This week, Farai Chideya and her guests talk about whistleblowing in the tech industry, how ecofascism happens, and the second Trump impeachment trial. Ifeoma Ozoma, founder of Earthseed, talks about the discrimination she says she experienced as a Black woman working at Pinterest, and what she’s doing to protect more whistleblowers through a new California amendment. Technology contributor Mutale Nkonde breaks down why the way tech companies treat their employees impacts our everyday lives. And climate writer Mary Annaïse Heglar explains why how white supremacists engage with the climate crisis matters. Plus, Errin Haines of the 19th and Jess Morales Rocketto of the National Domestic Workers Alliance discuss the repercussions of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, pandemic relief from the Biden-Harris administration, and Stacey Abrams’ plan to strengthen our democracy.
EPISODE RUNDOWN
3:04 Ifeoma Ozoma talks about how Pinterest benefited from having her be the face of the company, and why she feels she was treated unfairly by those in more powerful positions.
5:37 Ozoma says the way tech companies treat employees like her is similar to the way they treat their PoC consumer base.
6:34 Ozoma talks about why she is working to get resources to whistleblowers in the tech industry, including protections through a proposed California legislation, the Silenced No More Act.
12:26 Contributor and tech expert Mutale Nkonde continues the conversation about discrimination in the tech industry.
13:45 Nkonde talks about Timnit Gebru, her significant research into artificial intelligence, and why her treatment at Google strikes so close to home.
17:41 Some of Nkonde’s recent research looks into a significant disinformation campaign during the 2020 Presidential election, that many newsrooms missed.
20:04 Climate writer Mary Annaïse Heglar talks about her work identifying ecofascism.
22:38 Heglar talks about how the climate crisis is a “threat multiplier.”
24:11 Heglar explains why she uses Twitter to call out fossil fuel companies for their wrongdoings.
28:10 Our weekly political roundtable “Sippin’ the Political Tea’ breaks down the ramifications of the second impeachment trial for the public, and the political parties.
29:42 Farai Chideya and Errin Haines of The 19th talk about the video of the January 6th insurrection that was played during the impeachment trial.
31:19 Jess Morales Rocketto talks about House delegate Stacey Plaskett and how female elected officials are using fashion to make a statement.
33:18 Chideya discusses the potential consequences of the impeachment trial for the Republican Party.
36:58 Haines discusses Vice President Kamala Harris’ role as an equal partner in the administration.
39:30 Morales Rocketto says she wants to see the policies focused on helping immigrants, included in Covid relief negotiations.
40:43 Chideya says the pandemic relief plan gives Americans the opportunity to see what their government can do for them, and compares it to government aid in Europe.
Farai Chideya:
Thanks for listening and sharing our Body Politic. As you know, we're new and creating the show with lots of input from listeners like you. So I want to ask you a small favor. After you listen today, please head over to Apple podcasts on your phone, tablet, laptop or anywhere you listen and leave us a review. We read those because your ideas matter to us. Thanks so much.
This is our Body Politic. I'm the creator and host for Farai Chideya. We're looking at racism in the tech industry and the links between white supremacist movements and the climate crisis.
Ifeoma Ozoma spoke publicly last summer about the race and gender discrimination she says she experienced at the social media platform Pinterest. This year she's advocating for an amendment to a California state law, the Silenced No More Act.
Introduced early this month, the amendment broadens the discrimination categories that are protected for whistleblowers to break their non disclosure agreements and it could give workers new access to telling their stories, even if they've gotten a settlement. Now Ifeoma Ozoma runs her own firm Earthseed, which supports other whistleblowers in tech. Welcome Ifeoma.
Ifeoma Ozoma:
Thank you so much for having me.
Chideya:
So I realize there's a lot of territory to cover, but just give us a brief summary of what happened to you at Pinterest.
Ozoma:
Yes. So the brief summary requires giving a brief or summary of how I got to Pinterest. My entire career has been in tech, and I started at Google in DC on the public policy team and then moved to Facebook in California. I worked on international issues, domestic, policymakers from local to international, and I was recruited to Pinterest to be the second person on the public policy team in 2018, before the company went public in 2019.
Two months after I started, I realized that I was being underpaid according to the leveling chart that the company had for the work that I was doing. At that point, I was managing all of our international relationships with organizations, I was managing all of our federal policy making work as well as our state policy making work. So I raised my concerns in writing with my manager as one is supposed to do, I raised them with HR. Things didn't go anywhere for months, months in which I was creating positive press for the company.
The work that I was doing was proactive on a level that it was covered in the IPO press for the company. And it was reported as an example of Pinterest being a different kind of tech company.
Chideya:
Pinterest is also considered a platform with great interest to women and also to people of color, correct?
Ozoma:
Exactly. One of the things that resonated so much with people when I shared my story last June, was that the company was perfectly fine with having me be the face as a Black woman. The work we were doing internationally, the work that I was leading domestically, and the company benefited from having that image. It's a company that had, at the time that I was there, eight and 10 moms in the US using the platform. And so there is very much a dissonance between who was actually in positions of power in the company, and who was the face of the money making arm of the company.
Chideya:
And so in the end, how did they adjudicate or settle your complaint or did they?
Ozoma:
They did not exactly. I decided to leave in May of last year because the amount of stress it had caused me. I remember in February of last year, right when COVID news was spreading, I was actually representing the company at a conference at the National Academies of Sciences. And so I had this situation that I had to manage where I'd be emailing my lawyer while then giving a talk about the work that I was leading at Pinterest. And it was causing a lot of stress to me physically and emotionally, and so I decided to leave.
Chideya:
What do you see whether it's public awareness, or shareholders or employees as pads to raise these questions more successfully?
Ozoma:
Well, I've said this a few times to other people. I don't believe in commitments, I believe in consequences. And I think that the shareholder lawsuits are one particularly viable avenue to some sort of accountability because some of the settlements that have been reached have been large. The same law firm that's representing the pension fund bringing a shareholder lawsuit against Pinterest recently received, as far as what was disclosed, over $300 million settlement from Google. At the end, all of that money was directed towards creating a racial equity fund. So do I think that has changed Google? No, as we've seen from Timnit's situation.
Chideya:
That's Timnit Gebru who's AI scientist who, depending on who you talk to, was fired or resigned.
Ozoma:
Yeah. And so I think at the very least, companies should have to pay for the harm that they're not only visiting upon employees, but the way that employees are treated very much reflects the way that the consumer base is treated. What was fascinating to me after going public about Pinterest was hearing from so many Black women who used Pinterest about how they did not see themselves represented on the platform, even though the platform is clearly making tons of money off of them being users. And so some of the work that I'm doing now, and we can talk about this at a later time, isn't-
Chideya:
Oh no, I want to go about it, that was my next question.
Ozoma:
... is in supporting whistleblowers.
Chideya:
And let's talk a little bit more about this work with whistleblowers and then use that to talk more about your consulting firm that you started, Earthseed.
Ozoma:
The work that I'm doing through my consulting firm that's being supported financially by Omidyar Network is to help in two ways. The first way is in creating resource guides for tech workers. And when I say worker, I mean all tech workers, whether you're a gig worker, a contractor, you name it, you are a tech worker, is in providing guides that cover issues like when to engage a lawyer, how to engage a lawyer, how to work with press, because being a source is different from being someone's client, how to protect yourself both on the information and physical security side.
The second part of that work is in creating a fund that would provide monetary support for people who have been pushed out of their work due to whistleblowing and no longer have health insurance. And one of the things that I know would have kept me quiet and likely would have kept me at the company is if I had a family I was supporting with my health insurance.
Chideya:
Yep. So tell us about the Silenced No More Act, and what it means to you and how you're involved with it.
Ozoma:
I am so proud of the months of work with Senator Connie Leyva team, equal right advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Association that led to its introduction on February 8th. This bill if eventually passed by the California Legislature and then signed by Governor Newsom would bring protections to 40 million Californians and hopefully be adopted by other states. And what the bill would do is amend a 2018 law that extended protections to those who signed NDAs and allowed them to speak up about their experiences with sexual harassment, sex discrimination and sexual assault. What this bill does now is extend those protections to every single form of covered workplace harassment, or discrimination that's recognized in California.
Chideya:
So that means things like LGBTQ identity, race, age, disabilities, is that what we're talking about?
Ozoma:
That's correct, including veteran status, pregnancy status, mental health status, like everything that's covered under California Law. And what this means, essentially, is that it takes away the tool that the powerful both individuals like Harvey Weinstein, and then corporations like Pinterest and Google have used to silence people. And it's something that is incredibly personal to me because I've experienced it myself, whistleblowing about Pinterest, and many people who I know have been placed in positions where the harm done to them after being discriminated against or harassed or abused in the workplace is then compounded by forcing their silence.
Chideya:
How do you think that this could change the game in terms of achieving equity in tech?
Ozoma:
Well, since it'll apply to all 40 million people who live in California, this will bring accountability not just to tech, but to every sector including journalism. MBAs are used often to keep people from facing accountability, whether it's executives or managers or whoever else has been the one who has harassed or discriminated against an employee, and what this does it's take that tool away.
Chideya:
So do you want to see this go national?
Ozoma:
I do, I do. I don't believe that we should have 50 different laws and protections for employees. The pandemic has shown us more than any other time that folks can work in one state and live in another. And so I think that these protections should exist for all 350 or -60 million Americans.
Chideya:
Thanks Ifeoma.
Ozoma:
Thank you.
Chideya:
That was Ifeoma Ozoma, founder and principal of consulting firm Earthseed.
Each week, we asked listeners to call the SPEAK line to tell us what's on your mind. Today, we want to know, what is one thing you learned about yourself in the pandemic that makes you happy? For me, it's learning about how to be in community with my mom. I've moved to spend more time with her and she has so many fascinating stories from being in the Peace Corps in Morocco in the early '60s, and living in Zambia, and so I've learned how much I love listening to these stories and actually recording some of them at this point.
To answer our questions, you can call 929-353-7006. That's 929-353-7006. Or go to ourbodypolitic.show, and scroll down to find a Google form to respond in writing. When you're ready to speak, we're ready to listen.
Stories like Ifeoma Ozoma are bigger than what happened to one tech employee. The decisions technology and social media companies make have direct consequences on all of our daily lives. So we're continuing the conversation with Our Body Politic contributor Mutale Nkonde. She’s CEO of AI For the People, a nonprofit that works to make sure “artificial intelligence technology can be used for the social good.” Hi, Mutale.
Mutale Nkonde:
Farai, so good to be with you again.
Chideya:
So we just heard from Ifeoma Ozoma about how she wasn't treated equitably as a Black woman in tech and what strikes you about that story, and you being immersed in the world of technology how representative is it?
Nkonde:
Wow, Ifeoma's story. The thing that really strikes me is how ordinary her story is. Years and years and years ago, now, I had worked with a Google community partner. And some of the issues that she describes in her case were evident even then, and I'm speaking 2015, 2016.
Chideya:
Yeah, what about Timnit Gebru, how does her case impact the world of tech, another Black woman in a very high profile case, tell us about that one.
Nkonde:
So Timnit Gebru is one of the most significant researchers that looks into tech ethics. And she's really built a career at Google writing papers on these things. And the thing that really stood out to me and really shocked me was, she wasn't just fired from her job, it was done in a way that was extremely, extremely public. So Timbit's case is actually very personally devastating to me.
In my own work with AI For the People, one of our pillars of concentration is called race technology, and the Black body. And all our work on facial recognition is based on that paper that she co-wrote with Joy Buolamwini in 2018. And for listeners who are not aware, that was the very first time that we learned that facial recognition did not recognize Black people 40% of the time, and then a follow up to say we were misgendered.
Chideya:
Yeah, and that may sound trivial to some people, but this is going to be a part of our identity, just like cell phones now are effectively part of our identity. Why does this matter?
Nkonde:
It matters to somebody like me, because this idea about who is a person and who isn't a person actually dates back to the founding of our constitution, where it was decided that Black people would be three fifths of a person and then also not have the vote which is one of the ultimate markers of citizenhood within a nation. And then with the misgendering piece, when we take that forward to think about Black women specifically, we still get to understand why in 2021, a researcher like Timnit is still being questioned.
In her particular case, they were not just questioning the quality of her research work, they were ultimately in the way that she was fired, absolutely, undercutting her or authority by emailing her reports, before even telling her and telling her manager. And this is a company who as recently as 2017, if you put Black people, Black people were being labeled as gorilla in the images search.
Chideya:
And all of that is algorithms. We hear that word a lot, but what is an algorithm?
Nkonde:
So an algorithm is the brain of the machine. That algorithm learns how to perform tasks by being fed data around how that task was performed in the past. So for the example, Timnit was referencing in her paper, the reason facial recognition was misidentifying Black people, misgendering Black women were the way it was taught to recognize what is a human face is by looking at huge numbers of white faces, and specifically the faces of white men, and then creating statistical models based on the space between eyes, the circumference of the nose, and then a model was developed, and that's how you develop faces. If it's never seen a Black face, this is a machine it's not a person, it's going to just misidentify or throw out the data set.
Chideya:
Yeah, you had a situation recently where you had to deal with how people can weaponize technology after some of your disinformation research. Tell us about it if you can.
Nkonde:
Oh my God, I'm still recovering from that. So we had been doing research into a network, who I'm not naming because I don't want to amplify them. That's like disinformation 101, don't amplify the people that are perpetrating. But it's a Black network who were really pushing the idea that Black people shouldn't vote in the presidential and they had a specific campaign that they forwarded during the 2020 election, which was vote down ballot. And they're so media savvy, they had been able to go on CNN, and repeat this.
So these are people that you see in the New York Times, you see in the Washington Post, and they're very anti-immigrant and they're extremely judgmental of the way Black people live. It's a lot of the same rhetoric that you were hearing from the then Trump administration, and that made us very suspicious to whether these people were actually Black, and if they had a Black friend who's actually running this.
So we built a dataset of 3.5 million tweets, we analyzed it, the papers released, we tweet it out, and immediately one of my co-authors has 600 accounts swarm her. She then starts to get threats, new accounts are being developed to get threats. I was being threatened, but to a much, much lesser extent. And in our report, which was in the Harvard Misinformation Review, we make the case that white supremacy is an ideology, and as newsrooms are looking at Oath Keepers and Proud Boys as they should rightly, they also need to look at Black or at seemingly Black groups that promote disinformation. So ignoring Black stories and not having an editorial class that can pick up on this is in my opinion, a national security threat.
Chideya:
We're going to have to leave it there for now, but thank you for doing what you do Mutale.
Nkonde:
Farai, thank you for inviting me on and to everybody out there, it's so great to hang out with you all.
Chideya:
That was Mutale Nkonde, CEO of AI For the People.
White nationalist movements have an impact on parts of society most of us don't think of, including how we address the climate crisis. Mary Annaïse Heglar has been tracking this as part of her wide ranging work as a climate justice writer. She's also the co-host and co-creator of the newsletter and podcast Hot Take. Mary, welcome to our Body Politic.
Mary Annaïse
Heglar:
Thank you for having me.
Chideya:
So Mary, I want to ask about ecofascism. Tell us first of all, what it is and why also, it's such an important narrative right now as we're still processing the seeds of the capital.
Heglar:
Ecofascism is basically environmentalism, but fascists. So it is generally tied to white nationalism because this is what happens when right wing, like extreme right wing people accept the climate science. All climate action is not necessarily benevolent, and is not necessarily going to take care of everyone. So you can see this crisis coming and say, "Shut the borders, we're going to have limited resources, and those resources are going to be for me and mine, and no one else," and that is a lot of what's happening.
So the El Paso shooting from 2019, the Christchurch shooting, I believe, the same year out in New Zealand, both of those shooters had explicitly ecofascist concerns. They were terrified about climate change, and they were terrified of the immigrants coming to use up the resources that they saw is dwindling, and that they saw belonging to them. And so I think a lot about ecofascism, because even though I did not have the language for it, that was really the reason I was most drawn to climate change, if I'm being honest.
I think back to Hurricane Katrina, which I think was a very traumatizing event for this country, but especially traumatizing for Black people in this country. I was in Mississippi at the time. And I remember hearing about the militias basically running around New Orleans and hunting Black people for sport. People will say like, "My biggest fear about climate change is how are we going to treat each other?" My biggest fear about climate change is how are white people going to treat me.
Chideya:
And so you are someone who also in your podcast and in other places, really thinks about all of the different ways that ecology and the climate interact with other forms of social justice? And you did a piece in Rolling Stone about how the climate crisis was revealed to be a threat multiplier. Tell us what you mean by that.
Helgar:
Yeah. So our scientists use that term threat multiplier to mean that it basically makes everything worse. So if anything else already existed as a threat, now that threat is just going to get that much bigger, for example, COVID 19, that's already a threat, and then you put it in to the mix with climate change in the form of hurricanes, where people can't socially distance, they have to go to shelters, they have to evacuate, there's no way to do that in a socially distant manner. Now you have even more outbreaks of COVID-19, or wildfires, for example. Another example that I think we don't talk nearly enough about is prisons. So prisons are already like a giant threat, like people living there are extremely vulnerable. And then you put them into a position where they have extreme weather. Most prisons do not have air conditioning, even in Texas. We're getting to the point where we are going to see temperatures at which you can get heatstroke just by walking around outside. Now put that into a human indoor building with tons of people who are overcrowded on top of each other, the risk for loss of life is tremendous.
And I could go on with many other examples, and that is why climate change hurts the most vulnerable people first, because those are the people who are already on the margins.
Chideya:
So tell us about some of the ways that you observe what corporations and people in power do around the climate in clap back.
Heglar:
So yeah, I think I'm becoming known for doing this thing on social media where I basically cyberbully fossil fuel companies. Honestly, I just started doing that because I'm Petty, and if it can't be petty, if it can't be fun, I don't want to do it. Climate change is already sad enough is scary enough. If I'm going to fight it, I'm going to have some fun with it. And if that includes me getting in Chevron's mentions and basically holding up a mirror to their face, and being like, "Oh, you care about human rights? That's real cute, because this is what you did in Nigeria. How do you explain that?"
It's really just fun to expose them. I think for a really long time. the climate crisis has been a story that we told incompletely, like we told it without the villain. Often the way we talked about climate change was that the villain and the victim were the same person and that person was you. You created this mess because you didn't recycle enough. You don't have an electric vehicle, you don't have solar panels. You are the reason for your own suffering. And that's simply not true.
There is a reason that this is happening and there are people who are profiting off of it, and those are the fossil fuel companies there trade groups and the politicians who benefit from that as a whole ecosystem, and that ecosystem is the one that needs to be destroyed, not the one that we live in and depend on. And so for that reason, BP, and shell and Chevron and all of those guys cannot just walk on Twitter without me having something to say about it because they're usually pretending that there's something that they're not, they're usually pretending that they're part of the solution, because they've got an algae farm somewhere, or a hydro plant somewhere else. But the truth of the matter is that they're digging up oil in the Arctic and in Suriname, and pretending that they're not doing it.
Chideya:
So I just want to ask a final question, because we could keep going, and hopefully, you'll be able to come back and talk to us more. But what do you do to fill the well? I know people for whom the number one thing that keeps them really anxious is the climate, how do you refill your well given the kind of work you do?
Heglar:
People often say that the biggest cure for climate grief, which is kind of what you're describing, like climate, anxiety, climate depression, is climate action. And I think that's kind of halfway true. I do think that that's important. I think probably the best cure, though, is climate community. The reason it feels so incredibly overwhelming and crushing for people is that they think they're doing it alone. Reaching out and finding other people who are engaged in the same kind of work, facing the same kind of fear head on and talking about it openly has been really healing for me, and has kept me going.
And so that's why I'm really excited about the blast in climate podcast because it helps to normalize the conversation. We don't know how to talk about this, this has never happened before. We barely even have the language for it. So we're going to have to learn how to cope with it and learn how to talk about and learn how to incorporate it into our lives and find a way to keep going and that is no short order.
Chideya:
Mary, just really enjoyed this. Thank you so much.
Heglar:
Thank you.
Chideya:
Mary Annaïse Heglar is co-host of the podcast Hot Take, find it wherever you listen to podcasts.
Now it's time for our weekly political roundtable, Sippin’ the Political Tea. Here to talk about all of this week's news, I'm joined by Our Body Politic contributors, Errin Haines, editor at large at The 19th and Jess Morales Rocketto, civic engagement director at the National Domestic Workers Alliance. Welcome back, Jess.
Jess Morales
Rocketto:
Hi. Happy to be here.
Chideya:
Errin, another week in politics, welcome back.
Errin Haines:
Yeah, except for the second impeachment of the former president of United States, but sure.
Chideya:
Yep, exactly.
Haines:
So as I said, former President Trump had a second round of impeachment hearings this week. I want to hear from both of you about what struck you the most. Farai, what about?
Chideya:
I'm going to make a very strange admission here. Maybe not strange, but I didn't watch the impeachment hearings, because I catch feelings, too. I am a battle hardened political reporter. But I still can get really worked up over things, so I read about it. So when I talk about the video being the thing that struck me, I'm talking about all of the written descriptions of the video, because I haven't watched it myself, I need to do some little prayer and meditation before I watch it just to center myself, but the descriptions of the video that were used in the democratic case, sound, exquisitely done and friends of mine who are television producers are like, "Who do they get to produce that? That stuff was amazing."
So through the filter of a little bit of emotional distance, which I get from reading things in print versus watching them in video, I'm struck by how everyone is talking about the video.
Haines:
Yeah, listen, the combination of prosecution and production value is definitely something people were commenting on. I will say I did watch. I was pretty much glued to my television, the way my direct deposit is set up, but also I am an American citizen and this was our democracy on display yet again. I think watching it, especially day two of the impeachment trial, what I was most struck by was just the idea that laying out the case in the way that it was laid out, seeing that video footage, in its totality.
It was a really compelling video that certainly was hard for me to look away from and to see it all together because there has been so much reporting kind of in the wake of January 6th, but to pull it all together in a way that they did, I think it was important for the public to have that on record. And when we're talking about moving forward with a shared set of facts, in terms of how do you get to, I guess, President Biden and Vice President Harris's goal of unity and healing, so many people are saying that does not happen without accountability and acknowledgement.
I think this trial says as much about the American people as it does about the Senate decision. Jess, what about you?
Morales Rocketto:
Can I bring up something that I feel like is really important that is a little bit outside of the extremely serious tenor that we just talked about?
Haines:
Is it Stacey Plaskett’s cape?
Morales Rocketto:
It is, absolutely!
Chideya:
Yes, do! We need to talk about this!
Morales Rocketto:
The impeachment manager, who is representing the Virgin Islands, and the first time ever that, like a non-senator is doing that. And she literally wore a cape dress while she works to save our democracy, the perfection-
Chideya:
So many claps.
Morales Rocketto:
... of that moment.
Chideya:
It was fly, it was fly. I mean there's no other way to say it. But it was definitely here to save democracy outfit, as well as transitions-to-a tasteful virtual-black-tie event outfit because that's what we need these days.
Haines:
Well, listen, I mean, look, her sartorial choices were definitely not lost on Twitter so I don't see how we can't mention that, right?
Morales Rocketto:
Well I kind of love it too because I do feel like it's a little bit of fashion diplomacy or fashion that's sending a message. You don't wear the literal cape dress if you're not trying to actually be using your clothing to make a statement. And I feel like that's such an interesting development that's been happening as you have an unprecedented amount of female elected officials and that's really exciting, because I think that we'll start to see more of that coming through, and those end up being some of the most enduring images of these moments.
Haines:
So I want to move on to a Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who began the second day of impeachment hearings with this argument, let's listen to a clip.
Jamie Raskin:
A January exception, it's an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door, to hang on to the Oval Office at all costs, and to block the peaceful transfer of power.
Haines:
So what about this January exception? What are the consequences for the Republican Party Farai?
Chideya:
We don't know yet, that's the short answer. I was just reading an article that Ann Coulter wrote on her own site, anncoulter.com, called “My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution.” And so basically, she says, "Republicans could trade impeachment for the border wall," which obviously, but that one was interesting to me as one of the articles written during the impeachment trial, because I think Republicans are bargaining with Republicans over the soul of the Republican Party.
There is a lot of internal introspection that most of us are not privy to, in terms of what the lawmakers were in our thinking. And I don't think the Republican Party yet has decided what kind of party it wants to be. What's interesting is that as America becomes more racially diverse, the Republicans will not be able to win without supporters of color. But there is that whole strand of what some people are calling American nationalism or the browning of white supremacy. And there are people who may go along from communities of color with a white nationalist framework for the Republican Party. So I just don't think we know.
Haines:
Yeah, that's interesting. What about the consequences for the Democratic Party, Jess?
Morales Rocketto:
You alluded to this earlier, and I think that we have this moment where the Democrats are trying to push forward on impeachment as a way of holding Trump accountable, but it is somewhat at odds with this unity message because the Republicans have not embraced this both, like literally the legislators themselves and their own votes so far, but then also in a larger Republicans, I guess. There's a real challenge that I think is in this new Congress that really is trying to move forward in the pro-Trump era that is a democratic trifecta across all branches of government, and they don't actually have the ability to probably do the first most important thing in a way that I think they would like.
They go in, they take a vote, it's done, it happens. I don't think that their hearts are totally in this fight, which is a little disappointing. There are moments of like real kind of heart and legislators speaking to where we are, but most of it is not quite the people on white horses, who working to save our democracy, which I think people kind of need in this moment, particularly after Trump and everyone around him has helped really sell you what it looks like to be a leader in our country.
So I think there's a lot of consequences for the Democratic Party, and I'm not totally sure that they've shown up quite the way that we need them to.
I actually want to jump in here and ask about the relationship between President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris:
We did it, we did it, Joe.
Morales Rocketto:
Okay. That's, of course, the clip of Vice President Harris congratulating then President Joe Biden after the election in November.
Haines:
Which lives rent free in my brain, by the way.
Morales Rocketto:
Me too, Errin, constantly!
Haines:
Seriously, every time that she's standing behind him in a mask, as he's signing an executive order, that is what I imagined her saying.
Morales Rocketto:
Biden's been saying that she's pretty much an equal partner in the decision making. I wonder if, do you all think that she actually is an equal partner, and how do you think that his previous term as a Vice President plays into this? Errin, what do you make of that?
Haines:
Well Jess, I think President Biden definitely said when he was looking for his governing partner, his then running mate, he said that he wanted a relationship, unlike the relationship that he had within, President Obama, wanted them to be governing partners, felt like President Obama was somebody who empowered him to do certain things most notably the handling of the economic recovery, when they took office in 2008, and also working to get the Affordable Care Act passed.
And I think that you're starting to see, even in the early days of this administration taking shape, her being involved, her being at the table. Certainly she's been at the table for every one of these executive order signings. When they are dealing with the response to the pandemic from both an economic and public health perspective, you're seeing her at the table in conversation with cabinet members, but also with local leaders, with with mayors, with small business leaders across the country really echoing the president's message and his priorities.
She broke her first high in the in the Senate in her role as President of the Senate recently, dealing with budget reconciliation, and also has been instrumental in trying to get this American rescue plan across the finish line, although some people took issue with, I guess how she is put pressure on West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. But yes, she absolutely seems to be involved in the governing that is happening in the early days of this administration. And so if that bears out, she may, indeed, proved to be the partner that she said that she wanted to be and that President Biden said that she would be.
So I want to talk more about what the Biden Harris administration has been up to and what you all make of the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan? Jess, let's start with you.
Morales Rocketto:
It's very exciting. This is a really progressive plan. I wouldn't say anybody thinks about Joe Biden as the super progressive individual. But so far, his legislation, I think, has been pretty progressive. Of course, the announcements of the immigration AEOs and the big immigration bill, and then now, this, which is his other big signature legislative push. So it's very exciting. It is much needed, families need relief, they needed relief last year, we're almost a year out from having to kind of be in lockdown in our houses. So it's long, long overdue and I think the fact that it is so large is really important.
There's one big thing that I want to talk about that's not in there. That's something that's really important to me, but I also think is the place where some of his early policies intersects--and that's immigration. There is very little for immigrant families, undocumented families and support here. And there's one piece that has been a little bit controversial for some around giving children of immigrants with social security number checks to make sure that they can get through the pandemic.
And so I think that there is a really big tension between this push the administration has done around a new immigration policy around reversing Trump's orders, and then actually helping immigrant families in the relief package, particularly when you have a number of undocumented immigrants and immigrant families who are listed as essential workers during the pandemic and are literally responsible for keeping the country running and keeping people alive. That's attention that they're really going to have to deal with. And if they don't, I think it could come off a little bit hollow as one of their big priorities.
Haines:
Yeah, Farai, what are your thoughts on the pandemic relief plan?
Chideya:
Well, I think it's actually an opportunity for Americans to think about what government does. In many other nations, particularly in Europe, but not limited to Europe, people get a lot for their taxes, they generally pay more than the US but they get far more. People in other nations are shocked by the bickering over these checks, which to them are amounts that they get per month and more. In Europe, for example, there are programs of support for artists, because musicians and artists are part of the cultural heritage of a nation.
Cultural tourism is so much of why people come to America and yet right now, people who normally are on Broadway, in the smaller character roles are really just desperate, among many other types of professionals. And in many other nations, you would get monthly support replacing your income to a certain percentage. And so I think that this whole stimulus conversation will lead us to bigger conversations about what is the role of government? How do you support your citizens and residents? And even things like what does it mean to own a home? We have billions of dollars for back payment of rent, but how do we get homeownership to be something that's more common? So bigger conversations to come.
Haines:
So Farai, speaking of what government's responsibility is to its citizens, the issue of voting rights, certainly working in a newsroom name for the 19th amendment is one that I'm focused on and wondering what our democracy does in response to what we saw in the 2020 election with around issues of voter suppression. And so Stacey Abrams wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post where she says we need to act now to save our democracy. And I actually listened into a call that she held recently with Voting Rights Lawyer, Mark Elias, where he and Abrams basically put Georgia Republicans on notice that any attempts to curtail voter access in the wake of the record elections in that state are going to be met with legal action. So Jess, where do we start?
Morales Rocketto:
Well, I think the most important thing to remember is that we have unprecedented momentum around voting rights. But these are voting rights reforms that we started trying to pass literally in 1965. So on one hand, like thank goodness, that day has finally come, and on the other hand, I think we have a lot of challenges in the voting rights space that are not going to be accomplished just by passing H.R. 1, which is the Voting Rights Act, the big voting rights package that is moving in Congress.
At the same time, I think Stacy really hits it on the head in her op ed in the Washington Post. She talks about DC statehood, she talks about the John Lewis Voting Rights Amendment Act, she talks about ending the senate filibuster, key, key options for how we actually have a modern democracy that meets the needs of its citizens and gives people the right to vote and really puts into place really permanent protections around the right to vote.
There's one place where I have a slight note, which is around Puerto Rico. There's been a lot of talk, probably more than I've ever heard in my 15 years in politics, about Puerto Rico and independence and Puerto Rican statehood. And I think it's just really important to say that that's a really nuanced conversation in the Puerto Rican community, and that we should really listen deeply to Puerto Rican folks on and off the island about how they feel about this, because I think that in our rush to provide voting rights and create favorable conditions around voting, we may go a little far of where Puerto Ricans actually are on this question, which is a long and complicated history, and I think educating ourselves about that is really important. I know for me, I'm definitely doing that and I'm learning a lot.
Haines:
Yeah, Jess, Stacey Abrams also referenced Puerto Rico independence is part of what she wants to see happen in that op-ed that she wrote. Farai, let me turn to you about this, too. What do we do?
Chideya:
Well, what we do is listen to Stacey, so that that's my full answer. That's the beginning, middle and end of my answer.
Haines:
Yeah, well, I guess we'll have to stay tuned and see what happens. I'll tell you in Georgia, there is stopstacey.org site that has popped up so I think that they recognize her as a continued threat to focus efforts to suppress voters in the 21st century. Well, look at so much tea, too little time. We're going to have to leave it there for now. But it was nice talking with you, Jess.
Morales
Rocketto:
So nice talking with you all.
Haines:
And it was nice to chat with you again, Farai.
Chideya:
Always great to be here sipping the tea. I have coffee today, but I'll get back on plan next week.
Haines:
Caffeine is caffeine.
Chideya:
Thank you so much for joining us on our Body Politic. We're on the air each week and everywhere you listen to podcasts. Our Body Politic is produced by Lantigua Williams & Co. I'm the Creator and Host, Farai Chideya. Juleyka Lantigua Williams is executive producer. Paulina Velasco is senior producer. Cedric Wilson is lead producer and mixed this episode. Original Music by Kojin Tashiro. Our producer is Priscilla Alabi. Michelle Baker and Emily Daly are assistant producers. Production assistance from Mark Betancourt, Sarah McLure, Cedric Wilson and Kojin Tashiro.
Funder Credit:
Funding for our Body Politic is provided by Craig Newmark Philanthropies and by The Jonathan Logan Family Foundation, empowering world-changing work
Chideya, Farai, host. “Tackling Racism and Sexism in the Tech Industry, Ecofascism Explained, the Political Aftermath of a Second Trump Impeachment Trial.” Our Body Politic, Diaspora Farms LLC. February 12, 2021. https://our-body-politic.simplecast.com/