#REVIEW: House of Diggs: The Rise and Fall of America’s Most Consequential Black Congressman, Charles C. Diggs Jr., by Marion Orr

This book represents an interesting milestone for me in a couple of ways. First, I am rarely offered nonfiction ARCs for review, something I’d like to encourage more of. Second, I don’t think I’ve ever read a biography of someone I was less familiar with prior to reading the book than I was with Charles C. Diggs. While I don’t think I could claim to have never heard of him– I have read too much about the Civil Rights movement to have never encountered his name before– I couldn’t tell you much other than that he was a Black congressman. I certainly wouldn’t have recognized a picture of him. I was a little worried that this might hurt my enjoyment of the book; as it turns out I have more than enough context around his life that that wasn’t a problem.

The interesting thing here is that, sitting here, I’m struggling with the urge to make this piece a review of Diggs rather than a review of the book. At the same time, though, you weren’t sent a copy of this for free, so I kind of feel like if I’m going to convince you to read it you probably need to know a little bit about the fellow you’ll be spending a few hundred pages with. To wit: Charles C. Diggs Jr. was the son of one of Detroit’s most influential Black businessmen. His father was the founder of the slightly-oddly-named House of Diggs, a funeral home that at one point handled just over half of the deaths among Detroit’s Black citizenry. Charles Sr. had a short-lived political career as a Michigan state Senator but mostly kept his business empire running; Charles Jr. started his political career in his father’s seat in the Michigan Senate but was elected to Congress in 1954 and never looked back. He would remain in office until 1980, when a financial scandal led to him being censured by Congress, forced to resign, and briefly imprisoned. He holds the distinction of being the victim of one of Newt Gingrich’s first acts of assholery, as the future Speaker of the House and fellow resignee-in-disgrace began agitating for Congress to expel Diggs almost as soon as he took office.

When Diggs entered office, he was one of only three Black congressmen, joining William Dawson of Illinois and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. of New York. He proved himself to be skilled at coalition-building and incrementalist approaches to civil rights– one of his first legislative accomplishments was desegregating airlines, for example– and eventually became one of Congress’s foremost experts on and advocates for Africa as well. Soon after taking office he traveled to Mississippi to sit in on the trial of Emmitt Till’s murderers, which made national headlines, particularly as Mississippi at the time had absolutely no idea how to handle a Black Member of Congress.

But let’s talk about the book. House of Diggs is a very strong political biography and a worthy addition to my library about the Civil Rights movement and is somewhat less successful as a biography of a person. Which, honestly, kind of fits with its subject anyway, as Diggs was quite successful as a politician and much less successful as a person. His children are barely mentioned, but his four wives, three of whom had children with him, would have described him as a poor father anyway, and you won’t find out about any of the three divorces until nearly 80% of the way through the book. He had a gambling problem and was absolutely terrible with money, which is part of what led to his own downfall and at least tangentially led to his father’s business empire slowly disintegrating after the senior Diggs died by suicide in 1967. The finance issues that led to his resignation and jail time are a bit too complicated to go into detail about here, but I felt Orr did a really good job of explaining the details of what happened, both in a literal factual sense and in how Diggs’ own personality flaws led to his eventual indictment. It also seems to be true that the practices that took Diggs down were quite common in Congress at the time, and Orr doesn’t neglect the role of racism in his prosecution while never losing sight of the fact that, no, “everybody else was doing it” isn’t really a top-10 legal defense.

All told, I’m really glad I was sent this, as it’s from a university press and I likely wouldn’t have even encountered it otherwise. If political biography is your thing or you have an interest in the Civil Rights movement, I highly recommend taking a look.

House of Diggs releases September 16.

In which fairness is stupid

I am tired, and crabby, and in no fucking mood for anyone’s nonsense, and the particular type of smug ignorance embedded in this TikTok is precisely the sort of thing that gets right on my nerves when I’m in this type of mood. Sure, okay, Congress gets lots of vacation time away from DC. Sure, Steve Scalise is a fucking asshole. Sure, the four-day work week would be just dandy.

But do you think the person who put this TikTok on the internet realizes that Congresspeople, like, actually have shit to do other than make laws in DC? Which is not, for the most part, where they live, and is absolutely not where their constituents live? I don’t know about you, but I would kind of like for my Congresscritters to be accessible to me once in a while, or at least be somewhere in my state, and I don’t have the time or money to fuck off to Washington DC every time I want to fucking yell at someone.

Yes, it is true, Congress takes lots of time away from lawmaking, and if you want to make the argument that they take too much, go ahead and make that argument. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a good thing that these assholes have to come home every once in a while, and I don’t even think that the person who created this even realizes that’s what is going on. 

ETA: So long as I’m bitching about people bitching about Congress not working hard enough, let me point out that it is not at all abnormal to hear about bills getting debated until late at night, and that while I hardly have a cushy job, at least I can pretty well guarantee that I’m gonna be in bed by nine every night if that’s what I want.(*) I don’t know how the fuck these sixty- and seventy-year-old lawmakers are even remotely conscious at midnight much less still being awake and giving speeches no fucker is listening to.

(*) It is very much what I want and it almost never happens. I can’t guarantee a Goddamn thing. Ten if I’m lucky.

Give him a trophy and send him home

I’ve watched a lot of C-Span in the last couple of days, probably to the point where I can comfortably say I’ve spent more time watching C-Span in the last week than I’ve watched in my entire life leading up to this last week.

The problem, of course, is that the Republican Party’s one major belief for my entire life is that government is fundamentally useless and isn’t any good for anything. And when you keep electing people who believe that, you aren’t electing people who actually have any good reason to go into office and govern well. That would prove their central premise wrong. They’re not going to do that. And right now it is abundantly fucking clear that the Republicans have sent at least 20 people in to office who have absolutely no interest in anything other than claiming Kevin McCarthy’s scalp. And since in Kevin McCarthy we have someone who has no principles other than his desire to be Speaker, and the Democrats don’t quite have enough people to get Hakeem Jeffries into office on their own, well … you get this.

The usual chatterers are chattering that oh this time it looks like there’s a deal, but I’ve got C-Span on while I’m writing this, and Matt Gaetz, who didn’t vote for the shitgibbon last round after voting for him in the other rounds today, just officially nominated him, so … there’s no deal. There’s not going to be a deal. You can’t negotiate with people whose only position is that you should not exist. And the nutcase rump of the Republican party’s only position is that Kevin McCarthy shouldn’t be Speaker, so there’s no deal he can put forward that will assuage that. It’s not going to happen.

(Now that I’ve said that, he’ll win this round, of course, because I am never right about politics. But it will be super fun to watch the insurrectionists vote against the shitgibbon.)

This is round eleven, and so far we have not seen six Republicans willing to cross the aisle and vote for Jefferies, nor have we seen the necessary number agree to vote present so that the guy who has won every single round of voting so far can be named Speaker.

There’s somebody else up doing nominations right now, so the Not Kevins can’t even decide on which Not Kevin to stand up behind, because it doesn’t matter.

Whee.

A very brief Congressional explainer

I’ve seen a fair number of people who are confused about what the hell the House is doing right now. To be clear, I am very very far from being an expert, and it’s possible that I’m going to get some details incorrect in this, but I think I’ve got the basic gist, and if anybody sees any outright errors, please put them in comments and I’ll amend the post.

My current understanding is that Pelosi has brought the House back into session today and has already asked for unanimous consent to bring a bill to the floor calling on the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. That unanimous consent has been denied, and therefore there will be a vote by the House on the bill tomorrow. Pence will be given 24 hours to do the right thing and then impeachment proceedings will begin.

I’ve seen a lot of people asking why they have to wait so long, and why they can’t vote on the bill today. That is, in fact, exactly what they asked for unanimous consent on. You cannot introduce a bill and vote on it on the same day; that’s been a rule for several years now, and it’s a rule that makes good sense– remember, a lot of the bills passed can be hundreds of pages long and complicated, so it makes sense to give people enough time to read the final version of the bill before they vote on it. Now, of course, you don’t need a full day to read a two-page resolution, but the rule still stands. The House can break their own rules with unanimous consent— in other words, if no House member disagrees with breaking the rule, a rule can be broken. But since they didn’t get that unanimous consent– the Republicans blocked it– they have to go to a full vote, and therefore have to wait until tomorrow, when the resolution will most assuredly pass.

Now, in theory, and at least as far as I know, they could also formally introduce the impeachment article or articles (more than one Congressperson has announced that they’re working on them, and I’m not sure who wrote the final text) today, and then again, in theory and as far as I know, they could vote on them or at least get the process started on Tuesday. They’re waiting an extra day to give Pence his 24 hours basically as a strategic measure, which … well, you can decide on your own whether that’s a good idea or not, given that Mitch McConnell has refused to bring the Senate back into session before the 19th. The resolution on Pence is something the House can do on its own. Impeachment is not. The only way to get that done any faster is if, oh, say, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski were to agree to caucus with the Democrats for a while, giving them the majority immediately and making Chuck Schumer the Majority Leader. Otherwise, the Dem majority doesn’t actually kick in until Kamala Harris is Vice-President.

(EDIT: It does look like the impeachment articles have been formally introduced.)

(Don’t ask me what happens if Pence does invoke the 25th. I don’t even know if there are rules for that, or whether Pence is for-real President or acting President or what if the Beast is removed via that method. I have no idea who casts tie breaking votes in the Senate under those circumstances, but it definitely wouldn’t be Harris before the 20th, so it probably doesn’t actually matter.)

(I’m also not sure exactly how the 14th Amendment applies to all of this– I know the Senate and the House can expel their own members, and they’ve used this power in the past, but I have no idea how the law works regarding declaring that someone cannot run for office again. I’ll look into it.)

Anyway, hopefully this is helpful, and again– I’m not an expert, so if you see something I’m wrong about, let me know.

In which I have plans

UnknownI’m gonna vote tomorrow.

I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket, with the exception of my local Congressional race, which does not feature a Democrat to vote for.  I will instead be writing in Pat Hackett, who I voted for in the primary.

I will be voting for Oletha Jones over Stan Wruble for School Board.  I have nothing in particular against Mr. Wruble but my preference is to not vote for white men when I have an alternative, and in this case I do.

I will be voting no on Public Question #1, which doesn’t actually literally read “Is it OK if Republicans deliberately force a budget crisis and then steal the pensions of Indiana’s public servants in order to fix the problem they created?” but may as well.  I very strongly recommend every Hoosier vote against this fucking nonsense.

I have no plans to vote for or against any judges.  I honestly don’t have time for this shit and, more importantly, I lack any relevant expertise and therefore I’m not qualified to make decisions here.  I did some brief research on each of the judges up for retention votes (which are always successful; they never lose these things) and found no giant blinking red lights so I will ignore these questions as usual.

I will, once again, almost certainly not be receiving a sticker.

In which I make choices

PZMyX7yg_400x400
Pat Hackett

Having looked for transcripts of the two Democratic primary debates and discovered to my faint disgust that they did not exist, I spent the morning digging through both Pat Hackett and Yatish Joshi’s websites.  Accordingly, I’ve decided that while I’d be perfectly happy for either of them to win the nomination, I’ll be voting for Hackett in the primary.   The main things that swung my decision?  Gun control is listed first on Hackett’s “issues” page, and while I’m much more abolitionist than she is, I’m much more abolitionist than absolutely everyone and she has a pretty well-thought-out and achievable plan.  In general, I feel like Pat’s priorities match mine more closely than Yatish’s do at this time.  In addition, personally, if you ask me to pick between the businessman and the adjunct professor I’m going to choose the professor every single time.

The only other St. Joseph County race of note is the county sheriff’s office.  Ordinarily I wouldn’t think too hard about a sheriff primary, but something about the tone of one of the candidates’ ads around town has really rubbed me wrong, and I’ve decided to vote for Bill Redman in the primary.  In this case his issues page and his opponent’s are not all that far apart, but in general I think I’ll vote for the guy whose background is in D.A.R.E. rather than the one whose career path went from narcotics to homicide to SWAT and who brags about being sniper trained on his site.  There is a third candidate, but I feel like if you’re running for office in 2018 and you can’t be bothered to put together a website at all then I’m justified in ending my consideration of your candidacy right then and there.  I suspect just from the volume of yard signs and roadside advertisements and such that this particular race won’t be close (and not in my candidate’s favor) but there you have it.  I may go ahead and go vote tomorrow; we’ll see.


I have read two really good books recently, and while this isn’t the post for book reviews, they’re probably coming.  In the meantime, check out Dread Nation, by Justina Ireland, and Void Black Shadow, by Corey J. White.

In which I deliberate

Early voting just opened for the Indiana primaries yesterday, and as someone who tries his damnedest to never actually vote on Election Day, I probably ought to figure out who I’m voting for.  My Senator is an incumbent and I won’t be voting in the Republican primary to choose his opponent, so the big race is for my Congressional district, to oust the rather odious Jackie Walorski.  Here are the choices:

I have made a decision in the last couple of years: I am dead tired of voting for white men in situations where I have another choice.  I’m sure Mel Hall is perfectly fine and save some sort of disastrous scandal or something like that I’ll very likely vote for him if he wins the primary (possibly important: I have not seen a single speck of polling and have no idea who the frontrunner might be) but I have two non-white-men choices up there and I’m for damn sure picking one of them in the primary.  The only question is which one, and I think in between taking the boy to school tomorrow morning and my dentist appointment (just a cleaning this time, no more pulling teeth) I’m going to read some transcripts of the last couple of primary debates and pick myself a Congresscritter. I think given the current political climate any of the three of them ought to be able to unseat Walorski– my district was reliably Democratic until recent redistricting pulled in a healthy chunk of the more Republican rural areas outside of South Bend, and there are still more than enough Democrats here to get one of us elected if we show up.

Entertaining sidenote: Mrs. Hackett is a married lesbian.  My mayor is a gay man, engaged to be married soon.  I would like to submit that if we send Pat Hackett to Congress, South Bend, Indiana immediately gets to claim the title of the gayest place in America.  I would love to know if there’s anywhere else in the country that can claim that both their mayor and their Congressperson are gay.  Somehow, I doubt there is.