What were the deciding factors in the 2018 midterm elections in the U.S.? Was it youth and diversity? Or status quo, ignorance, and fear? Looking at the situation rom a safe distance in Canada, yet with a watchful eye over current events in the U.S., I propose it is neither. Instead, it is courage.

It takes courage to create a new, reformist, forward-looking vision for better politics and society. This vision has been channeled by the progressives who marched, mobilized, and voted. It manifested itself in candidates, both those who ran and won office, who are unafraid to challenge the system and put forward bold and ambitious policy proposals.

Courage in politics, especially in American politics, has often been in short supply. Much has been written on this by academics, businessmen and politicians of yore. John F. Kennedy’s ‘Profiles in Courage’ is a particularly eloquent example. Yet, few leaders and elected officials have practiced it.

Courage in practice is difficult, for it calls on candor, a firm sense of principle, resolution and vision. It also, as Kennedy himself noted, often comes at great expense: the loss of fortune, friends and esteem. Courage is exponentially more challenging to harness in 2018, when quick-fixes are in vogue.

Lack of courage among leaders and politicians has translated into specific policy dilemmas facing the U.S. and the world more broadly, including restrictive and inhumane immigration and trade policies, curtailment of mobility, and increasing instability in our integrated world.

Lack of courage is evidenced in our inability to tackle wealth disparity, among and within countries. That inequality is on full display in our cities, as growing cosmopolitan elites dwell alongside persistent evictions, economic precariousness and poverty.

Lack of courage has also meant the absence of political will and viable solutions to prevent the spread of radical, racist, and right-wing ideology gaining foothold in the U.S., as well as in countries like Brazil and Hungary.

There is no simple formula to imbue our leadership with more courage. The most sensible path, also the path taken by many Americans in these midterm elections, is to replace them. It is to replace the self-interested and spineless officials of yesteryear with new voices and new ideas.

The election of newcomers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad of young female officials with bold political platforms was a step in the right direction. It is a reminder that courage still exists in America, and is in fact shared by the American people immune to provocations from profiteers of pain and peddlers of fear.

In the near future, I foresee many more courageous acts — by newly elected leaders in Congress, as well as by courageous American millennials who continue to storm the halls and corridors of power and influence.

I hope that progressives, especially those belonging to the generations who have championed the cause of justice for many decades, will be given the knowledge, support and chance to succeed.

Performing courageous acts in 2018 is exhausting, and resistance is immense. Despite those obstacles, as the midterm election results show, courage can still win. The new faces in the U.S. Congress might just show us how it can also be sustained and translated into practical gains for justice and fairness.

Progressive Americans are watching. The world is watching too, with hopes of following their lead.

Featured image: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY] and Rashida Tlaib [D-MI], newly elected to U.S. Congress, 2018

The post Courage won the midterm elections appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Instead of grieving for the past, or focusing on whether world leaders laughed at or with President Trump at the United Nations, grassroots progressives should be searching for a new deal with the world.

During his visit to the UN in September 2108, the President’s stated vision and priorities for multilateral action got little discussion. While the majority of world leaders used their time at the UN dais to speak of “common threats” and “universal values,” President Trump, for a second year in a row, expounded on the urgency of patriotism, rejecting the multilateral process, the vaulted “ideology of globalism.” This approach is hardly surprising from a leader who campaigned on the promise of “America First.”

Two years into the Trump presidency, we are quick to dismiss the President’s rhetoric as mere theatrics. Yet, his vision of the world, greatly influenced by veteran war-hawks around him such as the current National Security Advisor John Bolton, currently set the tone of U.S. foreign policy. They shape America’s relations with its neighbors and overseas nations alike, and in turn the safety, well-being and prosperity of Americans at home.

Few question the current state of affairs on the foreign policy front. Many have accepted it as a part of the ongoing reality show that the American political process has become. Others grieve for the past administration which, in its dealings with foreign nations and multilateral institutions, typically called on America’s better angels. We would be better off searching for new ideas about alternative means of American engagement with the world — a sort of New Deal with the world.

Historians are quick to point out that the popular consensus on U.S. foreign policy has undergone little change following the fall of the Berlin Wall, regardless of the party in power. Rather, leaders have mainly prioritized policies with a singularly pro- war, surveillance, and exploitative business focus.

The progressive wing, the mainstream-kind, has rarely dared to challenge the status-quo. Often, they are busy with advocacy on domestic issues. There are also no ongoing robust discussions in the D.C. think-tank circles about alternative U.S. foreign policy practices. The funders for such projects are scarce. According to some reports, there are not even enough policy experts to staff administrations that deviate from the mainstream foreign policy consensus. The American foreign policy elite follows a cookie-cutter approach, namely because most of them came of age in the same institutions of higher-learning.

However, the blueprints for an alternative foreign policy are slowly emerging. They include proposals that would both honor and  advance the ideals of justice upon which the U.S. was founded, and would guarantee the well-being of others and the planet.

These policy proposals are being sketched out by scholars and foreign policy experts. They are also championed by a small group of politicians unafraid to take on the establishment. One of these people is long-term Vermont Senator and former Democratic-party nominee candidate Bernie Sanders.

Earlier this month, Sanders took the spotlight at D.C.’s premier international relations university to outline what some have dubbed, “Bernie’s New Internationalist Vision” for U.S. engagement with the world.

The ideas outlined were less of a battle cry to resist, and instead, a call for a new international movement “to create a decent life for all people.” Standing up to authoritarians of all stripes, controlling unchecked greed and eliminating corrosive corruption is a first step in this endeavor.

Sanders’ political vision has yet to be translated into specific policy proposals. Right now, it would only play well at political rallies. Other progressive elected or aspiring officials have yet to fully come around to this way of thinking and offer their take on how America should conduct its foreign affairs. Though, with a presidential campaign just around the corner, this too might change. The electorate and social movements, preoccupied with domestic resistance struggles, likewise have yet to show genuine concern for or interest in transnational debates. Though, their struggles have often been framed in transnational ideals and with the suffering of marginalized people across the world in mind.

Therefore, this is an opportune time for progressives to get more seriously involved and begin imagining new ways of U.S. engagement in the world. Similar to domestic battles for social justice, American dealings with the world should reflect the aspirations of grassroots progressives: blue-collar workers concerned about climate change; college students calling for justice in Syria; and religious leaders crusading for a reduction of nuclear armaments.

Ultimately, it is these people who will experience the most direct consequences of the country’s foreign policy, whether it’s when their loved ones are sent to war, or when profits drop due to ongoing trade wars, or when crops fail from the lack of sustained global action on climate change.

The post A New Deal for US foreign policy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The World Bank (WB), an international financial institution with a questionable track-record of interventions in the developing world, is currently thinking about the future of work as it is preparing its 2019 World Development Report. They, and every other policy wonk these days it seems, are pondering how robots and technology will change how we live, love, learn and earn.

Often, these speculative discussions take place in far off mountains of Switzerland and in the executive suites of global power brokers. In most instances, the conversations are rarefied and divorced from reality.

Input from individuals who will make up an even greater share of the future economy, care workers, is non-existent or minimal. Yet, the level of protections and rights we secure for individuals in this most marginalized sector of our economy will most certainly reflect the level afforded to other workers across industries.

Jobs in the care industry are the among the fastest growing, according to the projections of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. A growing and aging population in developed countries, coupled with increasing number of millennials having children while both partners hold jobs, will further amplify the need for care work.

The care industry broadly encompasses individuals who provide live-in or home care assistance for the elderly, for the disabled, for immobilized people and for children. They are also commonly known as domestic workers, who take on the roles of nannies, chauffeurs and housekeepers.

Many consider the domestic worker the “original gig economy worker,” due to a high degree of inconsistency and insecurity associated with their work and lack of access to benefits and a safety net. The work they do and services they provide are undervalued and rarely counted by economists.

In their current form, the professions in this sector are anything but desirable. People working in the care industry have been historically marginalized and are extremely vulnerable. The average median income for home-care workers in the U.S. is roughly $13,000 per year, compared to the annual median income across other professions, which hovers around $44,000 per year.

Women are grossly over-represented in this industry, as ares racial minorities. Currently, around 40% of home-care workers in the U.S. are immigrants, many of them undocumented and thus at increased risk of exploitation. While their daily jobs entail maintaining the dignity of another human being, their own dignity and opportunity to provide for their own families is grossly diminished.

There are also very few national or international standards for the work performed by domestic workers or ways to scientifically quantify its value. As Anna Blackshaw, writer and photographer documenting lives of domestic workers in California, observed, it’s difficult to measure “just another happy child or shining kitchen floor,” as compared to the metrics of the latest tech widget.

Even scarcer are labor protections, guaranteed days off or retirement benefits. Many domestic workers work until they are physically spent or bedridden. Stories of verbal, physical and sexual abuse by employers are all too common. Being fired for being sick occurs too often. Not being paid for months on end is reality for too many.

However, change is on the way. It comes from Seattle, WA and is the result of prolonged and tireless advocacy by Working Washington, a non-profit that initially galvanized around the issue of the $15 minimum wage.

The group’s efforts have resulted in a first-ever Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, adopted in July 2018 by the Seattle City Council. While the document falls short of the activists’ demands for securing guaranteed written contracts, it is still a step in the right direction for protecting domestic workers.

The bill requires that all domestic workers, even those classified as independent contractors, must be paid at least the equivalent of Seattle’s minimum wage. It forbids employers from retaining workers’ personal documents and calls for creation of a board to advise on future regulations.

These efforts complement the work of national organizations such as National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), which have also been on the front lines protecting the rights of domestic workers.

One must remain hopeful that examples from Washington State and the work of grassroots activists such as NDWA will find their way into the World Bank’s report as ideas worth spreading and replicating. This is particularly important at a time when workers, both in the United States and across the world, plunge deeper into an uncertain future and  a tech-dominated – and often exploitative – economy.

The post The future of work: Who will care about the caregivers? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Every year, just as the summer is nearing its end, the world remembers. We remember the unconscionable use of the world’s deadliest weapons—nuclear weapons—seventy-three years ago, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This year, unlike in the years past, we no longer should be comforted solely by “never-agains” in speeches and statements of government officials marking the event. This year, for the first time in world’s history, there exists a credible and widely supported framework to deliver on the promise of the nuclear-weapons free world. A group of bold women played an essential role in its delivery.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (the Ban Treaty) came into existence in July 2017. This ambitious document spelled out a commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. It banned the making, testing, possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.

More than 120 countries participated in its drafting, most of them from the global south – including the small island states whose populations are still reeling from the consequences of nuclear testing. Absent were, unsurprisingly, nine possessors of nuclear weapons (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel) and their respective allies (including almost all NATO members).

As of now, more than sixty states have signed onto the Treaty and fourteen have ratified it, slowly inching closer towards the goal of 50, when the treaty would become operational.

The road to the Treaty’s existence was a culmination of political courage and skillful diplomacy. But it is also the result of the decades of tireless advocacy by civil society movements, like the International Coalition to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize last year for its work.

ICAN follows the long line of anti-nuclear efforts which span as far back as the invention of the atomic bomb itself. They feature a diverse cast of characters, movements and well-meaning individuals from the U.S. and abroad. They have included environmentalists, hippies, young people, lawyers, physicians, scientists, and even committed nuns – Sister Megan Rice who broke into the high-security nuclear facility in Tennessee as an act of protest being among the most well-known.

Women have played an integral part in anti-nuclear activities in the U.S. and across the world. They organized and attended protests, produced scholarship and were instrumental in pushing for past diplomatic breakthroughs on nuclear testing ban treaties. They were also key to bringing about the Nuclear Ban Treaty.

Many of the civil society activists who took part in negotiations were women. ICAN’s leadership is made up of passionate and committed women and led by Beatrice Fihn, a proud mother of two. Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the nuclear blast in Hiroshima, also played an outsized role in speaking against nuclear weapons. She was a constant presence in the halls of the UN headquarters for the past several years, sharing her story of survival and lobbying diplomats to support the Ban.

Women were well represented in many country delegations negotiating the Treaty. The diplomats from Ireland stood out in this regard, for their team was composed solely of female Ambassador, experts and policy advisers. Despite this, women remain grossly underrepresented in disarmament diplomacy

Women who have delivered the Ban Treaty and are now working to mount a large coalition to ensure the Treaty ratified by as many countries as possible.  Their work should be supported, the role they played in bringing about the Treaty should be celebrated more widely known.

At a time when the number of social justice causes calling for our attention is ever-increasing, we must prioritize the call of the anti-nuclear weapons activists. Responding to their calls will  provide for safety and  security of our planet for many years to come.

The post Women are leaders on the path toward a nuclear-weapons-free world appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Glancing at the national headlines it is easy to feel hopeless. Turning to the “World” section one becomes defeated. Scrolling through the social media, in between burst of joy from the cat/dog/baby videos, there is often pain and struggle. But alternatives are brewing on the horizon. Alternative ways of creating change and standing up for progressive causes.

I am talking about municipalism. It is hyper-local, yet not parochial. It is aspirational, yet deeply solutions oriented and practical. It traces its roots to the past, but is modern, inclusive and forward-looking. It is global, and taking hold across North America too. It has captured the attention of young and old alike.

Also known as radical municipalism and municipal socialism, it traces its roots back to the American anarchist Murray Bookchin. His life’s work was focused on finding ways to build an egalitarian society and erode oppressive power. He didn’t shy away from acknowledging that power exists. Instead, he questioned who has it and how it is wielded. Bookchin believed it should be the people, not the elites.

Bookchin left the world in 2006. However, his daughter, Debbie, is keeping her father’s ideas alive. Just last year, she made a strong case for their revival:

Municipalism — or communalism, as my father called it — returns politics to its original definition, as a moral calling based on rationality, community, creativity, free association and freedom. It is a richly articulated vision of a decentralized, assembly-based democracy in which people act together to chart a rational future.

Bookchin’s ideas have inspired municipal leaders across the world. In diverse places such as Barcelona (Spain), Jackson, Mississippi, and Rojava (a Kurdish area in Syria), among others. Activists there are championing causes such as promoting participatory budgeting, supporting workers starting cooperatives, piloting city IDs, re-municipalizing water and energy supplies, making public procurement gender- and eco- sensitive, introducing independent citizen audits of municipal budgets and debt, and utilizing online participatory tools for community engagement.

Under the leadership of a housing activist turned mayor, Ada Colau, Barcelona is leading the way in piloting radical ideas on a city level. Some of the specifically feminist initiatives implemented include: mainstreaming gender across all areas of local policy, especially in budget allocations; ending a city-wide ban on the use of full-face veils in public space; and expanding public childcare for 0-3 year olds.

Unsurprisingly, the municipalist movement’s first-ever conference took place in Barcelona in 2017, attracting more than 700 mayors, councilors and activists from across the world. In attendance were who’s-who of radical and progressive city-politics.

In July 2018, the movement, under the banner of Fearless Cities, is coming to North America with a conference in New York City. Up for discussion are topics such as solidarity economy, tools for participatory democracy, and ways to democratize and feminize local political institutions.

Discussions about municipalism in the U.S. are also entering the mainstream political media. Just this month, Politico spotlighted municipalist work in Seattle, to protect labor rights and standards in a rapidly changing economy. The efforts include initiatives such adopting a domestic workers bill of rights to protect those working in often the most invisible, highly exploitative, gendered and racialized sectors of economy.

These efforts are worth supporting, promoting and replicating. By working on a hyper-local level, we stand a chance against the forces of populism and pernicious nationalism. By working with our neighbors, while drawing on knowledge and examples from across the world, we can build inclusive communities at home.

Municipalism might just offer us a handy roadmap and framework to do this work. The late Ursula le Guin characterized it as “not another ranting ideology,” but “a practical working hypothesis, a methodology of how to regain control of where we’re going.”

The post Municipalism: the next political revolution? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Across North America this July, flags unfurled and fireworks filled the sky. Canada celebrated Canada Day on July 1st, and shortly after in the U.S. we too fired up barbecues and poured beers to mark Independence Day.

The national holidays are typically reserved for light-hearted fun, time with friends and family, and celebration of the progress these two liberal democracies have made. Yet, this should also be a time for deep introspection on both sides of the border; of their colonial settler pasts, slave-trade legacies, and the current state of affairs.

It’s easy to succumb to headlines, and shallow stereotypes abound about Canada and the U.S. today: Those of the former as a beacon of liberal democracy in a troubled world, and of the latter as a declining superpower that has lost its way.

Contrasts are further accentuated by the respective leaders themselves. Justin Trudeau, Canada’s Prime Minister is a young, photogenic, refugee-welcoming, panda-hugging, multilateralist. Trump on the other hand, is a veritable a crooked villain with little regard for the rest of the world, Canada included.

In the U.S. groups and individuals behind the banner “Resist” have recognized the current administration for what it is: a threat to America’s founding principles as celebrated every 4th of July. They vigilantly monitor its every move, gather for marches, donate to progressive causes and are keeping informed (judging by the spike in newspaper subscriptions).

At the same time in Canada, a great majority of the public slaps itself on the back as they repeat: Gosh, we are better than that! Many progressive Americans too are quick to concur. Every election cycle there are quips of “I’m moving to Canada, if [insert undesirable candidate’s name] wins!”

One can’t blame them, for in Canada there is widespread public healthcare coverage, greater work-life balance than in the U.S., strong and growing economy, plenty of open-space, diverse populations and similar cultural understandings. There is idealism from coast to coast, a vibrant democratic debate, and even a dash of the “Europe-like” feeling in Québec.

These widely familiar trends and tropes, however, acquire a new perspective if one is to shine more light into the neighbor’s backyard.

There one finds the ongoing, and often painful, reckoning Canadians are undergoing with its past and the ongoing oppression of indigenous peoples. One too can also see the pernicious debates about the religious expression and islamophobia imported directly from France.Or witness deafness and unresponsiveness to examine systemic racist practices, as unarmed black men die on Canadian streets too.

There is also the most recent news of government committed to fighting climate change by acquiring an oil-pipeline. Across the provinces there is also pain among the working classes in former industrial towns, a reality well known to Americans in the Midwest, as economy changes and opioids are abundant.

The mention any of the above in Canada is often considered uncouth, particularly among its white liberal circles. It’s right up there with a loud fart in a crowded elevator. The well-to-do classes profit from the stability and self of self-righteousness.

However, Canadians, especially young Canadians, are speaking out. At times they are called rude for pushing back against the status-quo, other times they receive death threats for their activism. They are, however, undaunted and would profit from ideas and knowledge exchanges with their American counterparts.

The “resist” camp, while deeply American and context-specific, should also be a broader call to us all. Naturally. in Canada as America’s next door neighbor, and with shared histories and similar liberal democratic values. But also more widely. In places as far away as Ethiopia, where according to the latest Human Rights Watch report from July 4th, torture and abuse abound, to Poland, where the justice system is crumbling and democracy is under threat.

Today we have the digital tools to connect and share information. It is easy to get past the headline clichés of others lived experiences if one tries. Let’s make the best use of them, lend neighbors a helping hand in their social justice struggles and extend a lifeline to those doing similar work beyond America’s borders.

Ultimately, it makes all of us better off.

Bojan Francuz  is Public Leadership Fellow at the Jeanne Sauvé Foundation in Montréal and co-founder of CityInclusive, a social impact initiative focused on tech and inclusive community engagement in cities. Previously he worked as a community organizer advocating for immigration reform in Chicago, IL and as a policy advisor for various governments on security and disarmament issues at the United Nations headquarters in New York , NY. He tweets @francuzb

The post American and Canadian progressives: The case for solidarity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The latest ad from Coca-Cola, made in collaboration with the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM), has an upbeat, random-acts-of-kindness message. But before you help the ad go viral, some critical thinking is in order.

The two and a half minute video is part of Coke’s international “Where will Happiness Strike Next” campaign. This time, it strikes on top of Singapore’s skyscrapers, as cans of Coke are delivered via drone to migrant construction workers.

The ad agency that made the video is getting rave reviews in the media for its creative use of drones. Yet, few in the media have written about the background story– the abuse of migrant workers and their quest for rights and dignity. This is my humble attempt to contextualize the debate.

 The fine print

“Singapore’s invisible people” today make up roughly 36 percent of the country’s population. They most often come from southeast Asian countries and work for as little as $1.60 per hour in the world’s third wealthiest state. Stories of employer abuse, disregard for workplace safety and default on promised salaries abound.

There is also no room for love. Marriage between a migrant worker and a local citizen or permanent resident requires a government permit. A government spokesperson claims this policy is “to discourage and prevent a large pool of unskilled or lower skilled migrant workers from settling here through marriages with Singaporeans.”

Elusive empathy

The gap between the two communities—migrant workers and local citizens—runs deep. Few migrant workers can communicate in English – Singapore’s working language – and have minimal interactions with the locals. They also typically live in crowded dormitories far away from residential areas. Coca Cola’s ad reveals this lack of interaction.The only form of communication is via photos stuck on the side of Coke cans delivered to workers. A message from a local woman reads, “We wouldn’t have roof over our heads if it weren’t for you guys.” Yet, the chances are slim that these men will ever be invited to share a meal under the roofs they are building.

They keep coming back.

Like Coke, migrant workers are present in all corners of the world. According to the International Labor Organization they are approximately 175 million strong. For many, a decision to leave home was not a choice, but a necessity. The ncreased pressure of economic globalization, championed by large multinationals like Coca-Cola, creates uneven global distribution of wealth and has pushed many communities to the margins.

A can of Coke and some online exposure will not address this structural problem. However, a concerted effort by governments across the world, including Singapore, can. Ratifying the U.N. convention on migrant workers’ right is a first step.

Ultimately, Coca-Cola’s “happiness” campaign is analogous to its products: sweet, fizzy and unable to quench thirst. It sometimes also gives us indigestion. Hence this article, with a hope that it will stir others to action. Groups such as the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) are doing impressive work to advocate on behalf of migrant workers in Singapore and deserve our support.

Note: I refrained from using the term ‘low-skilled labor’ to denote migrant workers in labor-intensive industries such as construction. The jobs these workers do typically requires dexterity, strength and knowledge that ‘high-skilled’ laborers, typing at the computer, cannot even comprehend.

Here’s the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj4A6g2GP30

The post Coca-Cola ad delivers ‘happiness’ via drones, but the world’s workers are still thirsty appeared first on Occasional Planet.

People marching in lines. Banners, signs and paraphernalia everywhere. A familiar scene at rallies and protests. At first glance, little beside the intensity has changed since the late nineteenth century when the street first became the stage.

Yet, take another look. The seasoned activists march with their chins raised high. The youth, on the other hand, keep their heads bowed and hug their smart phones. Tweet must be sent. Confirm. A photo is shared. If a protest is not tweeted, did it even take place?

We increasingly consume  information online and use social media for political rants. It’s fair to ask, then: Should we still be marching and protesting in physical space? Riots and rallies seem like phenomena of the distant past.

Enter the digital age. There #Kony2012 awaits. It was a masterfully orchestrated campaign by Invisible Children, a San Diego based group, which caught the world’s attention in 2012 and spawned numerous debates. Few still remember what this was all about (fyi, they have yet to catch that Kony guy). Now, it’s just a case study on how to tap into millennials’ idealism and meet them where they are: online.

The secret to their success is rather simple. Mix sleek graphics with a thirty-minute video laying out the issue in simple terms. Add some punchy lines and a memorable title,  then blast the message via social media. The Invisible Children capitalized on our obsessions with power and fame. They first nudged ‘validators’ of popular culture to tweet and share their simple message. From there, the grassroots took note and kept sharing away. Instantly, the media latched onto the story and spun it through the never-ending news cycle

But the droves of virtual protestors didn’t translate into meaningful change. On the contrary, if you visit the Invisible Children’s website today you will hear Lisa Dougan, Director of Civic Engagement, say “you can’t have a movement without moving.” The group recognized that mobilizing people in physical space is crucial.

Tweets don’t topple dictators; crowds in Tahrir can confirm that. The number of likes doesn’t correlate with the power of the movement. The Green Movement activists in Iran know this best. But when labor activists left the assembly line, there was quite a stir. The suffrage movement was effective because women banded together and marched, even when the bystanders yelled: “Where are your skirts?”  The marriage equality movement is real in some states not because we changed our Facebook profile pictures to equal and red. The movement exists because we continue to wage prolonged legal battles and bear witness to lives lost and love forbidden.

To march and rally is to build a community. Human touch and personal connections are becoming a rare commodity in our tech-enhanced world. The warmth of human bodies gives us strength and courage. Our voices echo louder when we are in a group. Even when there is no one to hear our chant, our cause will live on if we gather.

Yet, we must not become luddites, either. The job of a modern-day activist is to build a strong community using all available tools. We must tweet, record, post and share. Also, let’s not be afraid to test out new advocacy tools, such as Thunderclap – “crowd-speaking” platform amplifying ideas online. The audience no longer looks through the window for news or consults the community board. Instead, they stare at the screen, laugh at lolcats, and subscribe to updates in real time.

Will the new digitally enhanced efforts reap results? The answer is unclear. Decision-makers listen to the whispers of the special interests, while turning the volume of the masses down. We cannot let them get away with it. Instead, let’s turn up the pressure both offline and in the yet-uncharted digital advocacy realm.

The post You can’t have a political movement without moving. But bring your smartphone, too. appeared first on Occasional Planet.