

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Just as church hymns carried our ancestors through hardships, our music today carries forward the spirit of every Black, queer person who dared to dream of visibility and freedom.
Music has always been at the very heartbeat of Black culture. Through harmonies, we have found community. Through lyrics, we have found healing. Through dance, we have found freedom in our bodies. And through the drumbeat of music, we have found resistance.
From the spirituals sung by our ancestors on the very land I stand today, to the hymns sweetly sung in my childhood church, to the bass-rattling house music in gay clubs throughout Houston, music has always connected me to my culture. And suddenly, as things begin to feel more quiet on a national stage, I am reminded that the music of Black and queer voices must keep playing, louder than ever before.
I discovered this month that Black History Month quietly vanished from my Google Calendar. Pride was gone too—a so-called “small” omission that represents something much larger and more sinister. This quiet erasure of history is becoming commonplace in public and private spaces, and it speaks volumes. With the cancellation of the Gay Men’s Chorus at the Kennedy Center, the oppressive tides of “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, the transphobic rhetoric, the defunding of LGBTQ+ healthcare and art, and the anti-DEI movements trying their hardest to erase Black and queer identities, making noise remains an act of rebellion.
Black, queer music cannot be ignored or sanitized or whitewashed or undervalued for the next four years, which means Black, queer creators need to be paid, be on the main stages, be given the mic at the awards ceremonies, and be given their flowers for the culture they sustain.
But the history of Black music cannot be rewritten to fit dominant narratives because it is the history of resistance itself. Church hymns and spirituals carried prayers and codes for the enslaved. Blues gave us a place to voice the injustices we endured. Jazz was birthed from the need for freedom of expression. Hip-hop became our weapon to challenge our oppressors. And our many contributions—too often uncredited—built the foundation for rock, country, pop, house, dance, and so much more.
And queer artists have been pivotal to this story. Billy Strayhorn, Duke Ellington’s openly gay composer, brought undeniable brilliance to the jazz world. Billie Holiday turned her voice into a protest. Little Richard, known fondly as the “King of Rock and Roll,” shattered norms and sang about his desires with the kind of joy that felt revolutionary. Sylvester, the “Queen of Disco,” gave us revolutionary anthems of love and resilience while fighting on the frontlines of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Gospel music would cease to exist if the Black, queer writers, singers, and composers were erased.
Even today, Black LGBTQ+ artists are breaking records and capturing the world’s attention. Big Freedia is the New Orleans “Queen of Bounce” whose music and style have been sampled by some of the biggest artists today. Lil Nas X is bending genres and expectations for Black male rappers. Doechii captivated everyone watching this year’s Grammys and used her speech as a message of hope for Black and queer creators. These artists are showing that the power of being visible and unrelenting in their truth extends far beyond music charts.
But here’s the truth we can’t ignore—many of the icons that came before them, or are their peers today, still have to hide who they were and are. Societal pressures and safety concerns force them into invisibility. And now fear remains that if billion-dollar industries are cowering to current political climates, what will that mean for Black, queer creators?
That is why it is so important to support Black and queer creators, through hiring, funding, streaming, and screaming their songs at the top of our lungs. Their music doesn’t just entertain; it liberates. It mends spirits and moves people to think, to feel, and to act. It’s an instrument of resistance and a tool to drown out this world’s hate. Black, queer music cannot be ignored or sanitized or whitewashed or undervalued for the next four years, which means Black, queer creators need to be paid, be on the main stages, be given the mic at the awards ceremonies, and be given their flowers for the culture they sustain.
When The Normal Anomaly started BQAF (Black Queer AF) Music Festival in Houston, Texas four years ago, it was not created to be a demonstration. We just believed the power of music could bring people together, and—since no one in Texas had done it before—to center it around Black, queer, and allied artists we loved seemed logical. Now, it is the track list to a freedom song so necessary to repeat to quiet the deafening sounds of hate and fear for the community.
That’s why we’re unapologetically taking up space and taking the stage at this year’s BQAF Music Festival, an all-Black queer and allied lineup. For our fourth iteration, our theme this year is VISIBILITY. This music festival is a love letter to our community and our message to the nation and the world—we won’t be erased or silenced. We will be seen, heard, felt, and celebrated. We are turning the volume all the way up—not just for Houston to hear, but for every person across this country who has been made to feel like their identity does not deserve respect or recognition.
We’ve built momentum as a community. Black, queer artists are out here breaking records, genres, and boundaries. And we will not halt this progress. Just as church hymns carried our ancestors through hardships, our music today carries forward the spirit of every Black, queer person who dared to dream of visibility and freedom. Together, we’ll send a message to every lawmaker and system working against us. They may try to silence us, but Black and queer music will always be louder.
As long as there is air in my lungs, I will have a song to sing that fills the silence with the beauty, resilience, and limitless brilliance of our culture.
As Martin Luther King Jr. Day coincides with Trump’s second inauguration, a call for unwavering compassion in uncertain times.
It is not lost on me, the significance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day coinciding with the inauguration day of Donald J. Trump. As a Black queer man living in Texas, the day embodies contradictions—a time for appreciation for one of our country’s most profound voices for liberation, as well as a stark reminder that a voice that symbolizes oppression for so many is being simultaneously lauded.
For many, this juxtaposition symbolizes a broader tension—a celebration of progress intertwined with a sobering reminder of the work still ahead. On one hand, we honor the enduring legacy of Dr. King and his selfless commitment to justice and equality. On the other, we brace for a political landscape that threatens to return America to its so-called “former glory”—a glory that many of us know all too well was built on the exclusion and oppression of people like me.
Living and working in the South, I’m acutely aware that the specters of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism are not distant memories. They are tangibly woven into the fabric of our lives, as are homophobia and transphobia. These prejudices are not relics of the past buried deep beneath our feet; they walk with us everywhere we go. This hate has been revitalized and glorified in recent years. People and even politicians meant to represent us feel emboldened to denounce our communities publicly, and safe spaces to shield us from this hate are shrinking. We can see this erosion is compounded by platforms like Meta lifting hate speech rules, allowing for the open derision of our identities. We can feel this with some of our states’ schools eliminating the study of LGBTQ history. We can experience this with DEI programs being demolished by major corporations. We can hear it even when it is quiet, like funding for Black and LGBTQ initiatives being silently rolled back. Yet, we endure. Dr. King’s dream remains alive within us, a beacon of hope that guides us through these challenges. The efforts to silence our voices, erase our experiences, and strip away our communities will not prevail.
Dr. King’s legacy demands more than passive admiration; it requires active participation. Resist hatred with love, confront despair with hope, and strive toward the eternal “oughtness” of a just society.
Our stories, our histories, and our communities will endure. We will lift each other up, ensuring that our voices are heard and our legacy preserved. Together, we will come together like never before to achieve the long overdue liberation.
Dr. King once said, “The time is always right to do what is right,” and those words ground my hope. Even as we see institutions—companies, government bodies, and individuals—succumbing to harmful ideologies that marginalize and threaten us, I choose to believe in the power of allies who will continue the fight for equality. Integrity demands consistency, even when it is met with resistance.
Politics are a pendulum, swinging from far left to far right over the decades. My rights as a Black queer person have often been treated as a political pawn, used to curry favor or incite fear. Yet, despite the political gamesmanship, we remain standing—unswayed and undeterred. We are operating from a place of unwavering purpose that transcends the chaos and seeks lasting progress, and I firmly believe that the next four years will wake us from a slumber of status quo and invigorate us to activate.
Last year, amid heightened tensions for Black and queer folks in my state, I gathered voices from our community for a workshop. Together, we created the documentary They Ain’t Coming to Save Us, a poignant reminder of the power of self-empowerment. Through activism, storytelling, history, compassion, and community, we possess the tools necessary to build the safety and support that legislation and societal systems have stripped away. This gathering of Black queer voices reaffirmed a truth that is both empowering and sobering—we must save ourselves.
Dr. King once said, “I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.” My hope in humanity endures because I witness the compassion that exists even among those who have every reason to turn away. On a daily basis, I witness individuals who inspire me to keep believing. Throughout my travels with The Normal Anomaly Initiative, I meet and speak with folks who put love into the world even when the world has shown them nothing but hate. They remind me that empathy is not extinct; it only needs to be rekindled. Dr. King understood this unwavering truth, declaring that “darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
On this day of reflection, these words call us to action—not just to honor Dr. King but to live out his vision daily. When he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, he declared, “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
This belief must sustain us. We can weather political and social storms, but we must also build a shelter together—one that safeguards dignity and humanity for all. Dr. King’s legacy demands more than passive admiration; it requires active participation. Resist hatred with love, confront despair with hope, and strive toward the eternal “oughtness” of a just society.
Today, I ask you to recommit yourself not only to equality but to compassion. Our survival, our stories, and our communities depend on it. Together, we will ensure that Dr. King’s dream becomes a lived reality.
We must understand that to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine, we must also develop a longer-term strategy that contends with the growing power of far-right forces here in the U.S.
It has been over 450 days since Israel began its genocide and military invasion of Gaza and then Lebanon, Iran, and Syria. With the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president, the American government will continue and increase support for Israel’s all out war against Palestinian people.
For the past year, students have rallied and protested to demand divestment from Israel and its apartheid regime. Heated protests have erupted across the country, including in San Francisco where students planned walk outs and took over quads with encampments and teach-ins.
Alongside these students, parents from Southwest Asia and North Africa (SWANA) communities went up against San Francisco’s school board to insist that their children cannot be censored for supporting Palestinian people. Many of these parents are Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) members, so I joined a meeting between these parents and the superintendent. When the superintendent would not bring up pressing issues around how students were being impacted by the ongoing genocide, parents disrupted the meeting and demanded their kids’ rights to speak up.
Through organizing, we build trust and are able to inoculate the harmful disinformation coming from white Christian nationalists and other right-wing forces.
However, not too long ago, I saw these same parents swayed by white Christian nationalists who were mobilizing Arab and Muslim parents around transphobia and homophobia. By circulating hateful rhetoric and drumming up fears about the “influence” of LGBTQ+ acceptance, white Christian nationalists convinced Arab and Muslim parents to pull their children out of public schools in the Bay Area. This is a trend we have seen across the country as Christian nationalist groups like Moms for Liberty recruit conservative Asian faith-based groups to rally against curricula portraying LGBTQ+ families and themes.
What happened? How did these parents go from being swayed by one fascist force to vehemently countering another fascist force? What can we learn as organizers from this moment?
The fight for a free Palestine is deeply ingrained into the many other fights against rising facism in the United States and abroad. We must understand that to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine, we must also develop a longer-term strategy that contends with the growing power of far-right forces here in the U.S. We cannot do one without the other.
What does this take? First, we must be clear about who we’re up against and what strategies they are using. After 75 years of occupation and a year of military invasion, Zionism has made clear their strategy: complete annihilation of Palestine and its people. To do this, the Zionist system requires the support of other right-wing forces for monetary, political, and narrative power.
One formidable partnership is between white Christian nationalists and Zionists. Nationally, the largest Zionist organization in the United States is Christians United for Israel, which funnels millions of dollars into the Israel lobby every year. Project 2025, the 900-plus-page policy document spearheaded by the far-right Heritage Foundation, lays out far-right forces’ plan to transform the United States into a Christian nationalist theocracy that would sustain Israel’s military expansion. Locally, in San Francisco, when AROC campaigned with parents and students for the addition of Eid as holidays on the school calendar, Christian nationalists and Zionists allied to threaten the school board and halt the decision.
This issue of transphobia is a longer-term struggle that we will continue to face. We have not resolved it with our members, and there is no success story. However, we are helping our members to understand the contradictions of right-wing forces in order to move our communities on various contentious issues.
For years, Christian nationalists have made inroads into organizing Muslim and Arab parents in the Bay Area by manufacturing fear and outrage around queer and trans “influences” in schools. In the past year, as AROC has mobilized thousands of people to call for a permanent cease-fire and an arms embargo on Israel, we have also been engaging in deep political education and long conversations with our communities to point out the connections between various right-wing, fascist forces.
This past year has politicized many to call for Palestinian liberation. It has especially mobilized the SWANA families in AROC’s membership, many of whom have direct connections to the region that Israel is devastating. This past year has reemphasized that we need to deeply invest in grassroots organizing and basebuilding. This allows organizers and working-class people to work together to protect our communities from right-wing disinformation and come up with real solutions that can transform lives.
When the attacks on Gaza began last October, AROC was able to provide the space and container for our parents, youth, and activists to identify key issues and leverage our power locally. We got the cities of San Francisco and Oakland to adopt resolutions for an immediate and sustained cease-fire. Through those processes, we saw our community really engage with democratic processes and understand the power of civic engagement. Through organizing, we build trust and are able to inoculate the harmful disinformation coming from white Christian nationalists and other right-wing forces. This is key to winning our communities away from right-wing influences and building a stronger anti-fascist movement.
Grassroots organizing is how we build the power of our movement! Power means we can shift conditions in society and in our own lives. Power means we can end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and block the rise of far-right fascism.
Corporate executives must be held accountable for their exploitative behavior, and we need to push lawmakers to incentivize corporate decision-making that aligns with the interests of workers, communities, and the planet.
As June approached this year, queer people across the U.S. braced for the typical rainbow-washing we have seen corporate America push at all our local retailers in recent years. However, this year, many queer people were surprised to see so many companies pull back on their outward support of the LGBTQ+ community. Popular brands like Target, Nike, and North Face chose not to release or scale back Pride merchandise this year. In fact, several large corporations have stopped changing their logos to rainbow alternatives and instead decided not to make any public acknowledgement of Pride.
This year, Pride Month is a reminder that voluntary initiatives will not save us.
So why does this corporate walkback feel like a bitter disappointment, despite general consensus in the queer community that corporations are just profiting off of the queer community during Pride month rather than making meaningful shifts year-round to dismantle discrimination and exclusion? It could be because this pullback shows yet again that corporations seem to only care about the queer community as far as it benefits their profits. (The same can and should be said for the BIPOC community, as corporations have also been walking back on their DEI commitments since 2021, the year after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.) This trend marks the highly concerning sentiment that it is no longer profitable to support queer people in the U.S.—that the fire against LGBTQ+ people has grown larger than our purchasing power.
Here’s the truth:
Companies like McDonald’s and Amazon profit off the the genocide in Gaza killing thousands of queer people, make massive campaign contributions to homophobic and transphobic politicians, crack down on worker unions, profit from the prison labor of a disproportionate number of BIPOC queer people, and increase homelessness, which also disproportionately affects BIPOC queer people. These large corporations are the same ones paying for Keke Palmer to join the stage of D.C.’s Capital Pride Festival to celebrate the month. Meanwhile, corporations that sponsor Pride events and/or change their logos to be rainbow are at the same time growing the wealth gap with exorbitant executive pay, unfair wages, anti-ESG campaigns—policies that directly contribute to homelessness, mass incarceration, and climate change.
This year, Pride Month is a reminder that voluntary initiatives will not save us. Corporate executives must be held accountable for their exploitative behavior, and we need to push lawmakers to incentivize corporate decision-making that is aligned with the interests of workers, communities, and the planet. Because at the end of the day, campaign finance reform, criminal justice reform, restrictions on buying up affordable housing, protecting the right to unionize, and regulating executive pay and stock buybacks, and a progressive tax code directly benefit the queer community made up of working people across the country more than any rainbow logo or product ever could.
In their new book, Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman write as if economic class no longer exists or matters.
I don’t like to slam books, especially those ahead of mine on the best seller list. It might seem like petty jealousy. But one recent release, White Rural Rage by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, is seriously flawed.
For starters, the authors write as if economic class no longer exists or matters. According to this book, all rural white people, or at least most of them, share similar racist attitudes. Class distinctions between bosses and workers, rich and poor, are meaningless.
Because Schaller and Waldman view the world through their anti-class, whiteness lens, they don’t consider the possibility that working-class voters share common attitudes across geographies. Contrary to their thesis, the research for my book found no discernable differences in attitudes on hot-button social issues between urban, suburban, and rural white working-class voters.
When Democrats, like Sherrod Brown, show the courage to fight against Wall Street’s war on workers they gain working-class support.
As Democratic Party pollster Mike Lux reports, “These voters wouldn’t care all that much about the cultural difference and the woke thing if the Democrats gave more of a damn about the economic challenges they face deeply and daily.”
Schaller put his cards on the table during an interview on MSNBC, during which he called rural Americans “the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay geo-demographic group in the country.”
The authors also claim it is getting worse. In defending themselves in The New Republic, they write that “as the rest of the country moved away from Donald Trump [in 2020] rural whites lurched toward him by nine points, from 62% to 71%.”
But voting for Trump is not the same as being a bigot. In fact, the data in my book shows that white working-class voters, rural and otherwise, are growing more liberal, not illiberal on key social issues.
“Are you in favor of granting ‘legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years and not been convicted of any felony crimes?’” (Cooperative Election Study)
White working-class in favor:
2010: 32.1%
2020: 61.8%
“Should gay or lesbian couples be legally permitted to adopt children?” (American National Elections Study)
White working-class in favor:
2000: 38.2%
2020: 76.7%
“Agree that most Blacks just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves out of poverty.” (General Social Survey)
1996: 56.8%
2021: 32.8%
Furthermore, our data, which is derived from three large multi-year voter surveys, shows that from 20-50% of white working-class non-Democrats are liberal on social issues.
If white rural racism is the key to all politics, then why do significant numbers of rural voters in Ohio support Sen. Sherrod Brown, who in 2018 ran about 12% ahead of President Joe Biden in 2020? In fact, Brown, who votes liberal on social issues up and down the line, ran significantly ahead of Biden in every rural county.
Brown’s connection to working-class voters might have something to do with his willingness to take on Wall Street for ripping off workers again and again. It works politically because enough of those supposedly bigoted white workers care a lot more about never-ending job instability than they do about wokeness.
In his excellent review (and evisceration) of White Rural Wage, Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist, points out that:
Democrats who give in to the simplistic rage thesis are essentially letting themselves off the hook on the politics, suggesting that rural Americans are irrational and beyond any effort to engage them.
It’s not white rural rage. It’s not irrational rage either. Rather it’s very clear-eyed working-class anger as insatiable corporate greed tears up their lives.
When Democrats, like Sherrod Brown, show the courage to fight against Wall Street’s war on workers they gain working-class support.
Maybe it’s time for a little more Democratic Party rage?
From "Field of Dreams" and "Money Ball" to the unmade yet ripe-for-production story of the 1940's right-hander with left-wing politics who defied segregationist rules in the wake of World War II.
"Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball," wrote Columbia University scholar Jacques Barzun in 1954. That observation remains true today. Our national pastime has inspired great poems, paintings, novels, music, and plays, but for most Americans, baseball is best represented by the hundreds of films about the game.
Of course, many baseball flicks were duds. Since the silent movie era, for example, there have been at least a dozen films just about Babe Ruth, including two of the worst films of all time—“The Babe Ruth Story” (1948) starring William Bendix and “The Babe” (1992) featuring John Goodman.
As we approach opening day on March 28, fans may want to watch (or re-watch) some of the most outstanding movies about baseball. (There are many great baseball documentaries, but they’re not included here).
Most baseball films are pure entertainment. But baseball is often the setting for notable films that tell a bigger story about America’s social conditions. For example, the 1976 film "Bad News Bears"—about a girl trying to make it on an otherwise all-male Little League team—was not a great movie on its own, but it appeared during the early days of the feminist movement, and a few years after Congress passed Title IX. It inspired many girls to participate in sports.
The films described below address racism, corrupt business practices, sexism, immigration, mental illness, homophobia, and workers rights.
“Bull Durham” (1988). Writer/director Ron Shelton based the film on his experiences as a minor league player for five years. The film depicts the players and fans of the Durham (N.C.) Bulls, a single-A minor league team. It stars Kevin Costner as Crash Davis, a veteran catcher who had a brief (21 day) sojourn in the major leagues. The Bulls recruit him to teach promising rookie pitcher Nuke LaLoosh (Tim Robbins) about both the physical and mental aspects of the game. Each season, groupie Annie Savoy (Susan Sarandon) selects one Bulls player as her companion and lover. She is attracted to both the naïve LaLoosh (described as having a “million dollar arm but a five cent head”) and the seasoned and sophisticated Davis. Baseball fans will identify with Annie’s words: "The only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the church of baseball.” Shelton recounted the film’s behind-the-scenes stories in his 2022 memoir, The Church of Baseball: The Making of Bull Durham.
“Moneyball” (2011). Based on the nonfiction book by Michael Lewis, the film explores Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane’s (Brad Pitt) effort to assemble a competitive team for the 2002 season with a limited $41 million payrollbudget. With the help of Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale economics major with no baseball-playing experience, Beane looks for undervalued talent using sophisticated statistical data. The team’s old-school scouts and manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), as well as many fans, scoff at this approach to evaluating players. The film chronicles Beane’s success—including an American League record of 19 consecutive wins and the American League West championship. The A’s lost to the Minnesota Twins in the Division Series, but two years later, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series using those ideas. Beane’s approach—called sabermetrics—is now widely accepted throughout baseball. Many players appreciate the information they get to improve their skills, but they also worry that it is being used as a tool by owners to undermine their bargaining power during contract negotiations
“42” (2013). Among the many fictional portrayals of Jackie Robinson’s heroic crusade to integrate major league baseball, this is the best. Even if you're not a baseball fan, the film will tug at your heart and have you rooting for Robinson to overcome the racist obstacles put in his way. It is an uplifting tale of courage and determination that is hard to resist, even though you know the outcome before the movie begins. But the film strikes out as history, because it ignores the true story of how baseball's apartheid system was dismantled. The film portrays baseball's integration as the tale of two trailblazers—Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), the combative athlete, and Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford), the Dodgers owner and shrewd strategist—battling baseball's, and society's, bigotry. But the truth is that it was a political victory brought about by a social protest movement led by civil rights groups, labor unions, the Black press, radical politicians, and the Communist Party. For example, Andrew Holland plays Pittsburgh Courier reporter Wendell Smith, but he's depicted as Robinson's traveling companion and ghost-writer, ignoring Smith's key role as an agitator and leader of the long crusade to integrate baseball more than a decade before Robinson became a household name. As an activist himself, Robinson would likely have been disappointed by a film that ignored the centrality of the broader struggle that open the door for him—and many Black players who followed in his footsteps—to pursue his dream.
"A League of Their Own" (1992) is responsible for one of filmdom’s most famous one-liners: “There’s no crying in baseball,” spoken by Tom Hanks as the manager of the Rockford Peaches of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League. The highest-grossing baseball film ever ($132 million), it is based on the real-life AAGPBL, which lasted from 1943 to 1954 and employed over 600 athletes, playing a sport they loved while dealing with the sexist stereotypes of the era, like the requirement that they all use make-up and wear skirts as part of their uniforms. The remarkable cast, including Geena Davis, Madonna, Rosie O’Donnell, and Lori Petty, portrays the daily travails of players trying to win ballgames while worrying about their boyfriends, husbands, and brothers in the World War 2 military. One scene makes it clear that the AAGPBL was, like major and minor league baseball at the time, all-white. Left unsaid in the film is that many players were lesbians, but the league owners insisted that they stay in the closet and look like the girl next door. The film helped inspire a resurgence of women’s baseball and softball leagues as well as a growing number of women playing on all-male high school and college baseball teams.
“Sugar” (2008). Of today’s roughly 1,500 major league players, one-quarter were born in Latin American countries, with by far the largest number (11% of all players) from the Dominican Republic. The film follows Dominican pitcher Miguel Santos (nicknamed Sugar, and played by Algenis Perez Soto) struggling to make it to the major leagues and lift himself and his family out of poverty. Playing for a low-level minor league team in a small Iowa town, he faces numerous challenges. He speaks little English, confronts persistent racism, and feels lonely and isolated. He’s pitching well until an injury during a routine play sidelines him to the disabled list. The team eventually releases him. His dream shattered, he moves to New York City where–like many new immigrants–he struggles to make ends meet with dead-end jobs, far from home and from even the small celebrity he enjoyed as a ballplayer.
"Eight Men Out" (1988), based on Eliot Asinof’s nonfiction book, depicts the infamous Black Sox Scandal in which eight members of the Chicago White Sox conspired with gamblers to intentionally lose the 1919 World Series in exchange for money. The team was one of the greatest ever assembled, but in those pre-union days, owner Charles Cominsky refused to pay his players a decent wage, fueling their resentment and their willingness to take a bribe. One of the players, “Shoeless Joe” Jackson, was an unwitting participant. In fact, he performed almost flawlessly during the series (batting .375 with 12 hits, a World Series record), but he was nevertheless, like his teammates, banned from baseball for the rest of his life.
“Field of Dreams” (1989). A year later, Jackson showed up again in this film based on W.P. Kinsella’s novel, Shoeless Joe. Kevin Costner stars as an Iowa farmer who, while walking through his cornfield one evening, hears a voice whispering, "If you build it, he will come"—one of the most famous lines in movie history. At great financial risk, he plows under the cornfield to build a baseball diamond that attracts the ghosts of baseball legends, including Jackson, as well as thousands of visitors eager to watch the legends at play. In his final film role, Burt Lancaster plays Moonlight Graham, one of the long-dead players who show up at Costner’s field. The character is based on Archibald Graham, who played one inning in a major league game in 1905 as a right fielder but never got to bat. He gave up the sport to become a small-town doctor in Minnesota.
"Bingo Long and the Traveling All Stars and Motor Kings" (1976) tells the fictional story of former Negro League players who travel across the Midwest playing local teams during the Great Depression, when major league baseball was still segregated. With an outstanding cast that includes Billy Dee Williams, James Earl Jones and Richard Pryor, the film depicts the harsh realities, as well as the fun and pride, of Black baseball in that era. The film is loosely based on some real-life Negro League players (including Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson) and on the Indianapolis Clowns and other barnstorming Negro League teams. The Black players bristle at the low pay, miserable working conditions and racism that bars them from the major leagues. The James Earl Jones character, Leon Carter, compares playing for the team’s owners to slavery and urges his teammates to organize a player-owned team, a radical idea that was gaining popularity during the upheavals of the Depression. Citing W. E. B. Du Bois, Carter says that “nothing’s going to change until the workers seize the means of production.”
"Bang the Drum Slowly" (1973) stars a young Robert DeNiro as dim-witted major league catcher Bruce Pearson. His teammates ridicule him for his limited intellect and ineptness on the field. His only friend on the team is the brainy star pitcher Henry Wiggen (played by Michael Moriarity), who takes him to the Mayo Clinic, where he’s told he is terminally ill with Hodgkin’s disease. During spring training, the team’s manager decides to release Pearson, but Wiggen intervenes, agreeing to end his demand for more money on the condition that they keep the dying catcher. After Wiggen informs his teammates about Pearson’s illness, their attitude changes from scorn to solicitude, and Pearson’s performance dramatically improves. Like the Mark Harris novel from which it is adapted, the film ends with a great last line: "From here on in, I rag nobody."
“Long Gone” (1987), the least-known film on this list, chronicles the 1957 season of the fictional Tampico Stogies, a Class D minor league team in Florida, led by star player and manager Stud Cantrell, a once-promising player whose World War Two injury kept him from making the majors. Owned by two corrupt and stingy local father-and-son businessmen, the team struggles to lift itself out of last place in the Gulf Coast League. The Stogies’ fortunes change when they sign a slugging catcher named Joe Brown. Because this is the Jim Crow South, and to keep the KKK off his back, Cantrell introduces the African American Brown as a Venezuelan named Jose Luis Brown who doesn’t speak English. In a game-fixing scenario reminiscent of the Black Sox scandal, Cantrell and Brown are both offered lucrative bribes not to show up to a pennant-deciding game as the team competes for the championship. The outcome of that game depends on a conversation about their ethical dilemmas that Cantrell and Brown have at a local bar.
“The Natural” (1984), director Barry Levinson’s adaptation of Bernard Malamud’s 1952 novel of the same name, views baseball as a metaphor for the promises and pitfalls of the American dream. Roy Hobbs (played by Robert Redford) is a super-talented ballplayer destined for big league greatness, but various temptations – corrupt gamblers, bribe offers from a team owner, and sexual enticement – as well as his own ego, get in his way. In 1923, the 19-year old pitching prodigy’s career is thwarted when a woman lures him to her hotel room and shoots him in the stomach, causing severe injuries. Hobbs quickly disappears into obscurity. He reappears 16 years later as a rookie hitter for the New York Knights, seeking redemption despite the skepticism of his manager, teammates, and sportswriters. His slugging inspires a comeback by the lowly Knights. By the last day of the season, they are competing for the pennant. The Knights’ owner, betting against his own team, tries to bribe Hobbs to throw the game. Here, the film dramatically diverges from the novel. In the hands of Malamud, Hobbs strikes out, ending the Knights’ season. In the film, he hits a towering home run, clinching the pennant for his team and rescuing him from his troubled past—an all-American happy ending. The characters in both the novel and the film draw on real baseball figures but don’t refer to them by name, including Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Bob Feller, Branch Rickey, and, again, Shoeless Joe Jackson. The near-fatal shooting of Hobbs by a mysterious woman is based on a true story. Most analysts believe that Malamud was drawing on an incident in 1949, when Ruth Ann Steinhagen, a 19-year old stenographer who had an obsession with Phillies’ 29-year old All-Star first baseman Eddie Waitkus, lured and shot him in a Chicago hotel room when the Phillies were in the city to play the Cubs. The incident received a great deal of media attention just three years before Malamud’s novel was published. But Malamud may also have been aware of a similar incident in 1932, when showgirl Violet Popovich shot Chicago Cubs shortstop Billy Jurges in another hotel a few blocks from Wrigley Field.
“Fences" (2016) brings August Wilson’s play, about a former Negro League player frustrated by his life, to the screen. It is 1957, and the film's protagonist, Troy Maxson (Denzel Washington), owns a small, run-down house with a tiny backyard in the Hill District, the heart of Pittsburgh's black community, where he lives with his wife Rose (Viola Davis). Maxson is 53 and earns $74 a week ($32,000 a year in today's dollars) as a garbage collector, which he dutifully hands over to Rose every Friday. Though he lives paycheck to paycheck—and can't even afford $200 to buy a television or $234 to fix the roof—Troy has attained a modest level of success as a member of the black working class. He feels great pride in being able to care for his family, but is consumed with rage over racism, which he believes has held him back and trapped him in a life of quiet desperation. In the 1930s and 1940s, he was a star slugger for one of Pittsburgh’s Negro League teams. His biggest regret is that he never got to play in the majors. By the time Jackie Robinson had joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947, he was 43. He believes it was his race, not his age, that locked him out of the money and fame that could have been his. The film is devoid of any baseball action, but the sport is present throughout the film. Maxson keeps a bat and ball in the backyard, and often ruminates about his could-have-been baseball career. His marriage is filled with lust, love, tenderness, banter, and humor, but he takes out his frustrations on long-suffering Rose and his two sons with alcohol-fueled outbursts about his plight in life.
“Fear Strikes Out" (1957) belongs in a category of its own. It is not a great film, but it had a significant and positive impact on American culture. It is the story of Boston Red Sox outfielder Jimmy Piersall’s battle with mental illness, based on his courageous book by the same name, published in 1955. In 1952, the 22-year old Piersall had a nervous breakdown. At the time, mental illness was even less understood than it is today, and carried a huge stigma, especially for public figures like athletes and entertainers. During his first full season with the Red Sox, Piersall's erratic behavior–taking bows after catching a fly ball, getting into disputes with fans and umpires and occasional fights with opposing players—eventually led to him spending six weeks at Westborough State Hospital, where he was diagnosed with manic depression, as bipolar disorder was known at the time, and treated him with electric shock therapy and prescribed the drug lithium. In his book, Piersall provides a frank and fascinating account of his breakdown and how–with the help of doctors, his wife, and his teammates–he was able to recover and resume his pro career. The book describes his rise from the sandlots of Waterbury, Connecticut to the big leagues, but it understandably focuses on his psychological condition and his growing self-awareness. Piersall went on to have an outstanding and colorful 17-year playing career, including twice making the All-Star team. Unfortunately, the film–starring Anthony Perkins as Piersall and Karl Malden as his domineering father who pushes his son beyond all reasonable limits–is awful, although it has some tender moments. Perkins was unsuited for the role. His acting was tortured and he obviously had no athletic ability. But because more people have seen the film than read the book, it had a significant impact in de-stigmatizing mental illness, and thus belongs on this list.
One baseball subject that Hollywood ought to translate into a major film is the struggle for baseball workers’ rights. It could center on All-Star outfielder Curt Flood’s courageous effort, in the 1970s, to challenge the reserve clause (baseball’s version of indentured servitude) by suing Major League Baseball all the way to the Supreme Court. It cost him his career. The film could also remind viewers of battles among professional players to organize and unionize against greedy owners as far back as the late 1800s and fast forward to the recent successful union campaign by severely-underpaid minor league players against the current crop of billionaire team owners.
The story of big league pitcher Sam Nahem’s crusade to integrate military baseball during World War 2 is also ripe for the big screen. Nahem was a right-handed pitcher with left-wing politics. He may have been the only major leaguer during his day who was a member of the Communist Party. He grew up in a Syrian Jewish family, was a baseball and football star at Brooklyn College, and earned a law degree during the off-season when he was in the minor leagues. He played for the Dodgers, Cardinals, and Phillies between 1938 and 1948. Nahem was a key player in a little-known episode in the battle to desegregate baseball. Like many other radicals in the 1930s and 1940s, Nahem fervently believed that baseball should be racially integrated.

During the war, the U.S.. military ran a robust baseball program at home and overseas. After Germany surrendered in May 1945, the military expanded its baseball program while American troops remained in Europe. That year, over 200,000 American soldiers—including some major leaguers—were playing baseball on military teams in France, Germany, Belgium, Austria and Britain. All the teams were racially segregated. While serving in the Army in France, Nahem organized a team to represent his division and defied the the military’s segregation policy by recruiting two Negro League stars–Leon Day and Willard Brown–to join his OISE All-Stars. His team won the U.S. military championship series in Europe in September 1945, playing the final game in Nuremberg, Germany, in the same stadium where Hitler had addressed Nazi Party rallies. Allied bombing had destroyed the city but somehow spared the stadium. The U.S. Army laid out a baseball diamond and renamed the stadium Soldiers Field.
After his playing days were over, Nahem returned to New York, but his political activities caught the attention of the FBI, which put him under surveillance. The Cold War blacklist made it difficult for him to find or keep a job. He moved to the Bay Area, where worked for 25 years in a Chevron chemical plant and became a union leader, even leading a strike in 1969.
The problem for defenders of marriage equality and gay rights is that the moderate Obergefell majority has been supplanted by an ultra-right super majority.
Samuel Alito may not be the most corrupt member of the Supreme Court—that distinction goes to Clarence Thomas—but he is easily its most openly homophobic, misogynistic, and histrionic. His latest meltdown came in an unusual “written statement” (the functional equivalent of a dissenting opinion) issued on February 20 in a case on jury selection that the court declined to accept for full review, called Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney. Alito used the statement not only to set forth his deeply flawed legal reasoning on jury selection, but as an opportunity to reiterate his longstanding critique of the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a stance that has aligned him closely with the Christian nationalist movement that has taken over the Republican Party.
Jean Finney, the plaintiff in the case, is a longtime employee of the Department of Corrections (DOC) and a lesbian who, court records state, “presents herself as masculine.” She sued her employer, alleging the agency had created a hostile work environment and retaliated against her after she began dating a male co-worker’s former wife. During jury selection in her 2021 trial, her attorney asked prospective jurors a question that went to their capacity to be fair and impartial: “How many of you went to a religious organization growing up where it was taught that people that are homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else because it was a sin with what they did?”
The question was designed to identify individuals who would be prejudiced against Finney, and was one any competent lawyer would have raised. The trial judge subsequently excused two prospective jurors, one a pastor’s wife, who answered that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. The jury returned a verdict in Finney’s favor, awarding her $275,000 in damages.
It is religious doctrine, not the Constitution, that drives Alito’s jurisprudence.
The DOC appealed, but the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding the jurors had been properly dismissed for cause, not because of their Christian faith—that would have been unconstitutional—but because of their views on homosexuality.
After the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review, the DOC filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. All nine justices, including Alito, rejected the petition.
Normally, the high court’s rejection would have been expressed in a one-sentence order. But Alito deemed it necessary to pen a five-page written statement complaining about the disposition. Although he agreed that the DOC had not properly preserved the jurors’ dismissal as an issue for appeal, he explained that, but for this technicality, he would have voted to grant the petition. His reasoning, however, was off the rails and holds dangerous implications for the future of marriage equality and gay rights.
“In this case,” Alito wrote, “the court below reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges… (2015), namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”
Obergefell, which recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, is one of the few progressive opinions issued by the Supreme Court this century. However, only two of the justices who comprised the court’s slender five-member majority in that case—Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—remain on the bench. Three of the dissenters—Alito, Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts—also remain.
A brief survey of the dissenting opinions in Obergefell illustrates the depth of conservative opposition to the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In his dissent, Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this court’s precedent.”
Thomas noted in his: “The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”
None protested as vociferously as Alito, who argued the issue of same-sex marriage should be deferred to the states. He wrote:
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy… I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
Since then, Alito has embarked on a mission to reverse Obergefell. As he argued in his infamous 2022 majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the landmark abortion case, the states should decide the fate of same-sex unions.
In 2020, he joined Thomas in a wildly emotional dissent from the court’s refusal to take up an appeal filed on behalf of Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who refused to issue licenses for gay marriages. The same year, in a speech delivered online to the Federalist Society, Alito complained that America is no longer “inclusive enough to tolerate those with unpopular religious beliefs” and that “religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”
As Linda Greenhouse observed in a 2022 column for The New York Times, it is religious doctrine, not the Constitution, that drives Alito’s jurisprudence. In a similar vein, New Yorker staff writer Margaret Talbot described Alito in a 2022 essay as a leading figure in the “crusade against a secular America,” animated by anger and an abiding sense of aggrievement.
The problem for defenders of marriage equality and gay rights is that the moderate Obergefell majority—which included Breyer, Kennedy, and Bader Ginsburg—has been supplanted by an ultra-right super majority. There is no telling when a new direct challenge to Obergefell will reach the Supreme Court. But sooner or later, one will. A majority of states still have bans on gay marriage on their books. Some, like Tennessee, which recently enacted a law permitting public officials, including judges, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, could offer anti-gay litigants a direct path.
It took 49 years for the court to overrule Roe v. Wade. Obergefell, which has been the law for a mere nine, is far more vulnerable. Samuel Alito is eager to dispatch it to the dustbin.
As the original shapers of right-wing media fade into history, Kirk seemingly hopes to raise his own profile in the conservative movement by leaning into increasingly hardcore far-right positions.
Rupert Murdochannounced on September 21 that he will be stepping down as chairman of Fox Corp. and News Corp. after a 70-year career poisoning global media with right-wing lies and hate. Fox is now in the hands of Lachlan Murdoch, whose track record at the company indicates he is even more grimly ideological than his father, serving as the main force backing Tucker Carlson’s on-air white supremacy and pushing the network to support Donald Trump’s 2020 election lies despite their financial consequences.
While Rupert Murdoch repeatedly made clear in his announcement that he does not intend to take his thumb entirely off the scale of his outlets, the question of who will now rise to prominence in the right-wing media ecosystem lingers. In just the last few years, the movement’s founding fathers, including Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, and Rush Limbaugh, have died or stepped away, leaving conservative media without a center of gravity. Lachlan Murdoch and other rising right-wing media figures are jockeying to lead the hate and misinformation machine into the next generation.
One of these figures is Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk.
Since first appearing on the scene in 2012, when he had just barely graduated from high school, Kirk has built TPUSA into a reported $80 million media empire. The organization hosts numerous shows and has millions of followers across multiple social media platforms. Kirk himself is a Salem Radio host whose nationally syndicated program is broadcast in Limbaugh’s old time slot.
Kirk has appeared at least 235 times on weekday Fox shows since 2018, though his last appearance was May 18, 2023, having since seemingly been blacklisted from the network.
TPUSA is purportedly an organization representing the next generation of conservative activists, with Kirk as their leading voice. But there is scant evidence that the group has a genuine connection with Gen Z, whose social and political attitudes are overwhelmingly liberal. An October 2021 internal presentation obtained by The Verge stated that only 15% of Turning Point’s Instagram audience is actually student-aged. As the organization’s own documentation states: “The content that is going out right now is completely missing our target audience.” (TPUSA told The Verge that “the presentations in question contain multiple inaccuracies and erroneous data.”)
As the original shapers of right-wing media fade into history, Kirk seemingly hopes to capture the attention of the next generation and raise his own profile in the conservative movement by leaning into increasingly hardcore far-right positions. On the very same day that Murdoch announced he was stepping down, Kirk took to his radio show and launched into a vile, racist attack on migrants on the southern border, declaring that a “foreign invasion” of “fighting-age young males who will end up raping many of your daughters.”
He also specifically invoked and validated the white supremacist “great replacement” conspiracy theory.
“Obviously the Democrat Party supports this because of power,” Kirk declared. “They smear us and slander us when we bring up the great replacement. The Castro brothers themselves have said that was the reason.”
“You should be at fever-pitch anger,” he concluded.
Kirk is only reflecting the lasting influence of Tucker Carlson, who brought the great replacement conspiracy theory to mainstream conservative audiences with the full backing of Lachlan Murdoch, who is now the sole chair of his family’s global media empire.
But the Charlie Kirk of today would be unrecognizable to who he was yesterday. In his comprehensive history of the first 10 years of TPUSA, University of North Georgia rhetoric professor Matthew Boedy notes that as the organization has grown, Kirk has expressed increasingly extreme views, including on the topic of immigration.
In 2019, Kirk came under attack by the white nationalist “groyper” movement after he stated that “highly educated immigrants should get ‘a green card’ stapled to their U.S. college diplomas.” This kicked off the so-called “groyper wars” in which followers of neo-Nazi Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes repeatedly confronted Kirk with racist and antisemitic dog whistles while he was on a speaking tour. Kirk ultimately penned an apologia on American Greatness, the same far-right blog that had launched the initial criticism.
Just recently, Fuentes bragged that his followers had infiltrated Turning Point USA and his one-time target had now adopted his messaging.
“I think in 2023, Charlie Kirk, all these others, they sound way more like me, today, than they sound like themselves four years ago,” Fuentes said, before launching into an attack on Jewish people.
Kirk has also radicalized significantly against LGBTQ+ people.
In 2019, he posted a video of an exchange with an audience member labeled “CHARLIE KIRK TAKES DOWN ANTI-GAY EXTREMIST.” In the video, the audience member condemned Kirk for accepting gay people in the conservative movement. Kirk defended himself and gay conservatives, asking, “What does what they do in their private life concern you so much?” and adding that if you do not embrace and love all people as Jesus did, “then you, sir, are not a conservative.”
As Boedy points out, a TPUSA chapter guide from 2017 specifically instructs participants: “no talk about abortion, gay marriage, etc.”
Since then, Kirk has become one of the most extreme voices singling out LGBTQ+ people for violence across the right-wing media.
But perhaps Kirk’s biggest transformation has been on the role of religion.
Boedy tracks this transformation masterfully. As TPUSA was getting off the ground, Kirk criticized the conservative movement of decades past for evangelizing too much, claimed to promote right-wing values “through a secular worldview,” and once told an audience that “he saw his job as the face of TPUSA as ‘no different than’ being a plumber or electrician, who likely don’t tell everyone they met about their religion.”
In 2021, Kirk launched the TPUSA Faith initiative, which he has used as a platform to increasingly lean into Christian nationalism. Since then, TPUSA Faith launched Freedom Life Church, a network of TPUSA-aligned congregations with the expressed goal “to change the trajectory of our nation by restoring America's biblical values.”
In 2022, he declared, “There is no separation of church and state.”
Kirk has also falsely claimed that the Founding Fathers based our system of government on the Book of Genesis, and speaks of the country as engaged in a “spiritual battle.”
The Murdochs and Fox News are also directly responsible for helping Kirk launch his career. As TPUSA was just getting off the ground, Kirk started becoming a semi-regular guest on Fox News as the youthful face of opposing the Obama presidency, often hosted by Neil Cavuto. Kirk has appeared at least 235 times on weekday Fox shows since 2018, though his last appearance was May 18, 2023, having since seemingly been blacklisted from the network.
Like the rest of us, Charlie Kirk is getting older, but high school and college students are staying the same age. Conservative media across the board face an uphill battle if they want to win over Gen Z. So far, Kirk’s strategic approach to inheriting the house that Rupert (and Rush) built has been to amplify the extremist fringes.
Jacina Hollins-Borges and Jack Wheatley contributed research to this piece.
Scapegoating a minority group based on sexual orientation or gender identity gives their supporters more fuel for their misdirected anger.
For a second week, Montana Republicans have blocked Democratic transgender lawmaker Zooey Zephyr from participating in a debate over proposed restrictions on transgender youth.
Zephyr, a first-term Democrat from Missoula and the first openly transgender woman elected to the Montana legislature, hasn't been allowed to speak on the state house floor since last Tuesday, when she told Republican colleagues they would have "blood on their hands" if they banned gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
On Monday, her supporters brought the House session to a halt, chanting, "Let her speak!" from the gallery before being escorted out. Seven were arrested for criminal trespass. Republican leaders describe the disruption as an "insurrection."
Bigotry against minority groups based on sexual orientation or gender Identity, such as the trans community, is a way fascism takes root.
Also this week, at least two Bud Light marketing executives have been put on leave after transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posted a video of herself on Instagram holding a custom Bud Light can with her face on it. The company had sent it to her to help celebrate a year since she began her transition and had sponsored Mulvaney's Instagram post.
Her post prompted a Star Wars cantina—Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Fox News hosts all calling for a boycott of Bud Light. Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting 12-packs with a submachine gun, and others filmed themselves destroying and dumping out cans.
Anheuser-Busch facilities have received bomb threats.
Sales of Bud Light fell 17% in the week ending April 15 compared to the same week in 2022. Some bars are halting its sales.
***
It's tempting to dismiss all this as just another outcropping of crazy right-wing bigotry.
And it's tempting to be appalled at such blatant prejudice but believe there must be more important issues to worry about. According to the Pew Research Center, only 1.6% of U.S. adults are transgender or nonbinary (that is, their gender differs from the sex they were assigned at birth).
Yet let me remind you: Bigotry against minority groups based on sexual orientation or gender Identity, such as the trans community, is a way fascism takes root.
As the world tragically witnessed in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, the politics of sexual anxiety gains traction when traditional male gender roles of family provider and protector are hit by economic insecurity.
Fascist politics distorts and expands this male anxiety into fear that one's family is under existential threat from LGBTQ+ people who reject the family's traditional structure and traditions.
As philosopher Jason Stanley notes in his How Fascism Works (2018):
Men, already made anxious by a perceived loss of status resulting from increasing gender equality can easily be thrust into panic by demagoguery directed against sexual minorities… . The fascist leader is analogous to the patriarchal father, the "CEO" of the traditional family… . Attacking trans women, and representing the feared other as a threat to the manhood of the nation, are ways of placing the very idea of manhood at the center of political attention, gradually introducing fascist ideals of hierarchy and domination by physical power to the public sphere.
I don't mean to suggest that the imbibers of Bud Light or the Republican lawmakers of Montana are necessarily fearful for their manhood. But they may lean more toward hierarchy and domination than the typical American (Montana Governor Greg Gianforte famously punched a reporter who asked him a question about a Republican health-care bill).
Notably, Republican lawmakers now eagerly enacting restrictions on transgender youth across the nation have not moved to alleviate economic anxieties at the root of much of this. Why not? Because those anxieties fuel the anger that animates these politicians' most ardent supporters. Scapegoating a minority group based on sexual orientation or gender identity gives these supporters even more fuel.
A similar blind anger found expression in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—which was a genuine insurrection, unlike this week's chants in Montana's legislature. A similar anger propels Trumpism to this day.
If the rest of us want to stop America's slouch toward fascism, we must do two things: First, speak out loudly and forcefully against sexual bigotry. Second, push lawmakers to restore some degree of economic security to the nation's large and increasingly precarious working class.
"Homophobic and sexist fearmongering should have no place in the consideration of Gigi's qualifications," one coalition wrote to Senate leaders. "It's morally corrupt and antithetical to the high virtue of the chamber."
Digital and LGBTQ+ rights groups are condemning homophobic attacks against U.S. President Joe Biden's Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn, whose Senate confirmation has been stalled for over a year largely due to opposition from the powerful telecom industry.
The LGBTQ Victory Institute and 21 other organizations sent a letter Monday to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), respectively.
Noting that Biden first nominated Sohn to the FCC in October 2021 and has continued to support her—formally renominating the candidate last month—the groups wrote that "we share the administration's view that Gigi is the right leader for this role given her extensive qualifications, superior leadership qualities, and deep technical background."
"Gigi is the right leader for this role given her extensive qualifications, superior leadership qualities, and deep technical background."
"Gigi is one of the nation's leading public advocates for open, affordable, and democratic communications networks. She demonstrated her dedication to ensuring that every American household has affordable and robust broadband internet for 30 years," they pointed out, while also stressing the necessity of a "fully functioning FCC."
The letter highlights that "Gigi's nomination has recently come under attack, not on the basis of qualifications or substance, but because she is openly LGBTQ+. Her barrier-breaking nomination as the first LGBTQ+ nominee to the FCC is being met with homophobic tropes and attacks, against herself and her family, in an attempt to stall her nomination. That cannot stand."
"Homophobic and sexist fearmongering should have no place in the consideration of Gigi's qualifications. It's morally corrupt and antithetical to the high virtue of the chamber," the letter concludes. "We call upon every member of the Senate to condemn homophobia and sexism and consider Gigi's nomination on its merits. We urge members to confirm Ms. Sohn to the seat she is so qualified for without delay."
The letter followed an opinion piece published Thursday by Fast Company, in which Fight for the Future director Evan Greer and National Digital Inclusion Alliance communications director Yvette Scorse called on both Biden and Senate Democrats to "stand up to homophobic attacks" on Sohn.
The pair explained that Sohn first endured the telecommunication industry's smear campaign—and now, "right-wing news outlets, emboldened by the internet service provider-funded smears, have crossed the line: They've launched a new round of blatantly homophobic attacks on Gigi that recycle QAnon and extreme right tropes conflating LGBTQ identity with deviance and predation."
As Greer and Scorse detailed:
Fox News, The Daily Mail, Breitbart, and other outlets have run nearly identical stories claiming that Gigi has "opposed" efforts to combat sex trafficking. Even these news outlets, who play fast and loose with the truth, have a hard time backing up that headline. Their argument is that Gigi sits on the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a highly respected digital rights organization known for fighting to defend free speech and privacy online, and EFF opposes SESTA/FOSTA, legislation passed in 2018 that claimed to address sex trafficking. The rest of the articles go to melt down over the fact that EFF once gave an award to a consensual adult dominatrix for her advocacy work around issues of online free speech and human rights, as if that somehow implicates Gigi in some sort of scandal.
Here's the thing: EFF isn't the only group that opposes SESTA/FOSTA. The legislation has been condemned by almost every major human rights organization in the world including the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, and the Wikimedia Foundation, because it has actually made it harder for the government to curtail online sex trafficking, while having devastating effects on online free speech and marginalized communities. A report issued by the U.S. government itself indicated that the law has not been useful in aiding prosecutions, and has almost never been used. Insinuating that opposition to SESTA/FOSTA somehow means support for sex trafficking is absurd on its face. Many anti-trafficking organizations also oppose the law, saying it hurts more than it helps. Even the Trump administration's Department of Justice agreed that the law was undermining their efforts to combat trafficking.
But none of that matters, because the FCC has absolutely no jurisdiction in this area whatsoever. Gigi has never taken a position on SESTA/FOSTA or any similar legislation, and EFF opposed SESTA/FOSTA long before Gigi became a board member. None of this is remotely relevant to Gigi's candidacy for a position at the FCC, the agency that oversees phone and cable companies.
The pair added that "we don't expect any better of Fox News pundits who want to block Gigi's appointment. But we are appalled by the complicit silence of the White House and Senate Democrats."
Their article came a day after Fight for the Future and Demand Progress launched a petition that similarly outlined recent attacks on Sohn, urged Biden and Senate Democrats to stop being "shamefully silent," and warned that "if they don't speak up now and condemn these attacks, this will become a go-to strategy for bigots looking to sink any LGBTQ person's nomination."
In a statement announcing the petition, Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz said that "we're now closer to the end of President Biden's first term than we are to the beginning. These past two years, Democrats have controlled both the White House and Senate, yet the FCC remains without its fifth and final commissioner. The public is being failed."
Langholz emphasized that "in the absence of action, the FCC will stay deadlocked and the public will suffer the consequences" while "unhinged and discredited attacks on Ms. Sohn will continue to percolate in this vacuum."
“These attacks are as baseless as they are dangerous, and underscore more than ever the time is now for Senate leadership to end this delay," she added. "The Senate must reject the cynical and hate-filled politics the public has grown so tired of, and get to the actual work of governing by finally confirming Gigi Sohn to the FCC."