How to Defend Democracy One State at a Time
The courts are making decisions that the Trump administration is simply ignoring. And the Supreme Court accepts it. The federal government is captured and the resident of the White House goes crazy. The worst could happen, but something else is also happening. One of my guests calls this the largest coordinated state-level opposition campaign in modern American history. States use the tools they have in the federal system to oppose what they see as wrong. Some are considering new legislation that would complement this toolkit. Meanwhile, organized people are acting defiantly, making clear demands, electing new leaders, and remaining engaged in ways that strengthen our democracy and our economy. What happens next is critically important, and a lot depends on what people believe they can do.
Christopher Armitage is the founder of The Existentialist Republic on the substack. His manual, Oppositional federalism and youoffers a framework for what he calls soft secession. Sumathy Kumar is executive director of Housing Justice for All and the New York State Tenant Bloc, and former co-chair of the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. Under her leadership, she saw six socialist legislators elected to the New York State Legislature, including Zohran Mamdani.
Laura Flandre: How do you describe where we are?
Christophe Armitage: The United States has been taken over by a transnational criminal organization called the GOP.
LF: Well, it’s pretty simple. And you, Sumathy?
Sumathy Kumar: I think that’s correct. There are these two visions. A criminal organization that robs people of their wealth, their dignity, and then a different vision of what life could be like if the government actually worked for the people, if it prioritized working class people. The best example is that of New York with the election of Zohran Mamdani.
LF: For many, they hear the word “secessionist,” Chris, and think of the Southern strategy to defeat federal civil rights legislation. When you use the term, what are you referring to?
CALIFORNIA: I really appreciate this question because it’s one of my favorites, because for many Americans, secession means standing up for racism, states’ rights means standing up for racism. But there is no reason why we should lose the best tool our founders gave us to fight authoritarianism. States’ rights can protect reproductive rights. This can ensure that everyone gets health care. States’ rights can ensure that we get everything we fight for and fight to win at the federal level. We can have this at the state level, and there doesn’t have to be opposition because at the federal level there is a structural imbalance that makes it very easy to regress and very difficult to progress. But at the state level, you can reach out to your state representatives. You can say, “We want universal, single-payer health care in this state. » This can happen where you have the most influence, which is at the local level.
Sask. : Exactly what Chris says. This is an opportunity in New York to build that alternative, structures that give people what they need, even when the federal government withdraws. New York is a very progressive state. We have the political power to do this if tenants and citizens across the state actually push their elected officials. We have a lot of billionaires in New York. They could pay a lot more in taxes, and if we taxed the rich, we would have money to fill the gaps related to Medicaid cuts, housing, food stamps, things that are being cut now.
LF: Mayor Mamdani, when he was a state lawmaker, appeared on this show to talk about his “Not for Our Money!” bill, which sought to limit the benefits of charitable status given to businesses or charities that supported illegal settlements in the West Bank. You have a model for using state tax power and corporate profits power in your toolbox, Chris. Care to explain this, particularly the Corporate Benefits Accountability Act, which seems to tackle many sins with one piece of legislation?
CALIFORNIA: Absolutely. I was originally looking at the Montana Plan, which many people are excited about. Other states, like Minnesota, are considering promoting it. He says, “If you incorporate in Montana, you can’t contribute to political campaigns that benefit ExxonMobil, which is not incorporated in Montana but hurts the local bakery.” » So I aimed to create something that could solve the problem of spilling Citizens united at the state level. If you have money to give to political action committees, you don’t need our tax money. This is an oppositional federalism, which is another level above soft secession by saying: “We will actively work against the unjust laws that have been decided at the federal level.”
LF: Another aspect of your model bill, Chris, concerns elections. This is the State Fiscal Sovereignty Act, which would give states some power to withhold funds from the federal government if it fails to comply with election law. How would this work?
CALIFORNIA: This law was actually proposed by Republicans in three different state legislatures during the Obama administration. It originally said simply: “The federal government is doing unconstitutional things. So we are going to order all employers in the state to divert their federal tax withholdings to an escrow account.” Now, this model law that I released says, “If you try to overturn our election, or if you disrespect the results, or if you send federal troops to our polling places without the explicit authorization of our governor and/or our mayor, then we will order all employers to stop sending you taxpayer dollars until our democracy is restored.” » This is not an extreme measure. This is in fact a very rational and non-violent response to such an extreme violation of the social agreement of the American Constitution.
LF: Sumathy, if tenants and others are seeing violations of the law where they are and we have heard local authorities say they will take action, what do you do if they don’t?
Sask. : They need to have popular support behind them so that they can do what is courageous and right in that moment, and demonstrate creativity and strength to resist what is happening at the federal level. It’s not all up to them. This is not possible. We’re just not going to win that way. This must be a mass movement that demands that our elected officials stand up, that our local elected officials do what they can to resist.
LF: Is this what you mean by “mass governance”? I saw that you co-wrote an article in Jacobin magazine recently with this title.
Sask. : Yes, to me, mass governance means that we all have to work together to build something that can get us out of this mess. There are many opposition forces. There is the real estate sector. There are billionaires. There are right-wing MAGA forces all trying to focus, especially on the mayor of New York. He can’t do it alone, and he shouldn’t. He needs thousands of people to knock on doors, call their legislators, travel to Albany to make sure the legislature is doing its job, and he needs thousands of people to talk to city council members. He needs thousands of people to organize against their owners and hold them accountable. This is all about a mass movement that is not just fighting externally, but actually working with a champion city government to meet the needs of the people.
CALIFORNIA: We must take power away from the Trump administration and the Republican Party. It means taking that power and placing it locally. The work that Sumathy and Mayor Mamdani are doing is crucial in this regard. For example, being able to offer a good quality of life in an affordable environment to your residents is a sweet secession. You quietly go about your business. And if you don’t agree with something that’s happening in the federal government, you ignore it until you’re forced to do something. This strategy must, once again, exploit something that the right has succeeded in doing. We need to flood the area with good policies that take care of people. You need to know the name of your state’s legislative representative. You need to know the names of your municipal representatives. They should know your name and what you care about.
LF: What is Housing Justice for All really working on right now, Sumathy?
Sask. : We’re working to create a social housing development authority that would both build new housing that people could afford and control and take existing housing away from landlords who don’t take care of their buildings, who don’t want to take care of them anymore. Renovate and hand over to tenants. It’s a piece of the puzzle. There is rent control. Then there is social housing and the construction of housing that is permanently affordable, a dignified and decent place to live. The Mamdani administration has committed to building 200,000 new rent-stabilized, highly affordable housing units. Over the next few years, we will build this alternative. The right has no real answer for how to improve your life. There are just distractions. There is just cruelty. The more we can say, “We built something in New York State, this makes your life easier,” the more we can move people away from right-wing politics and toward something that gives them life and gives them hope.
