KATHERINE WALTER dot COM

A MidWestern transgender woman trying to survive in the real life.

Tag: politics

The Federalist Society: Expanding Influence Beyond the Courts

By

On November 28, 2024

In Federalist Society

The Federalist Society has long been a powerful player in shaping the U.S. judiciary, particularly with its substantial impact on the Supreme Court. With six of the nine justices currently linked to the Society, its influence is undeniable. However, its ambitions reach far beyond the courts. The group is now actively working to extend its conservative vision into other influential sectors, including business, media, and technology. This broadening of influence is part of a larger conservative agenda to reshape American society through a multi-pronged strategy.

The Federalist Society’s Influence in Business and Wall Street

The Federalist Society’s efforts to influence corporate America are significant. The organization has built ties with major businesses and financial sectors, advocating for a deregulatory approach that benefits corporate interests. This alignment with Wall Street promotes a conservative free-market ideology that favors limited government intervention in business practices, environmental regulations, and corporate governance. From a liberal standpoint, this is troubling because it threatens to undermine progressive policies focused on regulating industries, addressing climate change, and protecting consumers. As the influence of the Federalist Society grows, it becomes clear that conservative ideals about capitalism are increasingly dictating the direction of American business practices (Feldman, 2024; Hawley, 2024).

In Silicon Valley, the Federalist Society’s concerns about tech regulation, including issues like censorship, privacy, and antitrust laws, highlight its opposition to progressive regulatory frameworks. As technology companies continue to face scrutiny over their role in political discourse, the Federalist Society’s push for a lighter touch from regulators clashes with calls for stricter oversight. This divide is emblematic of the ongoing debate over the role of government in regulating powerful tech firms, with the Society advocating for fewer restrictions that align with its conservative values (Feldman, 2024).

Hollywood and the Cultural Battle

The Federalist Society’s influence extends into the cultural realm as well, particularly in Hollywood. Conservative leaders within the Society are pushing to counter what they see as a liberal bias in the entertainment industry. They aim to ensure that films, TV shows, and other media reflect conservative values, contributing to the ongoing cultural battle over issues such as gender, race, and the role of government. This effort is part of a broader movement to reshape public discourse and challenge what conservatives perceive as an ideological monopoly in cultural production (Feldman, 2024).

Leonard Leo: The Architect Behind the Movement

At the heart of the Federalist Society’s judicial and cultural influence is Leonard Leo. As one of the Society’s leading figures, Leo has been instrumental in shaping the judicial appointments that have cemented the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Beyond the courts, Leo has deep ties to conservative donors and business figures, including the Koch brothers, further amplifying his influence across various sectors. His connections to corporate and political elites highlight the interconnectedness of the Federalist Society’s ambitions in reshaping not just the judiciary, but also business, media, and policy at large (Hawley, 2024; NPR, 2024).

Leo’s efforts to reshape American society go beyond simply nominating judges; they reflect a broader strategy to create a network of like-minded individuals and organizations that can influence policy in ways that favor conservative economic and social values. His role in promoting these connections underscores the Federalist Society’s growing power and its ambition to reshape all aspects of American governance and culture (Hawley, 2024).

A Liberal Critique: Undermining Democracy and Progress

From a liberal perspective, the Federalist Society’s expansion into business, media, and other influential sectors is deeply concerning. The group’s push for deregulation and limited government intervention in both the economy and tech industry poses a direct challenge to progressive efforts to protect workers, consumers, and the environment. By aligning itself with powerful corporate interests, the Federalist Society is seen as prioritizing elite, conservative agendas over the needs of the broader public.

The organization’s focus on judicial activism is also problematic. While the Federalist Society claims to be promoting neutral legal philosophy, its alignment with conservative political movements and business elites reveals its true goal: to advance a right-wing agenda that undermines democratic processes and curtails civil rights. The increasing power of the Supreme Court, as shaped by the Federalist Society, raises alarms about the erosion of democracy and the rule of law in favor of a conservative agenda that ignores the will of the people (NPR, 2024; Hawley, 2024).

Conclusion

The Federalist Society’s growing influence beyond the judiciary is a significant shift in the conservative movement’s strategy to reshape American society. Through its efforts to infiltrate business, media, and tech industries, the Society is pushing a right-wing agenda that threatens to undermine progressive policies and democratic values. With figures like Leonard Leo at the helm, the Federalist Society is well-positioned to continue its efforts to shape not only the law but also the cultural and economic fabric of the nation. For liberals, this marks a troubling expansion of conservative power that requires a strong, coordinated response to ensure that democratic values and public welfare are not sidelined in favor of corporate and ideological interests.

References

Feldman, N. (2024). How the Federalist Society came to dominate the Supreme Court. Harvard Gazette. https://content.news.harvard.edu

Hawley, T. (2024). The Federalist Society Isn’t Quite Sure About Democracy Anymore. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com

NPR. (2024). The Federalist Society’s influence on the conservative Supreme Court. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/24/nx-s1-5199049/federalist-society-conservative-supreme-court

The History of the Word “Woke” and Its Evolution in Modern Discourse

By

On November 27, 2024

In BIPOC rights

The term “woke” has undergone significant transformation over time, evolving from a phrase in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) to a charged political label. While its origins in Black activism symbolized awareness of racial and social injustice, the term has been redefined and weaponized in contemporary discourse. From its early roots to its current political implications, the history of “woke” reveals much about the changing landscape of social justice movements and the polarized debates surrounding them.

Origins: The Emergence of “Woke” in Black Activism

“Woke” originally emerged within African American Vernacular English (AAVE), where it referred to being awake or aware, particularly regarding social and racial issues. The term dates back to the 1940s, with early uses such as in the 1942 New York Times article that advised readers to “stay woke” in reference to racial inequalities (NPR, 2024). The phrase’s true significance, however, began to take root during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s when Black activists embraced the term as part of their struggle for racial justice.

To be “woke” was to be conscious of the societal forces that perpetuated racial oppression, and it was a call to action for those who sought to dismantle these systems. It wasn’t merely about awareness but also about staying vigilant in the fight against injustice, whether it was through activism, community engagement, or policy reform.

The Expansion of “Woke” in the 21st Century

The term gained broader recognition in the early 2000s, especially with the rise of social media and its role in organizing movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM). As movements addressing racial inequality, police violence, and systemic oppression grew in prominence, “woke” became synonymous with activism and social consciousness in progressive circles.

“Woke” signified a heightened awareness of not just racial inequality but also other social justice issues such as gender inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, and economic injustice. In this context, the term emphasized a holistic understanding of oppression, recognizing that issues like class, race, and gender were interconnected and demanded intersectional approaches (NPR, 2023). Progressives began using “woke” to encourage others to be conscious of these societal issues and to fight for equality and justice.

Political Weaponization of “Woke”

As “woke” entered the political mainstream, it began to take on a more contentious meaning. Conservative figures began using the term pejoratively to criticize what they viewed as overreach by progressive movements. This shift was particularly evident in the rhetoric of politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who criticized the rise of “woke” ideologies in his campaign against “woke culture” (NPR, 2023). DeSantis, in particular, has positioned himself as a champion against what he frames as the excesses of “wokeism,” often linking it to a supposed threat to traditional values, free speech, and American institutions (Mother Jones, 2023).

The term “woke” was increasingly used by the right to describe policies and initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in public institutions, particularly in government and the military (NPR, 2024). In this context, conservatives, including figures like Pete Hegseth, argued that such initiatives were an unnecessary imposition on American values, framing “woke” as an unwelcome force in sectors like the Department of Defense (NPR, 2024).

Conservative critiques of “woke” culture have often focused on identity politics, claiming that it fosters division and undermines meritocracy. They argue that “woke” politics prioritizes group identities over individual achievement and promotes a divisive narrative that stifles free expression. For many on the right, “woke” culture represents an attack on traditional institutions and the cultural norms that underpin American society (Mother Jones, 2023).

The Persistence of “Woke” in Progressive Movements

Despite the right-wing backlash, the term “woke” remains a central component of progressive activism. To be woke today is still to be aware of and engaged with the systems of oppression that continue to shape society. It signifies an awareness of the structural inequalities that affect marginalized communities, including those based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and economic status.

For progressives, the label “woke” remains an important symbol of resistance and a commitment to fighting for a more inclusive and just society. It reflects the idea that addressing inequality requires constant vigilance and a willingness to confront injustice wherever it exists. Far from being a negative force, being woke is about staying informed, compassionate, and active in the struggle for social justice.

The use of “woke” by progressives today extends beyond its original association with race. It now encompasses broader struggles for equity and justice, from climate action to LGBTQ+ rights, labor rights, and the fight against voter suppression. “Woke” culture is, in essence, a reminder that the work for justice is far from finished, and that all individuals must remain alert to the ways in which systems of power shape society.

Conclusion: “Woke” as a Reflection of Societal Struggles

The evolution of the term “woke” from a call for racial justice to a politicized label reflects broader societal struggles over the direction of social and cultural change. Initially a term used by Black activists to signify awareness of racial oppression, “woke” has grown into a symbol of resistance to systemic injustice in all its forms. While it has been politicized and weaponized by conservative forces, for progressives, it remains a term that signifies a commitment to confronting inequality and working toward a more just world.

As debates over “woke” culture continue to intensify, it is clear that the term will remain a flashpoint in the ongoing culture wars. For those committed to social justice, “woke” is more than just a label—it is a call to remain engaged in the fight for a world that is equitable, inclusive, and free from discrimination.

References

Mother Jones. (2023, August 1). Negrophilia, “woke,” and the right’s obsession with Black culture. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/08/negrophilia-woke-right-conservative-desantis/

NPR. (2023, July 21). How “woke” became a political tool for both Trump and DeSantis. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189016049/woke-desantis-trump-black-culture

NPR. (2024, November 14). Pete Hegseth on the Defense Department’s DEI initiatives. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5191941/pete-hegseth-defense-department-dei

What Project 2025 Could Mean for Me

By

On November 13, 2024

In Project 2025

Thinking about the future can feel overwhelming these days, especially as an openly transgender woman preparing to teach high school students. Project 2025—a policy plan from conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation—aims to reshape the federal government in ways that could drastically impact education, public policies, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. As someone who plans to teach in public schools and who cares deeply about creating safe, inclusive spaces, I can’t help but reflect on what this project might mean for me and for others like me.

At its core, Project 2025 is a conservative “wish list” designed to realign the federal government with what its authors call “traditional” values. Its goals include reducing regulations, diminishing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, and limiting certain topics in education. By targeting social policies that they see as overly progressive, the project seeks to roll back recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in areas like healthcare, workplace protections, and public education. The impact of these changes, however, wouldn’t stop at the federal level—they would likely encourage similar initiatives at state and local levels, leading to an even more divided and polarized society. If Project 2025 were to come to fruition, it could make life harder and less safe for transgender individuals, impacting not only my personal life but my professional future as an educator.

One of my greatest concerns is how this project could affect transgender people’s access to healthcare. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), protections were established to ensure that transgender individuals could not be discriminated against in accessing healthcare. However, Project 2025 proposes a major reduction of federal involvement in healthcare, which could make it easier to limit or outright remove these protections. During the Trump administration, attempts were made to roll back these same ACA protections for transgender people, and it’s likely that Project 2025 would pursue similar changes. For transgender people like me, these protections are more than just legal victories—they are crucial for accessing gender-affirming care and basic healthcare without fear of discrimination or refusal of service. Removing them would deepen an already significant barrier, complicating and threatening our ability to receive compassionate care.

Job protections are another concern. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that employment discrimination based on gender identity was prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision was a hard-won victory for LGBTQ+ rights, but Project 2025’s agenda could challenge its enforcement. The plan could weaken the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stance on these protections, creating a situation where LGBTQ+ employees face higher risks of discrimination with fewer resources to turn to. As a transgender woman who is preparing to work in a public high school, the idea that I might lose protections from workplace discrimination or harassment is deeply concerning. Working without a sense of job security or safety because of who I am isn’t just intimidating—it’s destabilizing.

Public visibility and safety for transgender people could also be under threat if Project 2025 becomes reality. Already, certain states are pushing policies that restrict transgender rights, such as banning gender-affirming healthcare for minors, limiting restroom access, and curtailing the use of preferred names and pronouns in schools. Project 2025 could make such state-level restrictions more widespread, creating an increasingly hostile environment for transgender people across the country. The everyday hostility transgender people navigate could become an even greater burden under a government that actively endorses policies to restrict our rights and visibility in public spaces.

In my role as a future teacher, I’m particularly worried about how Project 2025’s education policies could impact schools. In its emphasis on restoring “traditional” values, the project targets what it sees as overly progressive curricula. For many educators, especially LGBTQ+ teachers, this could mean a dramatic shift in what we’re able to say, teach, or discuss with our students. Conservative educational policies have already placed restrictions on discussing topics of gender identity and sexual orientation, and Project 2025 could take this further, curbing the very conversations that help foster empathy and understanding in diverse classrooms. For an openly transgender teacher, this kind of restrictive environment could mean walking a tightrope, avoiding essential discussions on identity and inclusion to avoid professional risk or penalties.

Beyond content restrictions, Project 2025 could also impact teachers’ freedom to express support for LGBTQ+ rights openly. Some recent state-level policies prevent teachers from using a student’s chosen name or pronouns, even if doing so would support a student’s mental health and identity. If a Project 2025-influenced administration encourages such restrictions at the federal level, it would push teachers into a troubling situation. We could face the choice of following rigid policies or being there for our students in ways we know are vital to their well-being. I can imagine the conflict that might arise from trying to be an inclusive, compassionate teacher while navigating policies that could treat such support as unprofessional or even punishable.

A government agenda like Project 2025 could also leave transgender teachers professionally vulnerable. If this project’s policies limit support for LGBTQ+ rights in public education, teachers who openly identify as transgender or who vocally support LGBTQ+ students may find themselves targeted, scrutinized, or penalized. This kind of professional risk could discourage talented, caring teachers from entering or remaining in the field, ultimately harming students who benefit from seeing themselves represented among the adults who guide them.

Despite all the anxieties and uncertainties, Project 2025’s rise has also reminded me of the power of community and resilience. People from all walks of life support diversity and inclusion, and we’re not alone in standing up for an education system that welcomes everyone. There are many of us who are ready to push back against policies that seek to diminish our visibility and rights, and we’re prepared to continue advocating for inclusive schools. The possibility of Project 2025 becoming reality doesn’t just challenge us—it motivates us to strengthen our support networks, raise our voices, and remind others that the values of inclusion and respect are worth fighting for.

While Project 2025 looms as a potentially drastic shift in the government’s approach to transgender rights and public education, I still find hope. Across the country, students, parents, allies, and educators believe in the importance of diversity and inclusion, and together, we can push back against policies that fail to protect our rights. As a future teacher, I am committed to fostering a classroom where all my students feel seen, heard, and valued. Despite the challenges that may come, I am confident that with resilience and community, we can hold on to the progress we’ve made—and keep pushing forward for even more.

Living Through the Coronavirus

By

On May 10, 2020

In current events

A lot of shit has been happening since the last time I posted on here. First off, happy Mothers’ Day to all the mothers out there. I sent my mother a gift card to Amazon. It was done digitally, but she hasn’t picked it up yet. They have limited access to the internet. She’ll get it sooner or later.

March 17th marked my fiftieth birthday. This milestone still blows my mind. Frankly, I never expected to live this long. Yet, now that I’m at that age, it doesn’t seem like I’m as old as I thought I was going to be.

February marked the sixth year that I went on HRT. I still have no regrets about it. If  I had to say one thing about it, I wish I started sooner in my life. Yet, I know that if I came out when I was fifteen that my parents’ wouldn’t understand or support me. At least, that is what I thought at that point in my life. Then when I was out on my own, I didn’t want to do it because I thought that I would never be able to find a job. Actually, that still haunts me since I lost my job with the Federal Government.

Anyway, I’m getting off track. The elephant in the room is the coronavirus going around. I think it is crazy. I never thought that I’d live to see a pandemic such as this one. I’ve been in quarantine for about a week after my birthday. I have been out to get my car fixed, but for the most part I haven’t been out at all.  Thanks to my agoraphobia it hasn’t been affecting my mental health at all. Of course, it isn’t helping matters either. I’ve been seeing my therapist virtually. It is cam-to-cam so we can see each other.

The Trump administration isn’t helping us out either. He said some pretty dumb stuff early on and currently. First he thought it was a hoax made up by the Democratic Party. Then he said we are nearly zero. Then it was a good job if it just killed off two hundred thousand people. Not too long ago he thought it made no sense to test for the virus since one day you can have it and then the next day you do have it. Don’t even get me started on him saying that injecting or digesting disinfectants can cure you of the virus. I wish he would just step down and let the scientists take over.

Joe Biden wasn’t my first pick for the front runner for the Democratic Party’s bid for the Presidency. I was behind Kamala Harris before she dropped out. She’s done a lot for the LGBT community during her time as Attorney General of California. Sure there was that one time she ruled in favor of transgender women inmates being in men’s facilities, but I think she answered the question well when she was at the HRC debates. I do think she wasn’t the most liberal candidate on the ticket. I think she just sways with the times. Many politicians included Obama were more centralist in their viewpoints. Yet, I am backing Joe Biden for 2020.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén