On the DPG’s Transition in 2025

personal, Politics, , ,

This past Saturday (March 29) in Lexington, Georgia, the Democratic Party of Georgia’s State Committee voted to amend the bylaws to make the next DPG Chair a full-time, full-paid position, one which does not hold any concurrent elected/appointed public office. This language was advocated by Chair and Congresswoman Nikema Williams.

On the morning of March 31, Williams emailed all State Committee delegates announcing her resignation as Chair of the DPG, making 1st Vice Chair and former State Representative Matthew Wilson the new DPG Chair until the next election for Chair in Q1 2027. Williams, who wishes to remain as U.S. representative for GA-5, cited the new bylaws as the reason.

Wilson, who has served as 1st Vice Chair since 2023, is also the first openly-gay person to serve as DPG chair, and was the second openly-gay person elected to the state legislature. He resigned to run for Insurance Commissioner in 2022 but was defeated in the primary by Janice Laws Robinson.

The next elected chair will also ostensibly be the first full-time Chair since former state representative Jane Kidd, who once represented the area of Oglethorpe County and helped secure Oglethorpe High School as the venue for the meeting. Kidd, who served as Chair from 2007 to 2011 and previously served in the State House from 2005 to 2007, herself was given a bouquet of roses onstage from Williams and DNC members Wendy Davis and Maria Banjo following the announcement of the result for her service to the party.

On Nikema Williams’ tenure

It must be noted that Williams, who previously served as 1st Vice Chair (2011-2019) under Mike Berlon and then DuBose Porter and briefly served as interim Chair following Berlon’s resignation in 2013, was the first Black woman and second African American to serve as Chair of the Party after former state representative Calvin Smyre, who was appointed to the position by then-governor Roy Barnes from 2001 to 2004. Williams herself is a former state senator who ran for John Lewis’ former seat in Atlanta (GA-5) following his death from cancer in 2020.

Williams can attest to a tenure as Chair complete with electoral ups and downs:

  • In the 2020 cycle alone, Williams led the party to flip the state for Joe Biden, win two U.S. Senate seats by runoff with candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, and increase the party’s share of congressional seats to its highest in a generation with the election of Carolyn Bordeaux in GA-7. In addition, the party continuously increased its net share of seats in the State House throughout her term, and secured Warnock a full Senate term in 2022. Finally, she presided over several revisions to the DPG bylaws and platform and oversaw expansion of both the voter protection program as well as vote-by-mail outreach.
  • She also presided over bitter electoral losses in 2020, when Daniel Blackman lost a close runoff for Public Service Commissioner; 2022, in which Democrats won none of the statewide executive row offices (and lost worse in terms of percentage compared to 2018); and 2024, when Kamala Harris lost Georgia for President to Donald Trump. In addition, in the 2020 and court-ordered 2023 redistricting cycles, the Kemp Republican trifecta took several casualties in both houses of the legislature, forced Carolyn Bordeaux out of GA-7, and took casualties in some county commissions as well.

What’s in Store for the Next Chair

Depending on who becomes the next Chair, whoever succeeds Wilson will be tasked with leading the party through upcoming special elections for Public Service Commission this spring, municipal elections in the fall, as well as a bid for all state row offices and the re-election bid of Jon Ossoff in 2026. Ossoff, who is the only Democrat up for re-election in a state flipped by Trump, will be a top linchpin candidate for Democrats to retain in 2026, as there are few other target states which Democrats have a reasonable chance at flipping.

While Williams managed to lead the party through some necessary changes and had incredible success in 2020, I believe that the party began to decline in electoral fortune after she took office in Congress.

In comparison, the next Chair will be a full-time Chair whose job it will be to serve as top cheerleader and organizer every day of the week, akin to Ben Wikler in Wisconsin or Anderson Clayton in North Carolina. It was also adopted last June by Texas Democrats at their state party convention, which was followed after the presidential election by the resignation of longtime chair Gilberto Hinojosa (for unrelated reasons), and will be first applied to whoever will be the next TDP Chair in time for the 2026 budget.

Special Elections and More

On April 4, adding to the excitement, State Sen. Jason Esteves also announced his resignation as Treasurer of the DPG.

On the same day, Wilson announced the call for a special in-person State Committee meeting set for May 3 at the Teamsters Local 728 (aka DPG headquarters) in Atlanta. Among the items up for a vote:

  • special elections for Chair and Treasurer (deadline to file: April 23)
  • endorsement of Daniel Blackman in four-way primary for PSC District 3 special election (requires 2/3s)
  • amendment to bylaws regarding gender of sitting Vice Chair if next specially-elected Chair is of the same gender (requires 2/3s)

What this means so far:

  • It is likely that Esteves will run for Governor, which would make him the first Latino nominee for governor if nominated.
  • Wilson wants to stay on as First Vice Chair so he won’t run for Chair, and this proposed amendment would resolve that issue
  • Blackman, who has ran twice before for PSC (both against incumbent Lauren “Bubba” McDonald), needs all the help he can get.

Chair candidates so far

Charlie Bailey
Nabliah Islam Parkes
Jay Jones
Wendy Davis
Jamie Allen

Three candidates have announced so far for Chair, as of April 7:

  • Charlie Bailey, former Fulton County District Attorney who was the nominee for Attorney General in 2018 and Lieutenant Governor in 2022.
  • Nabilah Islam Parkes, Georgia State Senator (SD-7), first Muslim woman elected to State Senate
  • James “Jay” Jones, Member of the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, Chatham County Democratic Committee Chair, DPG Congressional District Chair for GA-01
  • Wendy Davis, DPG member to the Democratic National Committee (2012-present), Democratic nominee for GA-14 (2022), former city commissioner in Rome, Georgia (2014-2021)
  • Jamie Allen, Senior Policy Advisor for the State House Democratic Caucus (2025-present), former Contracted Capacity Building Specialist for Kaiser Family Foundation (2015-2022), former HIV Prevention Coordinator for the Georgia Department of Public Health (2021-2024)

Bailey launched his campaign with an email touting notable names for endorsements, including former Governor Roy Barnes and Atlanta mayors Andre Dickens and Shirley Franklin.

Islam Parkes launched her campaign with her electoral background, both for others and her own time as State Senator, and her platform:

“Turn Georgia into a fundraising powerhouse to support every level of the ticket

Invest in full-time organizers across the state

Launch new training programs to build the next generation of Young Democrats

Give rural Democrats the resources and tools they need to win

Build out cutting-edge digital, data and influencer programs

Run a party that’s transparent, accountable and focused on winning.”

Jones’ platform states “five commitments”:

  • A Party That Reflects the People We Serve
  • A Party That Sees Us, Serves Us, and Stands With Us
  • Rural Georgia Deserves More Than a Mention
  • Year-Round Organizing Is Non-Negotiable
  • Unity Doesn’t Mean Uniformity

Wendy Davis:

Jamie Allen:

  • Year-round, statewide voter engagement—especially in rural communities, communities of color, and among young voters
  • Real investment in county committees, with tools and training to help them thrive
  • A long-term, sustainable fundraising strategy to fuel grassroots organizing
  • Intentional leadership development to grow the next wave of Democratic talent
  • A commitment to unity, transparency, and accountability across all levels of the party

What I’m looking for

As a State Committee delegate, here’s what I’m hoping for in a State Party Chair:

  • Treats all nonpartisan elections – statewide and municipal, including judgeships – as partisan elections worthy of recruiting and endorsing candidates;
  • Supports streamlining our affiliates policy to allow for mass, paid membership for all Democrats, regardless of gender or age, as well as an indigenous source of fundraising;
  • Supports treating affiliates as a third leg of a three-legged stool of the party base, alongside the county committees and the elected Democratic public officials;
  • Supports Establishing a Code of Conduct for the party, its affiliates and its elected public officials;
  • Supports a requirement that 1) caucuses and councils consist solely of State Committee members and 2) have at least two regional vice chairs;
  • Supports establishing a party-owned news outlet (digital, print, video and audio) with a part-time editor-in-chief to reach voters across the state with progressive messaging and counter anti-progressive narratives;
  • Supports a reconsideration of the role of the quadrennial State Party Convention, whether to make it an annual convention or to remove the mandate for the state convention from the party rules entirely;
  • supports establishing a Labor Council and an Indigenous Caucus;
  • supports merger of the platform and resolutions committees into a single standing committee;
  • supports coordination of efforts for county committees to acquire brick-and-mortar county headquarters.

In short, I’m looking for a party chair who can make the party a thermostatic, attention-holding force for progressive liberalism within and beyond the electoral space across the state.

Can these candidates bring any of this before the gubernatorial election? Let’s find out.

Civic Sedevacantism: A United States Government-in-Exile

Politics, , , , ,

Reading Josh Marshall’s recent post positing a theory of “civic sede vacantism“, which posits that American liberals/progressives need to narratively and linguistically treat the current regime – both in the executive and the judicial branches – is operating so much outside of the constitution that it cannot be expected to curtail or regulate its own abuse of power, and that it is up to libprogs to use state power to curtail federal power and restore constitutional government.

I find the idea interesting in how it comes around to effectively calling for progressive federalism in deed, but doing so from the position of reacting to a “fallen” political order which ought to be rejected in its legitimacy, curtailed from its uses of power, and corrected into a better relationship with its power.

You can find this sort of legitimism/sedevacantism in a number of cases:

  • Anyone who has ever maintained a government-in-exile after fleeing a country (i.e., the Second Spanish Republic government in exile from 1939 to 1977) or have maintained claims to a former monarchy;
  • Catholic sedevacantism, in which some Catholics reject the legitimacy of any pope since Pius XII due to the holding of the Second Vatican Council, and may instead elect antipopes with rival claims to the Roman papacy;
  • Irish republican legitimism, which posits that the pre-partition all-island Irish Republic declared in 1919 is still in existence and rejects both the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty and the existence of the modern Republic of Ireland;
  • Sovereign citizens who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution converted “sovereign citizens” into “federal citizens” by their agreement to a contract to accept benefits from the federal government, and that the United States stopped being a legitimate country afterward, instead becoming a “corporation” (the SovCit who originated this, of course, was a white supremacist);
  • Sovereign citizens in Europe (Russia, where some believe that the USSR continues; the Reichsburger movement in Austria and Germany; some in the Czech Republic who believe that the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was illegal, etc)

This can easily go down the road of conspiracy theory mongering, but I can respect the cognitive dedication to an alternate, rival status quo.

But if we’re departing from the status quo narrative, why start with Trump 2? Why even start with George W. Bush’s 2000 “election”?

Equal Rights Amendment

In fact, let’s date it to the moment when Congress erroneously inserted a ratification deadline to the Equal Rights Amendment.

Was it Congress’s authority to impose a statutory deadline on ratification? It’s debatable. Who’s idea was it to add a deadline? These questions have been brought up repeatedly in court.

One can argue that Congress abrogated its legitimacy as a branch of government by interfering with the ratification of a constitutional amendment after its legitimate proposal.

POTUS (Nixon and Carter) and SCOTUS also signed off on this deadline, so they get the chop too.

It’s also how this imposition of an illegitimate deadline, not only for the ERA (1979, then 1982) but also for the DC Voting Rights Amendment (1985), resulted in no further amendments being proposed by Congress after 1978 to this day.

This was supremely violative of the amendment process. It arbitrarily suppressed the relationship of the states with the constitution. It was the moment when the broader Second Reconstruction era ended as a constitutional movement and began to slowly recede, especially after William Rehnquist became Chief Justice in 1986 and John Roberts in 2005.

This abdication of legislative responsibility led to SCOTUS intervening for the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973-2022) and subsequent progressive readings of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, all of which are now vulnerable to retirement. All of that should have been Congress’s responsibility to propose, and for the states to ratify at their pleasure.

So if the White House is constitutionally vacant, so is Congress and SCOTUS, all since 1972.

Civic, constitutional sedevacantism (legitimism?) should apply to all three branches and their actions since 1972, regardless of party or impact. I think that’s a good rupture point.

But what would this mean in practice?

A Progressive, Provisional Congress-in-exile

I’d argue that a sedevacantist position would take the following stances:

  • The Equal Rights Amendment was fully ratified by Virginia on January 15, 2020, and is therefore of legal effect nationwide.
  • The entire federal government since 1972, including all federal government elections and terms of Congress, all nine presidents (from Ford to Trump), all SCOTUS terms, and every statute, executive proclamation and federal judicial ruling, is illegitimate.
  • Yes, even the good laws and decisions, like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges, Bostock v. Clayton.
  • The D.C. Voting Rights Amendment, proposed by an illegitimate Congress, was also improperly abrogated by a seven-year deadline.
  • The pragmatic approach would be to engage with the illegitimate federal government, but with a political imagination as to blotting out the legitimacy of every action taken by the federal government against the Second Reconstruction agenda.
  • The more idealistic-but-isolative approach would be to establish a United States government-in-exile:
    • complete with all three branches of government
    • electing a Provisional president and provisional Congress
    • appointing a provisional Supreme Court
    • loyal to the Constitution as amended by January 15, 2020
    • recognizing the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment as still open to ratification by the states, and the statutory deadline of 1985 as invalid
    • open to proposing further amendments by two-thirds of the Provisional Congress
    • selectively supportive of certain statutes passed since 1972
    • diverging from the illegitimate federal government in foreign policy.

And how far could we go with the government-in-exile concept?

(Sidenote: What about state governments? I’d argue that the end of the First Reconstruction era in the South happened through illegitimate means at the state level, such as the forced resignation of Rufus Bullock, the liberal Republican governor of Georgia from 1868 to 1871, when he fled the state under threat from the Klan, which was followed by the significant, forced decline of equality under the law in Georgia. Or how Reconstruction was ended through bloodshed by the Klan. But that is for another post.)

Statutes under a government-in-exile would include most of what was unsuccessfully brought to the 111th and 117th Congresses (the two most recent Democratic trifectas):

  • For the People Act
  • Equality Act
  • American Dream and Promise Act
  • Paycheck Fairness Act
  • Washington D.C. Admission Act
  • Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act
  • Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act
  • Raise the Wage Act
  • Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act
  • Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act
  • FAIR Act
  • U.S. Citizenship Act (including the NO-BAN Act)
  • Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act
  • George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
  • Puerto Rico Admission Act
  • Farm Workforce Modernization Act
  • Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act
  • Assault Weapons Ban Act
  • Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act
  • SAFE Banking Act
  • CROWN Act
  • Recovering America’s Wildlife Act
  • Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act
  • Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act
  • Local Journalism Sustainability Act
  • Averting Loss of Life and Injury by Expediting SIVs (ALLIES) Act
  • American Innovation and Choice Online (AICO) Act
  • Women’s Health Protection Act
  • Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act
  • Fair Representation Act

But then I’d argue that even the most recent Democratic trifecta was playing it safe with the legislation it introduced. A Congress-in-exile would introduce bills to reform the federal government itself by statute, such as:

Finally, this Congress-in-exile can vote to approve by two-thirds for multiple, much-delayed proposals to amend the Constitution, sending them to the active state legislatures.

Conclusion

This is ultimately about changing the narrative about the federal government, away from a do-nothing entity encumbered by an ineffective Constitution, to one in which Congress fills in the gaps.

If it takes having to establish an alternative to this illegitimate status quo regime from abroad, so be it. If this is what it takes to repair the relationship between the United States and the world, so be it.

The deep wound inflicted by a wayward Congress against the Constitution since 1972 through a ratification deadline clause has to be resolved, even if by a Congress in exile.

Uncap the Senate and the House

Politics, , ,

I like that the Australian Senate fixes the issue of equal suffrage in a federal system by 1) electing 12 senators per state, using 2) multi-winner ranked-choice voting.

At the very least, the U.S. could resolve the relationship between rural-urban polarization and equal suffrage of states by raising the number of senators elected per state to at least 6 (giving us multi-winner senate elections every two years in every state), giving us a 300-member senate in which two members are elected every two years to six year terms from every state, and electing all senators using multi-winner RCV.

I initially thought that simply raising the number of senators per state to three would be sufficient, but the issues of (1) 6-year terms and (2) single-winner elections means that states holding elections every two years (rather than states currently taking one even-numbered year off, as per the Senate classes arrangement) would carry out more of the same polarization.

But raising the number above three per state would mandate at least one multi-winner election for each state within a six-year interval.

So not only should we uncap the House to at least 693 members using the cube root rule, but we should uncap the Senate to 300 members.

Delegates to the Senate?

And while adding senators to the Senate would require amending the constitution, I do have an idea that (voting) delegates could also be elected to the Senate by mere statute, without violating the equal suffrage mandate.

This could mean that, in at least two Senate elections per state (out of three total every six years), a senator and a delegate could be elected jointly using multi-winner RCV, while the third Senate election following would jointly elect two delegates, all for six year terms.

In summary, every state would have the following every two years using RCV:

  • Class 1: Senator and delegate
  • Class 2: Senator and delegate
  • Class 3: Delegate and delegate

Finally

Finally, what if the House is expanded to four-year terms, like in most other democracies? Then it would make it unfeasible to hold Senate elections in three classes divided by year, since there would be Senate elections which are held in non-House years. I would instead consider two classes of elections instead of three, extending Senate terms to eight years and splitting the federal elections in half into quadrennial cycles.

Granted, this would require amending the constitution, but still…

Progressive Federalism: Bifurcate All the Things

Politics, , , , , , , ,

The 10-5 en banc decision by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocks laws in Mississippi and Texas allowing for ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day, will likely be appealed by SCOTUS, which may very well allow for the ruling to stand nationwide for federal elections. This, alongside congressional action supporting the SAVE Act which would double-block noncitizens from voting in all federal elections, shows where things are headed under Trump-Musk.

Under the shadow of this regime, perhaps the most expensive part of progressive federalism will be the bifurcation between state and federal functions, even if for progressive ends.

But in terms of vital elections, postal mail and the census, blue states will need to separate as much of their operations from those of the federal government in order to legally and functionally protect themselves and their citizens from federal overreach, reject federal funding, and maintain their sovereignty.

Bifurcation is a major, inevitable part of progressive federalism, no matter how high the price tag. It will allow blue states to innovate in favor of their residents, even in times such as these.

Bifurcated voter rolls and state elections

Separate voter rolls for state-local and federal elections would protect blue state elections from federal overreach:

  • In addition, it would protect permanent residents who wish to vote in select local elections.
  • Protect LGBTQ voters
  • Allow for holding (preferably consolidated) state and local elections on a separate date from the federal election

Like Obamacare, this is a Heritage Foundation idea which can be repurposed for progressive ends. Arizona, since 2014, has been the pioneer in pursuing this idea, as voters who are unable to provide hard documentary evidence of citizenship are only able to register as “federal-only” voters under Arizona law until they are able to provide such evidence.

The progressive response would be to switch it somewhat: “federal-only” ballot (general or special) for those who can provide such evidence of citizenship, “state-only” ballot (on another date) for those who can’t.

To reiterate, this will also help blue states who want to hold general elections on a date separate from the federal election, possibly in an odd year. I would like to see state, local and lower elections held together on Sundays or Saturdays.

And any worry that this would overburden election works should be eased by making the state legislature (1) unicameral (2) termed to four years and (possibly 3) staggered.

Separate state census

The United State Census Bureau cannot be the only survey agency in town anymore. As it is coming close to adding a citizenship question and has repeatedly failed to institute requested reforms such as identifying incarcerated prisoners to help end prison gerrymandering, it is perhaps time to bring back state censuses. This would also be beneficial for LGBTQ residents who have not been correctly identified in past censuses.

Separate state postal service

  • An example of “local post”
  • Complete with separate postage stamps, letter boxes and mail trucks
  • Protection from the Comstock Act and other federal censorships (i.e., on obscenity)
  • Postal banking (which was previously a feature of the USPS from 1911 to 1966)
  • Vital for carrying state-level mail ballots
  • Potential state census assistance

State communications commission

The FCC has been beset by conservative opposition for decades when it comes to regulatory capacity, especially when it comes to issues such as net neutrality. Now that conservatives have control over the FCC, blue states (like California) have the opportunity to stake out more regulatory power over communications within their borders, even within constitutional boundaries. The time for state communications commissions is upon us.

Interstate election security compacts

The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a good example of a nonprofit foundation acting as a de facto interstate compact commission in its assistance to state governments, namely in maintaining voter rolls.

Now Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is making such a move regarding protection of elections from foreign interference:

After the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) cut funding to its election security programs, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) is taking matters into his own hands and forming an alternative program to fill CISA’s void for state and local election offices.

According to a memo obtained by Democracy Docket, Fontes’ office wants to form a new organization called VOTE-ISAC, “an independent organization committed to safeguarding elections and restoring international confidence in the integrity of our democratic processes.” The idea for the program is to fill the void left by CISA’s crucial Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC). 

A spokesperson for Fontes’ office told Democracy Docket that he started work on this plan well before CISA cut its EI-ISAC program and has already been in touch with different states and stakeholders to get on board with the proposal. 

We need more of this, in the absence of federal support. In addition:

  • Interstate replacements for the FEC regarding campaign finance
  • Interstate Replacement for the EAC for election standards,
  • Interstate redistricting clearinghouse which eases disputes between states regarding redistricting at all levels.

Protect voters’ rights to free and fair elections

And of course, it is a good time to pass legislation like:

  • State Voting Rights Act
  • Independent Redistricting amendment
  • Universal vote-by-mail
  • Right to free and fair elections amendment
  • Multi-winner proportional representation for state and local elections
  • Campaign financing regulations for ballot initiatives

State DARPA and defense intelligence

The firings of professionals, including TGNC individuals, from military and civilian service in the federal government have opened a door for expanding state defense force capabilities.

A research and development (R&D) office under a state defense force can help to hire some of these trained professionals back into the realm of military science, research, development and innovation without federal interference. 

This proposal would establish a minimal operation which, if allowed, can expand further based upon the wishes of the legislature and the needs of the SDF command structure. 

In addition, it would allow for the hiring of those who wish to continue pursuing trained, intelligence-related work, particularly in the field of geospatial intelligence. 

Finally, it would fit into the larger purpose of redirecting all feasible resources in the larger state military department (which usually runs both the National and State Guards under a state adjutant general) to within and under the state defense force specifically, as the state can no longer expect the Department of Defense of the United States to abide by shared values. 

And more

interstate equivalents to CDC, Department of Education, HHS, NPS, HUD, etc.

The ANTI Cybertruck has Arrived, and People are Angry

Videos

A defense contractor quietly built one of the weirdest vehicles ever: A duck shaped truck for the US Postal Service.
🧡 Support me on Patreon: https://ift.tt/gHj7XRO

🎵 Use the Songs I used in this video in your own YouTube Videos (Free Trial): https://ift.tt/xQRZhB1

âś… Free Download of all Paris Transit Icons for you own projects here: https://ift.tt/1m9Arte

đź’ś Contact me on Discord: @mindthemap
📬 You can find my email address on my channel page – business & sponsorship inquiries welcome!

Chapters with time-stamps:
0:00 If a Duck ducked a Platypus
0:23 People are Angry & Confused
0:48 Function over Form
1:07 The old Trucks were a Nightmare
1:23 Endless Improvements
1:59 A Win for Everyone on the Road
2:32 Increasing Pedestrian Survival Rate
2:55 A Defense Company built this?
3:10 Sued into Electricity
3:39 My Car of the Year
3:55 Thank you Patreon Supporters!

Number of subscribers at the time of uploading this video: 34.532

via YouTube

Elections for Most Statewide Executives Should Be Nonpartisan

Politics, ,

In Georgia (for example), if we insist on holding elections for most statewide executive offices, these offices should be made nonpartisan:

  • Secretary of State
  • Attorney General
  • State Superintendent of Schools
  • Labor Commissioner
  • Agriculture Commissioner
  • Insurance and Fire Commissioner
  • Public Service Commissioner

I would like to see the above change appended to SB 14, which would make district attorney and solicitor general elections nonpartisan. Hell, add it to sheriff elections as well.

None of these should be subject to the partisan primary filter or party labels.

Deleting Facebook and Twitter at 38

personal, ,

I turned 38 on February 5.

I have had a Facebook account since November 2005, which I created while I was a freshman at Oglethorpe University, when college classmates were encouraging each other to create a Facebook profile to converse with each other, back when smartphones weren’t a thing yet, back when most computers on campus were connected using DSL.

In 2016-2017, I deactivated that account, in which so many of the “friends” from earlier in my life, from Warner Robins and Macon State and Oglethorpe were not too keen on my increasingly “political” posts, and created this account. 

What has transpired over the last month should not have been the impetus for me to do this, and I know that I should have done this years ago. 

I am now about to delete this account, that previous account, and maybe two other accounts. Not merely deactivate, but delete them entirely. No more of me on here.

This month, I’ve marked three Twitter accounts, two Instagram, two Threads, and four Facebook profiles for deletion, which should finish by the beginning of March.

This will be a new experience for me. Taking greater charge of the data I write about myself, of downloading and backing up what I can take, even of deleting what Facebook won’t let me download (i.e., group posts). I’ve spent some of this week deleting groups and pages I’ve created over the years, and there were several of them, at least until Facebook ran into “problems” with deleting groups of which I am admin. 

The last year has shown me a bit about what and who I will have to cut myself off from, with what and whom I have to burn bridges and live without. And now, so are many of you. Funny how that works. 

And Facebook has long shown its age, and its demographic is aging hard. So has Twitter.

So I will no longer age with them, and vice versa. Separately, but not together.

None of you have to age with a centralized silo like this, one which keeps so much of your data and connections hostage. 

This is an act of one taking more control over their life, one with potential ramifications for one’s future as a human being but which can also slowly free oneself from what someone once called “poaster’s madness” (yes, they spelled it “poaster’s” with an “a”). 

This is not a heroic thing to do. This is the least I should do at this moment. This is basic mental health in a time when madness is rewarded with misguided catharsis, a time which I am sure will get worse before a (dis)proportionate reaction comes around. 

I apologize to the 1.4k Facebook friends I had from my recent profile, to the many more friends I made along the way, as well as to the many political individuals whom I first met over Facebook since 2005.

I also apologize to many of my college friends, of whom I made far more through Middle Georgia State (formerly Macon State) and the Warner Robins campus of Central Georgia Tech (formerly Middle Georgia Tech). I also apologize to those who I’ve made through the odd jobs I’ve done for them: candidate and issue campaigns, website design, and more.

Erasing Oneself from the Narrative

I feel that healing the rot caused by the roots of the housing supply crisis, which social media silos like Facebook and Twitter have only inflamed, is a mass, interpersonal struggle, not merely a personal trifle. 

Wresting control over one’s attention and self-awareness away from car-brain and (for-profit) social media brain is crucial for where we end up next in our politics. 

I see both of these mentalities emanating from the same alienating, atomizing root, in which one can live in the “wealthiest, most powerful nation-state in the history of the human species”(™) and find oneself increasingly isolated in exurbs and isolated alongside 3 billion others on Facebook. 

And we wonder why radicalization toward misanthropic, illiberal politics has increased in purchase. 

But if the single-family, car-centric zoning of housing is a crisis facilitated by its design toward consumption of land, can that be linked to the design of not only the social media algorithms feeding posts and ads to users’ eyeballs, but also the functional design of continuous scrolling?

It is time to allow ourselves to densify our housing and build inward, build more apartments closer to public transit, build more public transit, build away from the Sunbelt, and build away from wildland-urban interfaces. 

Similarly, it is time to choose media which respects our autonomy and right to self-moderate, respects our attention and does not continually feed us more content without our deliberation, allows us to retain and relocate our data and identity, allows us more control in how we wish to present ourselves, allows us to seek more consensus rather than contention in the projection of reality, allows us to refuse a platform to the misanthropic. 

The status quo that we have right now does none of those things. 

Therefore, as I have fed into this status quo for nearly 20 years of my life, as part of the West Coast burns, as the federal administrative state is set on fire from inside the White House, I erase myself from this narrative. I deny this beast any more of what I’ve fed it, and reclaim my time. I begin the healing process which I’ve denied myself all of these years. And I will try to actually blog long-form more often.

Dear reader, I hope you do, too.

I am now thinking frequently about these lyrics from Philippa Soo’s performance as Eliza in Hamilton:

“I’m erasing myself from the narrative

Let future historians wonder

How Eliza reacted when you broke her heart

You have torn it all apart

I’m watching it

Burn

Watching it burn

The world has no right to my heart

The world has no place in our bed

They don’t get to know what I said

I’m burning the memories

Burning the letters that might have redeemed you

You forfeit all rights to my heart

You forfeit the place in our bed

You sleep in your office instead

With only the memories

Of when you were mine

I hope that you burn”