

The use of executive orders is a legitimate tool for presidents to implement policy decisions swiftly. However, Trump's administration was known for its extensive use of executive orders, sometimes bypassing Congress to enact policies. Critics expressed concerns that this approach could weaken the checks and balances system that ensures a fair distribution of power among the three branches of government. While executive orders can expedite decision-making, they should be used judiciously and in accordance with democratic principles.

Immigration Policies: Striking a Balance

Trump's approach to immigration was a central point of contention during his presidency. The "Zero Tolerance" policy, which led to the separation of families at the border, sparked significant outcry and accusations of inhumanity. Critics argued that it prioritized border control over humanitarian considerations and raised questions about how democratic societies should balance border security and compassion.

Rhetoric and Division: Fostering Unity and Inclusivity

Trump's rhetoric often targeted specific ethnic and religious groups, and his language against political opponents and critics was at times inflammatory. Critics pointed out that such divisive rhetoric could exacerbate social divisions and undermine national unity. In democratic societies, leaders are expected to foster inclusive dialogue and promote a sense of unity among citizens, regardless of their political affiliations.

Pardons and Self-Pardoning: Upholding the Rule of Law

The presidential pardon power is an essential element of the U.S. Constitution, allowing presidents to grant clemency to individuals convicted of federal crimes. However, some of Trump's controversial pardons raised questions about the potential abuse of this power for political purposes. Additionally, discussions about the possibility of self-pardoning raised concerns about the limits of executive authority and the need to uphold the rule of law.

The Trump presidency was a tumultuous period in American politics, marked by both praise and criticism. While his policies may have resonated with some, others raised valid concerns about potential threats to democratic norms. It is crucial for citizens to engage in informed and respectful discussions about the impact of political actions on democratic institutions. By upholding democratic principles, promoting inclusivity, and safeguarding freedom of the press, we can collectively strengthen our democracy and ensure that it remains a beacon of liberty and justice for all.

[thinkingabouthistory]

The Politics of Homophobia: Examining the Intersection of Political Expediency and Nazi Ideology

This is the entirety of my first published piece of writing. Abstract

Homosexual men in Nazi Germany experienced legal and social oppression that was rooted in both the cultural homophobia of Twentieth Century Germany and the existential homophobia of high-ranking Nazi officials. However, the Nazi Regime’s enforcement of homonegative policy was not unilateral, often ignoring the actions of members of Nazi-affiliated groups. This inconsistency often resulted in leniency for party insiders, and brutality for gay men in occupied territory, and Nazi-era policy, reinforced by cultural homophobia, left a lasting effect on the legal treatment of gay men in West Germany. By using public comments and private correspondence, this paper explores the existential homophobia of Himmler, his influence on Hitler and the Nazi carceral system, and the inconsistencies of the Regime’s criminal enforcement of homonegative policies. Furthermore, by utilizing the memoirs of gay men, this paper explores the impact of homonegative policy on homosexual men that lacked proximity to power. Lastly, this paper utilizes court records and firsthand accounts to explore the post-war treatment of gay men in West Germany. This paper seeks to not only explain the origins and outcomes of Nazi homonegative policy, but also to understand patterns of homonegative rhetoric in order to combat queerphobic policies in our own society. Text

“Röhm, you are under arrest.” These words, uttered by Adolf Hitler in June 1934 during the Rӧhm Purge, changed the power dynamics of the Nazi Party. Hitler and Joseph Goebbels found Ernst Rӧhm and several other SA leaders with young SS officers, all in various states of undress, many caught having sex at the moment of their discovery. The Fuhrer, though, had greater concerns than Röhm’s sexual proclivities. He was there to oust a political rival. Röhm, sitting comfortably in a Bad Wiessee hotel room in a fashionable blue suit with a cigar in the corner of his mouth, responded with the simple words: “Heil, my Fuhrer.” Hitler shouted for his arrest a second time, and left Rӧhm’s hotel room. Rӧhm was escorted out of the Hotel Hanselbauer without a challenge, now a prisoner of the Nazi Regime, alongside dozens of SA men. On July 1st, 1934, Ernst Röhm was executed in his Munich cell. Despite the fact that Röhm was targeted as a threat to Hitler’s political power, the Nazi Regime made his homosexuality a key feature of the discussions surrounding his execution. On July 3rd, 1934, the Völkischer Beobachter, the official Nazi Party newspaper, ran articles discussing the Fuhrer’s swift squashing of a “second revolution,” as well as an article discussing how the German people were “saved from the serious danger” of homosexual subterfuge. Later, in August of 1934, Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler excitedly told Gestapo officers that the execution of Ernst Rӧhm was necessary to avoid “the capture of the state by homosexuals.” 

Prior to this attack on the SA’s leadership, now known as the Night of the Long Knives, Röhm’s homosexuality was not seen as much of an issue by Hitler and other members of Nazi leadership, so long as it was kept behind closed doors. The Nazi party tolerated homosexuality within its ranks, and Röhm’s Sturmabteilung (SA) cultivated an openly homosocial culture amongst its members. Other institutions within the Nazi Regime, like Heinrich Himmler’s Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Hitler Youth, cultivated a similar homosocial culture, and members of each organization were known to engage in homosexual acts. So why then was Röhm’s homsexuality manufactured as a crisis following his death?

In the wake of Röhm’s arrest and execution, the Nazi party increasingly targeted homosexual men. Scholars estimate that between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi Regime arrested more than 100,000 gay men for allegedly violating Reich Criminal Code Paragraph 175, which the regime revised in 1935 by broadening the definition of homosexuality and creating harsher penalties for those convicted of violating Paragraph 175. Further, the Nazis incarcerated as many as 15,000 gay men in concentration camps, and the testimonies of some concentration camp survivors suggest that gay men were among the most abused populations within the camps. How can we explain this change in legal and persecutorial practices?

While the Nazi Regime wielded accusations of homosexuality as a tool of political power, it is also the case that the Nazi persecution of gay men frankly represented the irreducible homophobia of leadership within the Nazi Regime. Despite the ideological homophobia of some Nazi leaders, the Nazi Regime was highly opportunistic in its implementation and enforcement of homonegative policy. This inconsistency often, though not always, resulted in leniency for Nazi Party insiders, and brutality for gay men in occupied territory, and solidified fear and isolation as key components of Germany’s Post-War queer culture. While homosexuality was conditionally tolerated in the early years of the Nazi regime, the conspiratorial beliefs of high-ranking Nazi officials, like Heinrich Himmler, coupled with the Nazi Party’s obsession with proliferation and purification of the Volkskörper, necessitated, within the framework of the Nazi ideology, the elimination, marginalization, or otherwise removal of homosexuality from German culture. 

As the Nazi Party solidified its control of the German state, the pursuit of a pure Volkskörper, or racial body, came into focus. To this end, the regime marginalized those considered racially impure, or those incapable of producing offspring; the Nazis, therefore, viewed homosexual men, unable to reproduce, as a drain on the Volksgemeinschaft. But the regime’s focus on procreation and family policy does not necessarily explain its violent suppression of homosexuality, or the murder of thousands of gay men. While not socially or politically prioritized, there is no evidence to suggest that the Nazi Regime murdered infertile women, for example, en masse. But cultural homophobia placed gay men on the fringes of society, which made violence against them easy to justify. Furthermore, accusations of homosexuality against political opposition became a very convenient weapon wielded by the Nazi Party. The vehement bigotry against gay men expressed by Heinrich Himmler filtered down to local police officers, which likely further desensitized Germans to violence against gay men, and pushed for the excision of homosexuality from German culture. After all, the Reich would do anything to rid the Volkskörper of a “cancer” like homosexuality. 

The history of homosexuality in Germany is colored in shades of gray. The Nazi Regime capitalized on cultural and religious homophobia, as well as a desensitization to violence powered by the Nazi propaganda apparatus, to commit atrocities against gay men. However, Germany in the late 19th Century was the home to the first proper homosexual movement. While Imperial Germany included Paragraph 175 in the legal code adopted in 1871, just after Germany unified, which criminalized homosexuality, there was also a robust movement for the destigmatization, decriminalization, and integration of homosexuality in mainstream German society as early as the 1890s. Early LGBT publications first began to appear in Germany during this period. And Magnus Hirschfeld founded the first gay rights organization, the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, in Berlin in 1897. Much of the gay rights activism happening in Imperial Germany, which included activism in support of gay men, lesbian women, bisexual folks, and transgender individuals, centered around the thesis of the innate nature of homosexuality, which posits that homosexuality, or any facet of queer identities, is naturally occurring and immutable. 

Colloquial understandings of the Weimar period (1919-1933) frame this era of Germany as sexually liberated and nearly utopian. In fact, Nazi propaganda disparaged the Weimar Republic’s social progressivism as a source of hedonism and degeneracy. However, far from liberated, the Weimar policy towards queer communities was repressive and shrouded in secrecy. Despite pressure from the burgeoning metropolitan queer community, most notably in Berlin, and a general sense of tolerance, the Weimar legislature did not repeal Paragraph 175. However, Weimar Germany’s federal system allowed for different states to adopt a policy of non-enforcement towards the persecution of gay men. During this period, while queer communities—gay men in particular—faced oppression from both the state and society at large, in many instances, gay men experienced greater freedom from the punishments of Paragraph 175, so long as they did not disturb broader society. It is in this environment of simultaneous secrecy and tolerance that a robust, yet ultimately underground, queer culture emerged in the Weimar republic, allowing for a golden age for queer communities in Germany, and in Berlin especially. In this period, Berlin’s queer community produced magazines, fiction literature, and art specifically for queer Germans. Gay men also had enclaves of social interaction, music, and performance in Germany’s gay bars and clubs, like the famous Eldorado night club.

The Weimar period represented a golden age for queer art, activism, and progress. Weimar Germany’s queer movement prioritized the social tolerance of some gay men over others. As a part of its respectability politics, the queer movement in the Weimar Republic promoted the image of hypermasculine homosexuality, and in many cases, hypermasculinity as homosexuality. These hypermasculine men, often engaged in dangerous work like timberwork, factory work, and even military service, were the face of the homosexual movement in Weimar Germany, often appearing as the main characters in homosexual fiction and as the focus of queer magazines in Berlin. These men represented the pinnacle of German masculinity, which many saw as legitimizing their sexuality to a heteronormative society. This version of homosexuality grew out of the various inter-war men’s groups, which brought together communities of disenfranchised veterans of the Great War, and fostered a homosocial culture between its members. In some cases, these groups even permitted homosexual and homoromantic relationships. This culture, which fostered many anti-war sentiments, may itself have its roots in the Wandervogel movement,  an anti-industrialist German youth movement that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Wandervogel faced a great deal of public backlash, in part because of its tolerance of homosexuality, which many Germans saw as a promotion of degeneracy. It is worth noting that, because of this focus on hypermasculine homosexuality, the queer movement in Germany often excluded effeminate or otherwise gender nonconforming gay men, out of fear that they may damage the movement’s respectability in broader culture. 

This golden era of German queer politics came to an abrupt end when the Nazi Regime took power. In June 1935, the Nazi Regime amended Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code as a part of a broad reformation of the German legal code, broadening the government’s definition of homosexuality and reclassifying the offense as felonious in nature. In the two years immediately following Hitler’s rise to power, the Nazi Regime had to collaborate with far-right and conservative political blocs in the Reichstag. This 1935 legal reform was likely an effort to shore up support from the German right-wing. Under this amended version of Paragraph 175, which legally conflated homosexual sex between men with bestiality, men engaging in “lustful acts” with other men could be imprisoned for as little as three months or as many as ten years. The inclusion of the language of “lustful acts” greatly increased the Nazi Regime’s power over homosexual men. Prior to the implementation of Paragraph 175a, the threshold for conviction under 175 was quite high, as prosecutors had to prove anal penetration in a para-coital fashion. This meant that non-penetrative sexual acts between men, including mutual masturbation and oral sex were difficult to prosecute. This changed with the 1935 amendments to 175. The regime, perhaps deliberately, failed to define “lustful acts,” which allowed local officers to individually interpret 175a. In some cases, “lustful acts” were as benign as being in an emotionally deep relationship with another man, regardless of its sexual nature or lack thereof. Lustful acts, as interpreted by local officers, included small acts of affection, like holding hands and kissing, as well as explicitly sexual acts like mutual masturbation and penetrative sex. But it also included “suspicious cohabitation,” which could be interpreted as homoromantic. 

The amendment, in its entirety, contains four subsections pertaining to male-male homosexual sex. Of these four, only one legislates consensual homosexual sex between adult men; the law made no mention of lesbianism or other homosexual acts between women. The other three sections dealth with male-male rape, sexual coercion, and male prostitution. Rape victimizing women was legislated through Paragraphs 176 and 177, the sexual coercion of women is legislated through Paragraph 179, and female prostitution is legislated through Paragraph 181. The Nazi regime separated rape, coercion, and prostitution as experienced by women in an effort to frame homosexual men as predatory and pedophilic. Furthermore, the statute includes language that highlights the criminality of relationships between men over the age of twenty-one and those under the age of twenty-one. Additionally, the statute includes provisions for men under twenty-one to receive a lighter sentence, or even face no criminal liability provided they engage in reform work. This reform work was often enrolled in anti-homosexual programs by the Hitler Youth.

Despite existing laws against homosexuality and the Nazi Party’s collaboration with the German conservative political bloc, Ernst Röhm, an openly gay man, was the commander of the SA, which was the Nazis’ paramilitary wing. As an early Nazi figure, he led the SA from its infancy in 1921 until his murder in 1934. In this role, he organized street fights, sabotages, and assassinations against socialists, communists, antifascists, and even random Germans in an attempt to cause chaos which could only be stopped by the Nazi Regime. The actions of the SA under Röhm were of great benefit to Hitler and the Nazi Party during its struggle for and rise to power, despite the fact that Röhm held great contempt for the bureaucracy of the Nazi Party. Despite the direction of the regime’s later actions, this does not appear to be a point of great contention within the early Nazi Party. In fact, there were many gay men in Röhm’s SA. This could be, in part, because the Nazi Party and the SA, much like the interwar men’s groups, fostered an informal homosocial environment. However, there were high-ranking Nazi officials who resented Röhm for his homosexuality, but ultimately allowed him to continue his work while it was useful. Additionally, Röhm was not above committing acts of violence and oppression against the queer community in Germany. Röhm’s SA commandeered the Eldorado, Berlin’s most famous gay bar, as the SA headquarters just ahead of the 1933 elections, and carried out raids on Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research on May 6th, 1933, just months after Hitler’s rise to power. 

Chief among these hesitantly permissive Nazis was Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer of the SS. During the Night of the Long Knives, Adolf Hitler ordered the arrest and execution of Röhm and many other Nazi Party members that he viewed as a threat to his control. As the result of intelligence meetings with Hermann Göring and Himmler, Hitler feared that Röhm was preparing to stage a coup. Additionally, Röhm’s SA was adamantly opposed to the continued involvement of traditional conservative elites, whom Hitler still required the support of, in the German government. Himmler was quick to share his satisfaction with Röhm’s death, telling SS officials that the regime had just narrowly avoided “capture of the state” by homosexuals. Himmler viewed homosexuality as an existential threat to the German state and his  conspiratorial homophobia influenced Adolf Hitler’s homonegative actions. Later, in February 1937, just as the regime began incarcerating racial, religious, and social enemies of the state, Himmler referred to homosexual men as a “cancer” on the Volkskörper in a speech given at a conference of SS officers. During this speech, Himmler stressed that the eradication of homosexuality from German culture was critical to the Aryan race’s survival and future, stating “all things which take place in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but signify the life and death of the nation.” As Reichsfuhrer SS and Chief of German Police since 1936, Himmler’s homophobia trickled down to many facets of the regime’s carceral system, with local police chiefs echoing Himmler’s existentialist fears and conspiratorial beliefs about the nature and consequences of gay men later in June of 1937. It is therefore likely that Himmler’s essentialist homophobia motivated the escalation and advancement of violence against gay men, and that his rhetoric desensitized the public to violence against an already maligned population.

This research is concerned with the intersection of political and legal justifications the Nazi Regime used to commit violence against gay men, and the cultural homophobia that facilitated this violence. It is therefore necessary to examine the individual experiences of gay men living in this intersection. To this end, this project will utilize memoirs and diaries written by gay men in Nazi Germany, like the writings of Gad Beck and Josef Kohout. This is done with a recognition that, particularly for memoirs written after the fact, the human memory is imperfect, fallible, and subject to its own biases. Additionally, this research will draw on Reich Criminal Code, Gestapo case files, and the transcriptions of speeches and remarks made by Nazi officials. This research is relying on translations of these documents, typically carried out by the US and British governments. Lastly, this research engages with the historiography of this topic by drawing from, supporting, or countering the work of historians who have previously written on this topic. This is of particular note because, through a combination of social stigmatization and the broad persistence of the criminalization of homosexuality in European and Euro-descendent countries, English-speaking scholars wrote relatively little on this subject prior to the new millennium. 

Homophobic crimes committed by the Nazi Regime are often seen as purely ideological; that the Nazi Party as a whole was concerned with homosexuality as an ideological ill. However, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels’ early tolerance of Ernst Röhm, as well as the accepted homosocial circles in early Nazi groups, suggest that the Nazis’ homophobia was not rooted strictly in an ideological opposition to queerness. The nature of early actions against queer communities, like SA raids on Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research, were likely the result of the Nazis’ desire to squash Weimar's social liberalism as a whole. Additionally, many queer folks were aligned with the Socialist and Communist parties, even as these parties held their own homophobic beliefs, making them political enemies early on. The very fact that Ernst Röhm was the head of the SA while being openly homosexual demonstrates that gay men that fell in line with the Nazi ideology could survive, provided their homosexuality remained a private affair. However, the Night of the Long Knives changed this.

Homosexuality was at once a great concern for the Nazi Regime as well as an easy and effective tool to oust political opposition. It was, at the same time, an existential threat to the German race, and a politically debilitating accusation to level against the opposition. While the enforcement of homonegative policies in Nazi Germany was inconsistent, they provide a clear window into the thought processes of high-ranking Nazi officials. Any suggestion that the Nazi persecution of gay men was done purely as a means of political expediency ignores how the Nazi Regime deliberately employed racialized language and weaponized the court systems to oppress gay men. Conversely, any argument that posits that the regime’s detestation of homosexuality is in any way comparable to the regime’s antisemitism ignores both the totality of exterminationist policies against Jewish people and the highly selective manner in which the Nazi Regime enforced homonegative policies. By focusing strictly on the legal mechanisms of Nazi homonegative policy, or only on the social and cultural homophobia that enabled these policies, the field has created a gap in research. There is a distinct intersection of political expediency and genuine homophobia that motivated Nazi homonegative violence. It is important to understand the intersection of political opportunism and essential homophobia when analyzing Nazi homonegative policy, as it is from that intersection that we see the greatest harm done to gay men. 

As the old hegemony fades, we are only now beginning to understand the Nazis’ persecution of homosexual men. Many countries in the western world continued to criminalize homosexuality in the decades after World War II, and queerness remains socially and politically stigmatized the world over. Laws against sodomy, which have historically been used to criminalize homosexuality, remained in place in a majority of US states throughout the 20th century, only being federally decriminalized in 2003. The United Kingdom did not decriminalize homosexuality until twenty years after World War II. It is likely that a culture that codified homonegativity and homophobia into law would place a lesser significance on the crimes the Nazi Regime committed against gay men. It is therefore unsurprising that scholars have placed a lesser focus on understanding the social, legal, ideological, and political roots of the Nazi Party’s violent and suppressive crimes against gay men. Furthermore, homosexual men never constituted more than one percent of all concentration camp inmates. This, coupled with the fact that the Nazi Regime additionally identified many men sent to concentration camps for homosexuality as sexual or racial criminals, meaning that, although the treatment of homosexual men was abhorrent, they remained a small enough population in the broader victimology of Nazi crimes against humanity, allowing them to be easily overlooked. The issue remained dramatically under-researched for roughly fifty years after the fall of the Nazi Regime, gaining early interest in the 1990s, with research accelerating and broadening in the late 2000s and early 2010s. 

A great deal of research into the Nazis’ persecution of queerness has been done in the past thirty years, with the bulk of such research occurring in just the past ten. In that time, the historical interrogations of the Nazi Party’s oppression of gay men broadly follow two trends. Firstly, historians have investigated the persecution of gay men through a legal and political lens, seeking to understand the criminal codes, judicial decisions, and political prescriptions that advanced homonegative action in Nazi Germany. These historians are generally concerned with the mechanics of Nazi oppression, or the “how.” Subsequently, they rely heavily on political and legal documentation that demonstrates the direction and execution of Nazi homonegative policy at a local, state, and federal level. However, other historians have chosen to focus on the ideological underpinnings of Nazi homophobia, or the “why.” These historians examine the social and political origins of the Nazis’ oppression of gay men, particularly as they relate to Nazi conceptions of masculinity and Nazi racial science. And to that end, these historians examine memoirs, interrogation records, propaganda, and Weimar-era queer politics to understand Nazi homophobia. These trends are not mutually exclusive, and can feature significant overlap. However, different adjacent fields clearly influence the respective foci of these historians, and their writings therefore diverge in meaningful ways.

Historians concerned with the political and legal underpinnings of the Nazi oppression of gay men, subsequently referred to as our legal historians, explore the Nazi Regime’s use of the legal system to persecute gay men. The work of historian Geoffrey Giles examines the methods that Nazi judges, Kripo officers, and Gestapo officers used to twist and weaponize the German legal code to justify the castration of homosexual men. Giles argues that Nazi police used “exceptional zeal in prosecuting actual or supposed homosexuals” and that “the lines of definition were blurred” pursuant to the ends of castrating homosexual men for the crime of homosexuality. Giles would later argue that the regime broadened the legal definition of homosexuality, in part, to tighten social control and shore up support from the conservative bloc. He additionally argues that the Nazi Regime weaponized the reactionary conservative courts in an effort to capitalize on cultural homophobia and build political consensus among the German right wing. In both of these works, Giles utilizes court records, Kripo files, and the Nazi legal code itself to build his case. In both his writing and his source work, Giles has deeply influenced subsequent scholarship, and his work represents the forefront of legal history regarding this subject. 

Since the turn of the millennium, historians have continued to analyze the Nazi persecution of gay men through a variety of academic lenses, and many of these historians, who will be referred to as our social historians, have interrogated the sociopolitical underpinnings of Nazi homonegative policy and violence. Social history is a broad field, and scholars who utilize this style of inquiry employ many angles of analysis. The historians outlined here utilize gender as their primary lens of analysis, but categorizing their work as strictly “gender history” is not entirely accurate, as they also employ an interdisciplinary understanding of sexuality, power, and racialization to understand the Nazi persecution of gay men. Dr. Clayton Whisnant has written two extensive texts on queerness in Germany. The first of these texts, Queer Identities and Politics in Germany, 1880-1945, published in 2016, examines the political movements of the flourishing underground queer culture throughout the first half of the 20th century. Whisnant argues that the Nazi regime was particularly brutal in its legal and extralegal persecution of gay men, noting that many gay men died extra judiciously in concentration camps as a result “cruel and sadistic games” that targeted these men, who were seen as failing to live up to the hegemonic ideal of German masculinity. Subsequently, Dr. Jason Crouthamel expanded on this idea of the hegemonic ideal of German masculinity by using the interrogation records of homosexual World War I veterans to illustrate how these men reconciled their masculinity and gendered expectations with their sexuality. Using these men as examples, Crouthamel argues that the Nazi Regime targeted homosexuals, in part, because homosexual men asserting their “agency” and masculinity threatened Nazi images of masculinity as an inherently heterosexual trait. These historians employ a modern understanding of gender as performance, as well as memoirs, interviews, and Nazi political speeches to build their case, supplementing their arguments with the foundation of legal history built by scholars like Giles. 

The Nazi persecution of queerness is a subject that is sadly under-researched, with the experiences of lesbian women and transgender folks constituting a significant gap in the historiography. However, Dr. Laurie Marhoefer has proven to be as influential in social history literature as Dr. Giles is for the legal history of the subject. Dr. Marhoefer published a robust microhistory on the persecution of lesbians and gender nonconforming folks in Nazi Germany. Marhoefer argues that the Nazi Regime had a broad definition of lesbianism, similar to their broad definition of homosexuality as it related to men, and that transgender, gender nonconforming individuals, and women engaged in same-sex relationships were at unseen and subtle social risk in Nazi Germany. Their work expands historical definitions of persecution, and considers “the concept of risk” as experienced by lesbians, transgender folks, and gender nonconforming folks. Dr. Marhoefer utilizes gender and queer theories that position gender as a social performance and sexuality as fluid, and explores the sexual liberalism of the Weimar period through these theories. They argue that the sexual tolerance of the Weimar Republic was conditionally ensured by the comfort of a heteronormative society, meaning that queerness needed to be kept behind closed doors or sectioned off from polite society, which had the knock on effect of denouncing gender nonconformity and platforming the image of hypermasculine performance as an expression of homosexuality. In the eyes of many movement leaders, gay men needed to conform to the ideal of German masculinity in order for their social and sexual identities to be tolerated, if not necessarily validated, by the broader culture. These factors, Marhoefer argues, all but guaranteed that Nazi Party’s reactionary fascism would easily dismantle the sexual liberalism of the Weimar Republic. The echoes of Dr. Marhoefer’s work can be seen in much of the history written in the past seven years, as historians like Whisnant and Crouthamel iterate on Marhoefer’s ideas of masculine performance and queer respectability politics in Nazi Germany. 

Some historians have used the framework of social history to explore the homosocial environments of Nazi Regime institutions, like the Schutzstaffel, the Sturmabteilung, the Hitler Youth, and the German military. Giles explores the contradictions between Nazi political rhetoric and the observed reality of the SS. In doing so, he asserts that Himmler’s unwillingness to acknowledge the homosocial culture of the SS was likely a result of the Nazi Regime’s desire to maintain ideological consistency. The SS needed to maintain its image as a racially perfect institution. However, racialized language of degeneracy and cancer ascribed to homosexuals by the Nazi Regime, and especially by Heinrich Himmler himself, would have complicated that racially pure image should the SS be seen as a homosocial group. Giles, in this work and others, makes frequent references to Heinrich Himmler’s personal homophobia, and cites speeches wherein the Reichsführer of the SS refers to homosexuals as a disease of the Volkskörper. 

The study of the Nazi persecution of homosexuality is a small field still in its relative infancy compared to other segments of Holocaust histories. This is likely due to the present but diminishing social stigma around queerness; as queerness continues to be destigmatized, a greater number of queer historians and historians interested in queer histories will no doubt enter the field and advance the historiography. These new historians will likely continue to analyze Nazi persecution through interdisciplinary lenses, building on the legal history of scholars like Geoffrey Giles, and continuing the work of social historians like Jason Crouthamel, Clayton Whisnant, and Laurie Marhoefer. Some historians, like Giles and Marhoefer, are academic trailblazers, carving a new niche in the field and exploring questions previously unanswered. Others will build theoretically rigorous and detailed works situated comfortably within those niches, such as Whisnant’s two-part book series on queer politics in Germany. It is therefore the goal of this work to navigate the intersections of the legal and social histories laid out by prior historians, and to understand ideological and political causes of the Nazi persecution of gay men. 

To address this gap in historiography, and to understand the overlaps of political expediency and Nazi homophobia, it is important to draw from a wide variety of documents. The nature of researching the Nazi Regime’s crimes necessitates using a great deal of perpetrator documents, such as Gestapo case files, Nazi speeches, and governmental decrees. Additionally, the relative lack of interest in the Nazi persecution of gay men until the 1990s means that very few contemporary documents from ally governments pay close attention to the treatment of gay men in Nazi Germany. Much of what we know from the individual perspective comes from a combination of legal records and the very few memoirs of gay concentration camp survivors, who suffered a death rate as high as 60%. In order to get a clear picture of Nazi homonegative policy and its implementation, the memoirs of Josef Kohout and Gad Beck are of particular importance. These humanizing stories demonstrate both the resiliency of those targeted by Nazi oppression and the cruelty of the regime, and are therefore critical to understanding the human cost of Nazi homonegative politics.

A young German Jewish man, against all odds, deceived a Schutzstaffel officer tasked with overseeing the deportation of Jews from Berlin. By disguising himself as a member of the Hitler Youth, he was able to sneak into the processing area and save a young man just before hundreds of other Jewish folks were sent away on the rails. But he did not do this for himself. He was not trapped there. He did this for one chance to free his lover, Manfred Lewin. But, to the man’s shock, this would still be their last embrace. “I can’t go with you,” Lewin told his brave partner. “My family needs me. If I abandon them now, I could never be free.” And so, with a stoic look of resolve, Lewin turned and left his young lover, returning to his family bound for Nazi incarceration. In 1942, Manfred Lewin and his family died in Auschwitz. Gad Beck remembered the pain of losing his young partner until his death in 2012. Of that day, Beck said “In those seconds, watching him go, I grew up.” The pain that Beck experienced, and the pain he saw inflicted on those around him, pushed him to action. In 1942, shortly after Beck learned of Manfred Lewin’s death at the hands of the Nazis, Beck joined the Chug Chaluzi, a Jewish resistance group whose name translates to “Pioneer Circle,” which worked to help German Jews escape the Nazi reign of terror to Switzerland. Gad Beck passed away in 2012, just weeks before his 89th birthday. Though he saw himself as only a small part of antifascist resistance in Nazi Germany, he continues to be regarded as a hero.

Beck’s memoir, published in 2014, two years after his death, tells a familiar and heartbreaking story of a man’s life torn asunder by war, and how he was pushed into action by the pain and loss all around him in Austria. He dedicated his life at the time to helping Jews in German occupied territory escape to Switzerland, but he never escaped himself. He withstood arrests, beatings, shootouts, and air raids because of his antifascist work. Gad Beck’s memoir is dripping with pain; in every interaction, the words remembered by this man are colored by sadness and fear, but defiance and bravery above all else. Beck’s story is one of an antifascist organizer, who survived the Nazi Regime’s reign of terror through community action. Other survivors, like Josef Kohout, were regular civilians who survived by chance, and experienced brutal violence and vindictive experimentation in Nazi concentration camps.

The intersection of politics and bigotry is emblematic of many of the Nazi Regime’s greatest crimes. In his dictated memoir, originally published in 1972 by his friend Hans Neumann under the pseudonym Heinz Heger, Kohout outlines his experience as a gay man under Nazi rule.  Kohout was in a relationship with the son of a Nazi official for about a year, from March 1938, until Kohout was arrested by the Gestapo in March 1939. It is of particular note that the son of the Nazi official was not arrested like Kohout. Despite the regime’s position on homosexuality, it was not uncommon for men, and young men in particular, with connections to party officials to avoid incarceration for homosexual activity. Many young men, especially those in the SS or with connections to the SS, had their sentences commuted. Josef Kohout was not so lucky, nor so well-connected. 

Josef Kohout’s memoir provides a grizzly depiction of life inside a Nazi concentration camp from the perspective of a gay man. The Nazi courts sentenced Kohout to just under a year in prison for ongoing and persistent homosexual behavior. However, upon his release in 1940, he was simply greeted by an SS officer, who took him from his prison in Austria to the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen. This camp was his prison and home for the next five years, until the Allied Forces liberated the camps after the war. While Kohout was in the concentration camp, Nazi scientists forced a whole host of experiments on the homosexual men in its population. Some of these experiments harken back to Imperial and Weimar Germany’s scientific exploration of curing homosexuality, including the splicing of heterosexual mens’ testicles into the scrotum of homosexual men. The Nazi psychiatrists experimenting on the Sachsenhausen population also tried behavioral training to rid men of their homosexual tendencies. Kohout recalls “compulsory and regular visits to the brothel in Flossenbürg” as one such method of social reinforcement, and SS guards sexually assaulting gay men as another. 

SS guards in Sachsenhausen brutally mistreated gay prisoners; some guards used foreign objects like batons to rape male prisoners. The guards were so ruthless that at least one prisoner died from injuries sustained during the abuse. SS officers justified their actions by describing them as a punishment they had carried out on behalf of the regime. Nazi leaders never disciplined these guards for their actions, and the regime’s inaction illustrates the gap in enforcement of Nazi homonegative policies between German civilians and Nazi officials. Nazi officials, so long as they were sufficiently well-connected or acting in the interest of the regime’s racial policies, could typically avoid significant punishment for homosexuality. However, civilians without these connections to the regime could expect incarceration, violence, and even death for their homosexuality. The life that Kohout details is gut-wrenching, and he takes great care to describe the heartbreak and devastation felt by these men, many of whom were driven to suicide while in the camps. Lamenting the circumstances of his incarceration, he asks “What does it say about the world we live in, if an adult man is told how and whom he should love? And what does it say if that world would see him dead?” That question points to the heart of this overlap between the political and the ideological. Kohout went to prison, and later a concentration camp for his homosexuality. But his well-connected partner faced no such consequences, in part because there was no political value in sending an otherwise upstanding Aryan of military age with connections to the Nazi Party to a concentration camp for a supposedly one-off homosexual relationship.

In 1941, Adolf Hitler issued a decree ordering the execution of any SS or police officer found to have engaged in homosexual activity “in an effort to keep the SS and Police clean of vermin with homsexual inclinations.” This decree was meant to apply to SS and police officers “instead of §§175 and 175a of the Reich Penal Code.” The punishment under criminal code 175a was intentionally broad. Convicts could expect anywhere between three months and ten years in prison for their homosexual activity. However, men under twenty-one may have their punishments commuted, or carried out through the Hitler Youth, further illustrating the inconsistency of enforcement of Paragraph 175a. That same year, Hitler argued in a speech that members of the Hitler Youth who engaged in homosexual actions should also be executed. These policies were not vigorously enforced; very few members of the SS or police were executed for homosexuality. However, the fact that Hitler issued these decrees and policies demonstrates the regime’s concern with homosexuality as a societal and racial ill that the supposedly racially perfect Nazi Party should be free from. The racialization of homosexuality both proves how important ridding German society of homosexuality was to several high-ranking Nazi officials, and how effective the use of homosexuality as a smear against political opponents was in the social and political environment of Nazi Germany.

While internal policy against homosexuality in the Nazi Regime was not particularly clear or consistent, the regime emboldened and weaponized cultural homophobia against those seen as a political threat to the power of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle. The Nazi Regime killed or ousted multiple Nazi officials or affiliates under accusations of homosexuality, accurate or otherwise. In addition to Ernst Rӧhm’s execution, the regime ousted Werner von Fritsch, who served as the Commander in Chief of the German Army from 1934 to 1938, under false accusations of homosexuality. Fritsch was an old guard conservative from the pre-Nazi military, and by all accounts, an excellent commander. He did, however, oppose the infiltration of the military with political operatives, as he believed that “such influences can lead only to fragmentation and dissolution.” From an early point in the Nazi Regime, Fritsch felt that Hitler was attempting to seize control of the military for political purposes. His suspicions would, of course, prove to be correct. He was also deeply distrustful of Heinrich Himmler and the SS, noting that many of his commanding officers felt that the SS was “spying” on them, and that the SS was the sole Nazi Party institution with which Fritsch could not reconcile. While Fritsch singularly refutes the accusations leveled against him, the slightest whiff of homosexuality in Nazi politics was powerful enough to have him removed from his post.

Four years prior to Fritsch’s ousting, Himmler was all too happy to point to Ernst Rӧhm’s homosexuality as a justification for his murder, and after 1934, Himmler spoke regularly about his belief that homosexuality was a “cancer” or a “virus on the Volkskörper.” This demonstrates that Heinrich Himmler had a clear record of using his conspiratorial homophobia as a tool of consensus building throughout the course of the Nazi Regime’s reign. Himmler believed that homosexuality was an existential threat to the German race, and that conspiratorial homophobia was no doubt shared by other Germans, and weaponized by the regime to justify pushing out or killing political opposition. Heinrich Himmler was adamant that homosexuality be stomped out, and he believed that it should be extinguished harshly within the regime’s internal bodies. It was, in fact, Himmler that pushed Hitler to issue his 1941 Decree on Preserving the Purity of the SS and Police, wherein Hitler delegates all power of enforcement of said decree to the Reichsfuhrer SS. However, it is worth noting that Himmler executed relatively few SS or police officers for their homosexuality. Himmler nearly always commuted their sentences, and dramatically downplayed the occurrence of homosexual incidents within the regime. Such niceties were almost never afforded to civilians convicted of homosexual acts, especially not those seen as racially inferior. The Nazi Regime prosecuted more than 100,000 men under Paragraph 175a, and as many as 15,000 were sent to concentration camps, including veterans of the Great War. The regime wielded homophobia as a careful tactic of political subterfuge within its own ranks, and a bloody mace to the queer men of its occupied territories. The inconsistency with which the Nazi Regime enforced homonegative policies reveals the role that political opportunism played in the persecution of gay men.

Because of the shockingly high mortality rate of gay men in Nazi concentration camps, we have very few firsthand accounts of the experiences of gay men under the Nazi Regime. However, those we do have tell the story of men who struggled to be seen during the Weimar period, and struggled to be seen as human after the Nazis’ rise to power. High-ranking Nazi officials, especially Heinrich Himmler, pushed this dehumanization of gay men. He spoke of gay men in the language of Nazi race science, framing them as a cancer to the Volkskörper, and believed that homosexuality must be eradicated, socially or physically, to ensure a healthy and prosperous Volksgemeinschaft. By couching homophobic propaganda in the language of Nazi race science and weaving in long held stereotypes about gay men, the Nazi regime was able to desensitize the public to violence against gay men, and exert violent suppressive forces on queer communities. But this conspiratorial homophobia was not weaponized universally, as Himmler regularly commuted the death sentences of SS and police officers found to have engaged in homosexual activity. Instead, the Nazi Regime used homophobia selectively, often as a political weapon.

Adolf Hitler was far more concerned with Ernst Rӧhm’s capacity to obstruct his rise to power than his homosexuality. While Heinrich Himmler stoked fears about homosexuals as an existential threat to the regime, Hitler was concerned with the political power accumulated by Rӧhm and his SA. In short, Rӧhm was a threat to Hitler’s autocratic power. That is why Hitler went to Rӧhm personally to have him arrested in Munich. Hitler wanted to ensure that Rӧhm was removed from power, and that Hitler could execute total control over the Nazi political, legal, and social systems. In 1938, four years after Rӧhm’s execution, Werner von Fritsch was forced out of his position as the Commander in Chief of the German military under false accusations that he was a homosexual. Fritsch remarked that he believed that this was done so that Hitler could seize total control of the German military, and that homosexuality was simply a convenient political cudgel that would allow the Fuhrer to do this. Furthermore, those with connections to the SS, like the young partner of Josef Kohout, would often skirt consequences, even though the expanded language of Paragraph 175a would surely stand as grounds for their incarceration. It seems that, more than anything, Hitler’s 1941 decree demanding the execution of gay men in the SS and German police was posturing, designed to condemn homosexuality within its ranks and identify homosexuality as an existential threat to the German people. The lack of any meaningful enforcement reveals this move to be little more than political theater.

With the end of the war in 1945, the Allies occupied Germany until 1949, creating a fractured German state in which the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France oversaw the rebuilding of German systems of governance, while also playing out the early stages of Cold War proxy-politics. During this period, the experiences of gay men varied greatly depending on which nation occupied their particular piece of Germany. For gay Germans in the southwest French-occupied Germany, a return to the Weimar period’s non-enforcement allowed for cautious celebration in the post-war years. However, the Soviet Union’s policies towards homosexuality in eastern Germany in this period required gay men to remain largely hidden, and any attempt for queer populations to advocate for themselves were “thwarted at every turn by the GDR (German Democratic Republic) and the SED (Socialist Union of Germany) party.” And the enforcement of Paragraph 175 that occurred in American and British occupied Germany signaled the future of German policy towards homosexuality in the post-war years. The anti-LGBT policies of the United States and Great Britain (which eventually combined with French-occupied Germany into what would become the Federal Republic of Germany) likely contributed to the ready enforcement of Paragraph 175, but powerful fundamentalist Protestant churches, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, exercised considerable influence over West Germany’s post-war politics, especially as they related to gay men.

The collapse of the Nazi Regime in 1945 brought about reform, occupation, and a forced reckoning with the crime of the Third Reich. Although the Allied occupation of Germany in the years following the war included some denazification efforts in the criminal code and governmental structures of Germany, it did not include a total reexamination of the Reich Criminal Code. The Allied Forces, motivated in part by the early rumblings of Cold War tensions, had a series of conflicting approaches to the reconstruction of Germany. Likely in an attempt to maintain the legal tradition of Germany, the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany’s constitutional document) ended up drawing extensively from the constitution of the Weimar Republic, which kept much of the pre-Nazi legal code intact. On paper, this should have left gay men in, more or less, the same legal position they had been before Hitler’s rise to power. However, it is notable that, not only did the Federal Republic of Germany keep Paragraph 175 on the books, in 1949 the legislature chose to keep the Nazi Regime’s amendment to the law as well, allowing for harsh prison sentences and broader interpretations for homosexual acts in Germany. While Articles 1 and 20 of the Basic Law are protected by eternity clauses, which explicitly refute principles of National Socialism and are meant to prevent the rise of another autocrat, the legal persecution of gay men escalated in comparison to the relaxed Weimar era interpretation of Paragraph 175. With regards to the treatment of gay men, the post-war period can be seen as a backslide that moved Germany from its progressive history in the Weimar era towards legal practices roughly in line with other Western liberal democracies of the time.

The political power of Christian fundamentalism in the governance of West Germany can be clearly seen in the Federal Republic’s legislation of morality, and draws apt comparisons to the emerging religious right of the United States. Prior to the Nazi Regime, religiously affiliated political parties, like the big tent class-spanning Catholic Centre Party, held massive cultural and political influence in Germany. And after the collapse of the Nazi Regime, former members of the Catholic Centre Party formed the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in coalition with leaders from other center-right parties. The CDU constituted the dominant political bloc in West Germany until 1969, and it remains a notable force in German politics to this day. Often building center-right coalitions, the CDU capitalized on Germany’s long held religiosity to implement social and economic reform that brought post-war Germany in line with other Western democracies. The CDU, adopting many of the positions of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, was adamantly anti-LGBT, which likely contributed to legislative oversights in the de-Nazification of the German criminal code, and the active pursuit of gay communities that were not broadly prosecuted during the Weimar period. 

In 1949, a young gay man of just 16 years would know nothing but the harsh criminalization of his sexuality. While the post-war government was certainly not taking the same extreme and extrajudicial measures that the Nazi Regime had taken with regards to homosexuality, the Federal Republic certainly took a harsher, more conservative stance against homosexuality than the essentially dead-letter interpretation that was dominant in Weimar-era cities. Certainly, the democratization of post-war Germany allowed for some of these laws to be challenged, and Paragraph 175 was certainly challenged. In 1951, two men referred to in court documents as Günter R. and Oskar K., challenged the constitutionality of Paragraph 175. Attempting to appeal a Paragraph 175 conviction, their case dragged on for six years, suggesting the complexity of the constitutional questions at play in this case. The appellates argued that law violated the founding principles of the Federal Republic, which positioned the Nazi Regime and Nazi laws as criminal in nature. The appellates argued that Paragraph 175, especially in its current form, represented an “embodiment of National Socialist racial thought.” Furthermore, the two men, who had been convicted of homosexual acts under Paragraph 175, argued that the law violated Article 2 of the Basic Law, which guaranteed each individual the right to “free development of his personality.” And lastly, the appellates argued that, because Paragraph 175 criminalized homosexuality between men, but not between women, it also violated Article 3, which guaranteed the equal rights of men and women. 

The appellates in this case, which was officially decided by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1957, sought to repeal Paragraph 175 and decriminalize homosexuality in Germany. However, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that Paragraph 175 denied the appeal on every ground. The Federal Constitutional Court’s sitting president Josef Wintrich drafted the opinion. Wintrich was a conservative legal scholar from Munich who had previously had his license to practice law revoked by the Nazi Regime after raising concerns about the skyrocketing death tolls in Dachau. According to historian Robert Moeller, with this decision, West Germany’s highest court “unambiguously expressed its view that the criminalization of male homosexual activity violated no part of the Basic Law nor did it undermine the foundations of a ‘free democracy.’” Concerning the claim that Paragraph 175 was an embodiment of Nazi racial thought, the courts determined that Paragraph 175 was not a law “shaped by National Socialism to such a degree that it should be denied force in a free democratic state,” suggesting that the criminalization of homosexuality is not inherently tied to Nazi ideology, as the Allies occasionally enforced Paragraph 175 during their occupation. Additionally, the courts argue that all contemporary Western democracies, with the exception of France, similarly criminalized homosexuality, meaning that the criminalization of homosexuality was not antithetical to liberal democracy in the same way that National Socialism had been. The Constitutional Court’s position on this issue made clear that the legal persecution of gay men fell with in the bounds of the German state’s interpretation of liberal democratic values, motivated in no small part by the anti-LGBT laws of the Allied Nations. 

The Constitutional Court further argued that Paragraph 175 did not violate Article 2 of the Basic Law because Germany’s historical moral law supersedes even the Basic Law. The courts stated “In Germany, the laws justifying the punishment of homosexual immorality have always made reference to the moral views of the people [...] Moral sensibility still condemns homosexuality today.” In its final refutation, the Constitutional Court asserted that Paragraph 175 did not violate Article 3 of the Basic Law because the differences between a relationship between homosexual men and lesbian women is so vastly different as to be totally incomparable. The court pointed to everything from the perceived differences in the sex drives of men and women, to the supposedly predatory nature of male-male homosexuality in teens, to even blurred lines between intense female friendships and outright lesbianism that apparently do not exist in male-male relationships. The court dedicated the majority of its opinion to refuting the appeal on the grounds of Article 3, solidifying male-male homosexuality as criminal, and lesbianism as essentially non-existent. The concerted effort to maintain a German legal tradition created a continuity of criminal enforcement that persisted from one regime to the next, and subsequently rehabilitated German homonegativity under “explicitly Christian auspices.”

Queer men and women in post-war Germany created an underground queer culture that more closely resembled the United States’ queer culture than it did the Weimar Period’s golden age, in part as a response to the religiously motivated repression exercised by the Federal Republic. With the 1957 Federal Constitutional Court case decision, Germany solidified its homonegative policy for another 11 years, until the Federal Republic decriminalized homosexuality in 1969. For 24 years, gay men that had survived the Nazi Regime, and those born after it, continued to live an exceptionally underground existence, fearing criminal repercussions, motivated in large part by the massive influence of the Christian Democratic Union, the major political force in post-war Germany. The CDU, frequently in coalition with the Free Democratic Party, drew many of its foundational social policies from fundamentalist Protestant movements in the post-war period. In the 1950s, both the United States and Germany dedicated government resources to the judicial disruption of queer communities. The willingness of German criminal courts to prosecute Paragraph 175 charges allowed for the German police to exercise nearly indiscriminate force when disbanding gatherings of gay men, sheltered by a hegemonic Christian culture that lambasted homosexuality. This was similar to the “vice squads” that existed in many major American cities. These vice squads patrolled known gay communities, harassing, beating, and arresting gay men. American vice squads are perhaps most famous for their raids of gay bars, and for violently breaking up hookups. However, they were also responsible for violence against gay activists, and regularly advocated against prosecuting crimes committed against gay men. Additionally, in the United States as in Germany, much of the anti-queer policies were motivated by fundamentalist Protestant values, which have been a cornerstone of American conservatism since its inception.

While continued criminal prosecution drove many queer communities in the Federal Republic underground, it is in that subversive locale that much of the post-war queer culture thrived. As has always been the case, communities of homosexual engagement, or “scenes,” existed in post-war Germany at the local level, often operating out of bars, night clubs, apartment complexes, and other community centers typically associated with urbanization. These scenes were diverse in their navigation of the post-war criminal justice system, but often shared many similarities, both with each other, and with the historic strategies of the Weimar homosexual movement. Gay men in major cities could often avoid prosecution, due to a combination of more liberal local law enforcement and a greater access to large bodies of tight-lipped gay men willing to protect one another. These communities protected themselves by owning businesses that could operate as covers for gay scenes. Additionally, these businesses served to entrench the owners and the patrons as members of a given community. The post-war liberalization of the German economy actually allowed for Hamburg bars and nightclubs to cultivate several thriving queer scenes, even rivaling Berlin as the home of German queer culture throughout the 1950s.

Similar to the patterns that can be observed during the Weimar period, gay men in post-war Germany did not face equilateral prosecution; gay men in rural communities had much smaller social support networks, and were often faced with much more harshly conservative local politics. These rural gay men, therefore, faced much more extreme scrutiny from local law enforcement, and more open violence and discrimination than their urban counterparts. Urban communities in West Germany maintained much of the Marxist social and political structures that existed in cities during the Weimar period, and could therefore rely on non-hegemonic social structures for support. Additionally, urban scenes benefited from rhetorical defenses from the budding sexual liberation movement in German cities, which often saw sexual repression and capitalist exploitation as interconnected. However, rural gay men lacked community centers amenable to their sexuality. Local homonegative policy often stemmed directly from religious institutions, including both protestant and Catholic churches. Additionally, most rural communities lacked multiple bars to differentiate queer friendly spaces from heteronormative ones, let alone access to something as metropolitan as a nightclub. That isn’t to say that gay men in rural West Germany were completely isolated; there were simply more barriers to homosexual expression in rural communities, a pattern which persists today regardless of the nation.

In urban scenes like those in Berlin and Hamburg, gay men lived lives not dissimilar from the lives of gay men in major US cities; tenuously engaging with their sexuality, working to create a meaningful career for themselves, and desperately hoping for legislative change. Albrecht Becker perhaps embodies the ideal situation for gay men in post-war West Germany. Becker volunteered for service in the German military during the war as a way of lessening his sentence after his 1941 conviction under Paragraph 175. After the Nazi Regime decommissioned him in March of 1945, after being struck by shrapnel on the Eastern Front, Becker worked as a translator for the Allied Forces until 1947. After the Allied occupation of West Germany, Becker began working as a set designer for film studios in Hamburg. He also worked in theater, and moonlit as an opera performer. Becker hid his relationships from the public, but it was well known in Hamburg that he was gay. When he was interviewed by the University of Southern California in 1997, at the age of 91, he spoke about the good fortune he had to navigate Hamburg as a gay man, but that he never ignored the plight of gay men outside of Hamburg and Berlin. Becker spent much of his life as an outspoken advocate for queer liberation, and tattooed nearly every inch of his body beneath clothes with the stories of LGBT people he encountered in his work. But Becker remained closed off about his sexuality, even in the relatively safe environment of Hamburg, until the Federal Republic decriminalized homosexuality in 1969.

When asked about the post-war period, Albrecht Becker stated that the oppression that had occurred during the Holocaust wasn’t talked about amongst the public. While the West German government had to wrestle with the legacy of the Third Reich, many common Germans simply wanted to move on and “return to normal as soon as possible.” This desire to silently step past the atrocities of the Nazi Regime extended beyond Aryan Germans who may have been complicit in the actions of the Nazi Party. As Becker notes, “everything was suppressed. Everyone was happy to go back to normal. Jews especially had had enough. They didn’t want to tell anyone that they were Jewish.” Becker goes on to suggest that many gay men felt the same. In the years immediately following the war, Becker had no desire to discuss what the Nazi Regime had done, though his attitude changed over time. In those years, Becker, and certainly many other gay men in relatively secure urban scenes, simply wanted to move on from the Nazi years. As time went on, however, many of them would go on to be artists and activists agitating for change. Perhaps the immense community trauma of Nazi persecution combined with the Federal Republic’s conservative attitudes towards homosexuality to create a period of uncertainty, fear, and silence in many of Germany’s post-war gay communities. 

The cultural homophobia of 20th Century Germany remained after the fall of the Nazi Regime. Prior to 1969, this manifested in the legal persecution motivated by Christian morality, but even after the legalization of homosexuality, homophobic rhetoric remained as gay people began campaigning for medical and legal equality, including marriage and power of attorney rights. Once again drawing on the historical strategies of German civil rights activists, and particularly the work of LGBT activists in Germany, queer folks in post-war Germany used art to advocate for themselves and agitate for change. In 1973, a transgender woman and filmmaker named Rosa von Praunheim released a film that depicted an inverse of German society. That is, she created a film in which homosexuality was the norm, and heterosexuals were a marginal and oft-forgotten population in West Germany. Her film depicted a world so different from the German norm that Der Spiegel referred to it as “bordering on caricature.” Her goal was to encourage queer people to relieve themselves of fear and boldly champion for their liberties, but it had the added effect of infuriating the heteronormative majority. Many Germans, even after the 1969 decriminalization of homosexuality, felt that homosexuals, and gay men and transgender folks in particular, needed to remain hidden, as they violate the “unwritten laws of society.” Uncritically, German reporting on von Praunheim’s film accepted the idea that queer folks will be subject to “undisguised contempt and social ostracism,” even after decriminalization. During this time, German media and national politics took the position that the actions of consenting adults should not be legislated, even if they should be held in disdain.

Real men suffered as a result of the Nazi Regime’s homonegative policy. The pain inflicted on queer communities in German occupied territory during this period cannot be overstated. These communities had their lives forced even further underground. They had their gathering places commandeered and repurposed as Nazi office headquarters and propaganda backdrops. They were arrested, interrogated, beaten, tortured, raped, and killed, all in the name of Nazi racial and social politics. Regular civilians suffered, and those who were seen as politically inconvenient were targeted with smears of homosexuality. And the vestiges of Nazi homonegativity remained beyond the collapse of the regime, even as post-war Germany took stock of many of its historic bigotries. But homosexuality was not a key issue for many Nazis. Himmler was obsessed with homosexuals as a legitimate threat to Germany, and it's clear that his whisperings influenced Hitler’s actions. Gay men were targeted by German police, the Gestapo, the SA, and the SS because it was convenient to do so. Even from its earliest days in power, the regime could act confidently, knowing that it would face little to no pushback for attacks on queer communities or on gay men specifically. Even as homosexuality was eventually decriminalized in West Germany, queer culture still relied on secrecy and underground operation, as many Germans still viewed them as a threat to society. And while the cultural homophobia of 20th Century Germany didn’t start with the Nazi Regime, the regime’s desire for a racially and socially pure Volkskörper combined with the political ease of committing homophobic violence to turn gay men into politically disposable pawns and punching bags who would continue to struggle for safety and security in a post-Nazi Germany.

[literaturemini]

the iron lady of india

The Iron Lady of India is a popular moniker often used to refer to the former Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi. She served as Prime Minister of India for three consecutive terms from 1966 to 1977, and then again from 1980 until her assassination in 1984. She was the first woman to ever hold the office of Prime Minister in India and is widely remembered for her political toughness, leadership style, and decisive way in which she handled several important issues and crises. Despite her controversial policies and authoritarian rule, she remains an iconic figure in Indian politics and is still widely revered by many Indians.

Indira Gandhi was born in 1917 in Allahabad, India to Jawaharlal Nehru and Kamala Nehru, who were both prominent political figures in India's independence movement. Her father was India's first Prime Minister after independence, and she grew up in the public eye, being exposed to political and social issues from a young age.

She was educated in India and Europe, and became involved in politics in the 1940s, serving in several government positions before being elected as Prime Minister in 1966. During her first term, she implemented several reforms aimed at improving the lives of India's poor and marginalized populations, such as the Green Revolution, which increased agricultural productivity, and the nationalization of banks.

However, her authoritarian rule and suspension of civil liberties during the state of emergency she declared in 1975 led to widespread criticism, and she was defeated in the 1977 elections. But she made a comeback in 1980 and regained the Prime Minister's office.

Throughout her political career, Indira Gandhi faced numerous challenges, including religious and ethnic tensions, separatist movements, and economic instability. However, she remained a strong and decisive leader and is remembered for her role in shaping modern India.

Despite her controversial legacy, Indira Gandhi continues to be a major figure in Indian politics and is widely regarded as one of the most important political leaders in the country's history.

Indira Gandhi was known for her political savvy and her ability to get things done, and her government saw the establishment of many important institutions, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the National Institute of Technology (NITs). She also played a key role in the liberation of Bangladesh, which was formerly East Pakistan, in 1971.

However, her policies and tactics also led to widespread civil unrest and protests. For example, her decision to order the military operation to storm the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest site of the Sikh religion, in 1984 to remove Sikh militants who had taken refuge there, led to widespread anger among the Sikh community and is widely seen as one of the major factors that led to her assassination by her Sikh bodyguards later that year.

Despite these controversies, Indira Gandhi's legacy continues to shape Indian politics and society. She is remembered for her strong leadership, her commitment to social justice, and her efforts to modernize India. Her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi, is a prominent political figure in India, and her grandson, Rahul Gandhi, is a former President of the Indian National Congress, one of the country's largest political part.

Indira Gandhi was a complex and controversial figure in Indian history, but her legacy remains an important part of the country's political and cultural landscape.

Indira Gandhi's impact on Indian politics can still be seen today. For example, her emphasis on state intervention in the economy and her push for industrialization and modernization continue to influence economic policy in India. Her focus on the rights of the marginalized and her efforts to empower women and the poor also continue to inspire political leaders and activists.

Additionally, Indira Gandhi's legacy is often referenced in discussions of women's rights and empowerment in India and around the world. As the first female Prime Minister of India, she broke barriers and paved the way for future generations of women in politics. Her bold leadership style and her unwavering commitment to her beliefs continue to inspire women, particularly in India and South Asia, to become more active in politics and public life.

Indira Gandhi's impact on India's foreign policy is also noteworthy. She helped establish India as a regional power and played a major role in shaping the country's relationships with its neighbors and the international community. Her leadership during the Bangladesh Liberation War and her efforts to mediate conflicts in the region helped establish India as a major player on the global stage.

In summary, Indira Gandhi's legacy is multifaceted and continues to have a significant impact on Indian politics, society, and the world. Her achievements and her challenges continue to be studied and debated, and her legacy remains an important part of India's political and cultural heritage.

Aside from her political career, Indira Gandhi was also known for her personal style and her interests outside of politics. She was a lifelong advocate for education and was known for her love of literature and the arts. She was an avid reader and was particularly interested in the works of Rabindranath Tagore, the Nobel Prize-winning Bengali poet, and writer.

Indira Gandhi was also known for her love of nature and her interest in environmental conservation. She was an early advocate for environmental protection and was instrumental in the creation of several national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in India, including the Corbett National Park and the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary.

Throughout her life, Indira Gandhi was recognized with numerous awards and honors. In 1971, she was awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, in recognition of her services to the nation. She was also the recipient of several international awards, including the Lenin Peace Prize and the UN Gold Medal for Peace.

Despite her controversial legacy, Indira Gandhi remains a highly regarded figure in India, and her impact on the country and the world continues to be widely studied and celebrated. Her legacy as the first female Prime Minister of India and her contributions to the country's politics, society, and environment continue to inspire future generations of leaders and activists.

Indira Gandhi's impact on India's political culture cannot be overstated. She was known for her charisma and her ability to connect with people, and her personal style and mannerisms continue to be imitated and celebrated in India to this day.

One of the most memorable aspects of Indira Gandhi's political style was her speeches, which were often fiery and passionate, and inspired a great deal of loyalty among her supporters. She was known for her strong, unwavering voice and her ability to articulate her vision for India, and her speeches continue to be widely studied and quoted by political leaders and activists.

Indira Gandhi was also known for her strong personal commitment to her beliefs, and her willingness to take bold, decisive actions in the face of opposition. This earned her the nickname "The Iron Lady of India," and her legacy as a strong and decisive leader continues to inspire political leaders and activists in India and around the world.

In conclusion, Indira Gandhi was a complex and multifaceted figure, and her impact on India's politics, society, and culture continues to be felt to this day. Despite the controversies that surrounded her, she remains a highly regarded and widely celebrated figure in India, and her legacy as the country's first female Prime Minister and as a champion of the marginalized and oppressed continues to inspire future generations.

[ngdrb]

Comparative Analysis: Joe Biden's Achievements and Donald Trump's Challenges Examined through a Political Lens

Positives about Joe Biden

Evolution on Key Issues: Over the years, Joe Biden has demonstrated an evolution on key issues. Notably, on criminal justice, he has moved far from his much-criticized "tough-on-crime" position of the 1990s. His proposed policies aim to reduce incarceration, address disparities in the justice system, and rehabilitate released prisoners .

Accomplishments: Throughout his extensive political career, Joe Biden has dedicated himself to serving the American people. As a U.S. Senator and Vice President alongside Barack Obama, he has been involved in various initiatives and policies aimed at fighting for Americans .

2. Leadership and Resilience: Despite facing challenges and uncertainties, President Biden has demonstrated resilience and leadership. His administration has achieved significant milestones, such as the passage of the infrastructure bill, which had been a longstanding goal for previous administrations.

3. Public Perception: Joe Biden's favorability ratings have been relatively positive, with a net favorability rating of +9 points in recent high-quality live interview polls. His favorability rating is above his unfavorable rating in almost all polls, reflecting a generally positive public perception .

4. Health and Vigor: Despite facing health challenges, including testing positive for COVID-19, President Biden has shown vigor and determination in fulfilling his duties as the head of state.

5. Likability and Personal Conduct: According to a Pew Research Center study, voters are more likely to view Joe Biden as warm and likeable compared to Donald Trump. A larger percentage of voters give Biden warm ratings, with about one-in-three voters expressing intensely positive feelings about him .

6. Accomplishments: President Biden has outperformed Trump on various fronts, including inequality, green spending, and crime. His third year in office was marked by an economy that remained resilient despite challenges like inflation and surging borrowing costs.

7. Personal Qualities: Despite a decline in public impressions of Biden's personal qualities, he is still perceived as able to manage government effectively. Additionally, a significant percentage of voters believe that Biden cares about the needs of ordinary people.

Negatives about Donald Trump

Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by various controversies and criticisms, as evidenced by a range of factors and public opinion.

Worker Safety and Health: The Trump administration has been criticized for disregarding negative impacts on worker safety and health, such as proposing rules that could endanger young workers and patients.

Handling of Race Relations: Trump received negative marks for his handling of race relations, with a majority of adults expressing concerns about his approach and the divisions along racial, ethnic, and partisan lines.

3. COVID-19 Response: Trump's legacy has been defined by the controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread criticism of his administration's response to the crisis.

4. Controversial Statements and Actions: Throughout his political career, Trump has been associated with a series of controversial statements and actions, including derogatory remarks about immigrants and divisive rhetoric.

5. Erosion of Democratic Institutions: Trump has been criticized for questioning the legitimacy of democratic institutions, including the free press, federal judiciary, and the electoral process, leading to concerns about the erosion of democratic norms.

6. Tax and Financial Practices: Trump's financial practices, including tax-related issues and potential conflicts of interest, have been the subject of scrutiny and criticism.

7. Policy Priorities: Critics argue that Trump's policy priorities have favored corporations and the wealthiest few at the expense of other segments of the population.

8. Public Perception: Public opinion reflects stronger negative views on the potential downsides of a Trump presidency, with concerns about his personality traits, views on immigration, and the economy.

In summary, Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by a range of controversies and criticisms, including concerns about worker safety, race relations, the COVID-19 response, controversial statements, erosion of democratic institutions, financial practices, policy priorities, and public perception. These factors have contributed to a complex and divisive public perception of his presidency.

[mathematicianalias]

A key thing people need to remember about elections is that, as with many things in life, if you only go for big, you’ll usually lose big. Want left wing leadership? If you try to force it at the highest office all in one election, you will fail. But if you work on foundations of that big goal, you will eventually succeed. Some of that foundation: instituting ranked choice voting at any/all levels of government, electing left wing leadership at lower levels and work upward (Trump is an outlier: most presidents have worked their way up in politics & public service), voting in EVERY race possible (the smaller the race is, the more influence your vote has), increasing voter turnout both through legislation (e.g., eliminating laws that disenfranchise people) and collective action (e.g., helping people who are eligible to vote currently actually vote), and so on.

I often write my own “voter guide” and post it on FB since most people on FB I’m “friends” with are local. After a few times doing this, I started hearing about not only friends of mine using my guide to vote in races they usually leave blank on their ballots, but also friends of friends. Basically, my vote for things like judges was multiplied by 20. Considering how small these minor races can be, this is a big deal. It also means people are now used to voting in those small races and will be less likely to skip them in the future even if I don’t post anything (in my guides I include information about where I find the info I use to make my decisions). So, even if you don’t have a lot of time or money, you can still do things that have a big impact.

begging the voting population of u.s. citizens on tumblr to vote this year, and specifically to vote in the way that most practically ensures trump doesn't win, not out of a liberal centrist "don't you hate the orange man hoho" impulse, but out of love and fear for the many, many, many marginalized populations whose lives will be concretely worse under a second trump presidency, out of paranoia that the current architecture of our american quasi-democracy will not survive a new formalized attempt at dismantling it, out of having done the research that no matter what you think of biden literally every stance of trump's is noticeably more disastrous.

i hate that these are our only two practical choices right now but hating it doesn't do anything to change the fact that these are our only two practical choices right now. a trump victory will also almost certainly send the mainstream democratic politicians scrambling even closer to the center; that is historically how the democratic machine reacts to defeat! which absolutely sucks, but the best way to lay the groundwork for progressive policies in the future is to start as far from zero as we can.

i am begging you: vote biden, and then protest every fucking thing he does. make that old man's life miserable. just please, please, please don't burn down your own country to try to make a point; who materially benefits from that?

[forthegoodofamerica]

The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: A Complex Portrait

Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, is a historical figure who ignites passionate debate. Some regard him as a champion of the everyday person, while others see a man whose actions caused immense suffering. His presidency included significant events like the Trail of Tears, his opposition to the national bank, and the implementation of the spoils system. Understanding these aspects of his legacy is essential for grasping the complexities of American history.

The Trail of Tears: A Dark Chapter

One of the most heartbreaking legacies of Jackson’s administration is the Trail of Tears, which resulted from the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Advocating for this act, Jackson aimed to relocate thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands in the southeastern U.S. to territories west of the Mississippi River. The consequences were tragic: thousands died from disease, starvation, and harsh conditions during the forced migration. This policy not only reflected a blatant disregard for Native American rights but also stained the history of the United States.

Economic Turmoil: The Panic of 1837

Jackson’s tumultuous relationship with economic institutions is another striking feature of his presidency. His fierce opposition to the Second Bank of the United States stemmed from his belief that it benefitted the elite at the expense of the common people. By vetoing the bank’s recharter and withdrawing federal funds, Jackson disrupted the national economy, contributing to the Panic of 1837. This financial crisis resulted in widespread hardship for many Americans and highlighted the risks of unchecked political decisions in the economic landscape.

The Spoils System: Political Patronage

Jackson also left a controversial legacy through the spoils system, where political allies were rewarded with government jobs regardless of their qualifications. This practice entrenched a cycle of corruption and inefficiency in government, undermining merit-based hiring. Critics described it as a betrayal of public trust, as loyalty to Jackson often trumped qualifications for public service. The ramifications of this system have echoes in modern politics, raising questions about how power and loyalty intersect.

Authoritarian Decision-Making

Jackson’s presidency demonstrated authoritarian tendencies, particularly during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. When South Carolina attempted to nullify federal tariffs, Jackson threatened military action to enforce federal laws. This reaction has led many to question his adherence to the constitutional checks and balances that are fundamental to American governance. His approach suggests a willingness to overreach in executive power, reflecting a significant concern for the future of democratic structures.

Why This Matters Today

The legacy of Andrew Jackson continues to provoke discussion and analysis. Understanding his decisions and their impacts can shed light on ongoing debates about power, governance, and ethics in American politics. Jackson’s era forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about our history and the moral implications of leadership choices.

Get Your Free Copy of George Magazine

To explore more about Andrew Jackson and many other historical topics, consider getting your free copy of George Magazine. It’s an exciting chance to dive into in-depth articles that examine significant figures and events in our history.

Sign up now and grab your first copy for free at George Magazine. It’s a unique opportunity to enrich your understanding of American history without any commitment—just a simple email signup!

Don’t miss out on this engaging read that will add depth to your knowledge and keep you informed about pivotal moments in history.

For more insights from George Magazine, check out their collector’s edition and enjoy articles that challenge your perspectives on historical subjects.

[mariacallous]

Editor's Note: Read the accompanying research brief, published in partnership with the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School.

Next week, the nation will celebrate Juneteenth, which commemorates the emancipation of slaves in the U.S. And with this commemoration comes an essential question: Are we making real and durable progress on racial justice as part of the larger project of becoming a more fair and inclusive nation? Or are we engaged in mostly symbolic, small-bore gestures that block and reverse that larger project, as it has been over and over again in our history?

Last fall, Brookings’s Valuing Black Assets Initiative, in collaboration with the New School’s Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, released a report and accompanying op-ed arguing that if we as a nation are serious about our promises to practice justice for all, we should start “keeping score”—in part by strengthening and spreading the practice of racial equity impact assessment by government.

In the report, we observed that local governments are currently leading in this practice, blazing the trail for a new generation of equity analysis in government decisionmaking. We also found that the federal government—at least in the executive branch—has made notable progress, thanks mainly to the Biden administration’s innovative and wide-ranging actions.

In January 2021, President Joe Biden not only issued the first-ever executive order on “advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government” (EO 13985), but made it his first executive order, on day one of his presidency. That not only sent a powerful signal to the country about presidential priorities, but also represented a practical boon for the implementation effort, in terms of keeping thousands of public officials in dozens of federal agencies focused on the work of implementing the executive order while tackling many other demands.

And in February of this year, the president issued his second executive order on advancing equity. The new order reported on progress over the past two years, updated the charge to executive agencies and White House offices (for example, on routine annual planning, budgeting, procurement, and other functions to advance equity), underlined the importance of adequately resourcing equity teams at every agency, emphasized strong and modern approaches to protecting civil rights amid technological change and other evolving threats, and defined some specific new whole-of-government goals, such as promoting “equitable development” as once-in-a-generation investments in physical infrastructure and climate action begin to land in communities.

But let’s be clear: National progress in equitable development also depends greatly on the cooperation and commitment of state, local, territorial, and tribal governments to advance equity. This is because law and custom assign them—rather than the federal government—many of the most consequential decisions (for example those regarding capital projects, labor and environmental standards, and land use) that drive the outcomes. But it is significant that the president has called out and explained equitable development as a national priority for which federal policies and practices matter greatly.

Based on the second phase of our research on equity impact assessment, we have just released Measuring What Matters for Racial Progress, which focuses on exemplary, lesson-rich cases of local and state leadership and innovation. We will take a closer look at the federal picture and its lessons in a future report. In general, we agree with the view expressed by PolicyLink and other critical observers that the president’s second executive order builds effectively on the first and reflects a clear and strong appreciation of the fact that equity must be more than a commitment to serve all—it requires the specific governing practices that give life to that commitment.

In this piece, we share several defining features and lessons of the Biden administration’s implementation approach so far, both because the federal government directly touches our lives and communities every day and because it does so indirectly as well in profoundly important ways, as the case studies in our new report underscore.

For example, Congress and the Treasury Department provided the American Rescue Plan Act’s recovery funding and policy guidance that helped shape Los Angeles County’s use of the funds to support an equity-driven agenda tailored to that large and diverse jurisdiction. Likewise, congressional legislation and Treasury’s implementing rules require that jurisdictions eligible to receive and invest federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits prepare allocation plans—a requirement flexible enough that the city of Chicago completely reimagined what its plan could address, using racial equity impact assessment to structure its housing agency’s goal-setting and strategies, in the process creating a new and replicable model for the field. There are countless other examples of the local impacts of federal leadership on equity, including new and more coordinated approaches to rural regions, consulting with tribal governments, and more.

What follows are several lessons that local, state, territorial, and tribal government leaders—as well as community advocates, the media, and researchers—can learn from the ongoing effort at the federal level to implement the historic executive orders.