Jesse Brown is Dangerous (to the status quo)
Friends and Constituents,
I hope you’re all having an excellent weekend. I know I’m not the only one who was shocked not to have any doors to knock or phone calls to make, now that the primary elections are over with. Still, after the last few weeks, I was very ready for a slower-paced weekend.
This week, Councilor Crista Wells and I introduced a resolution calling on the Metropolitan Development Commission to deny all new data center applications and institute a moratorium until either a year had passed or we had a finalized and approved new set of regulations. The resolution passed unanimously, which should hopefully send a message to the MDC that the body that appoints them is united in demanding a halt at least temporarily. Sadly, my peers on the Council did not attempt to overrule the parliamentarian and put a halt to the Metrobloks data center in Martindale-Brightwood.
Compare this to Governor Braun’s recent suspension of the gas tax without legislative approval, which similarly was seen as illegal. Braun recognized that this was an extremely politically popular and helpful thing to do, and simply did it anyway - and Democrats cheered him on.
I will continue to fight for a City Council that takes its power seriously and that aggressively pushes back against the Statehouse, especially for issues like the Metrobloks data center, which strong supermajorities of our constituents agree about.
But there was another resolution that the Council passed on Monday that I wanted to focus on this week: Proposal 141, which “condemns political violence in all its forms.” I’m a committed peace activist and pacifist, yet I could not support the resolution, and was one of two Councilors who did not sign on. I can just imagine the attack ads that will be run against me next year. So I decided to preempt the attacks and just create one myself. Watch the video and then keep reading.
Though I wanted to have some fun with the video, I do think this is a serious matter.
First and foremost, in case this was somehow unclear: I don’t want anyone to be shot at. Nobody deserves to have bullets fired at their home, especially not anyone with children at home. Similarly, nobody should have to make calls home to their spouse to warn them about death threats - other colleagues of mine and legislators at the Statehouse have all experienced those incidents this year, as well.
But I found several aspects of this special resolution to be actively dangerous and harmful in our current political context.
Who gets to make violent threats?
The first line of this special resolution states that it reaffirms the Council’s commitment to a “safe, civil, and peaceful democracy where violent rhetoric and acts are not tolerated.”
In February, an IMPD sergeant was captured on video telling an unarmed and compliant Black teenager who had just left an anti-ICE protest “I will f*cking kill you.” IMPD’s Internal Affairs investigators agreed that the sergeant’s language was “unbecoming of an officer” but exonerated the sergeant from the allegation of intimidation. IMPD Chief Tanya Terry had still not made a “solid” recommendation about any discipline, according to police quoted on April 14th in the IndyStar.
That sure sounds like tolerating some explicitly violent rhetoric to me - and the threat came immediately after the teenager was using his first amendment rights to express a political opinion.
But the Council resolution “urges law enforcement authorities at all levels to thoroughly investigate, prosecute, and hold accountable those who commit or incite political violence.”
Perhaps Matthew 7:3-5 might have some moral and political lessons here!
What counts as violent speech and behavior?
My Twitter username has been “JesseForIndy is fighting fascism” since summer of 2024. This slogan is considerably more tame than the famous statement Woody Guthrie scrawled on his guitar, and yet there’s some evidence that this could be interpreted as “violent or terroristic” language that would justify my arrest and prosecution.
After ICE agents murdered Renee Good in the street, Kristie Noem and JD Vance called her a terrorist and justified the killing. This wasn’t a simple rhetorical flourish: the FBI spent its time and energy investigating Good’s potential ties to activist groups, not investigating the circumstances of her death.
Who commits violent acts in American politics?
Proposal 141 carefully avoids taking any political stances, claiming that leaders and public figures “across the political spectrum” have been targeted and further insisting that the Council condemns all forms of political violence of (sic) public officials, candidates, and public figures, regardless of political party or ideology.”
This type of “both sides” language is very appealing to politicians because it makes it easy to pass with bipartisan support. And constituents have some beliefs that justify this kind of framing - most people think that it’s people on the other side of the political spectrum who commit political violence.
The problem is, the facts don’t match these belief patterns.
Though the Trump administration has tried to suppress the truth, it is undisputable that right-wingers commit the vast majority of politically-motivated killings in the United States. Recent claims that left-wing political violence is on the rise as compared to right-wing political violence during Trump’s second term miss the forest for the trees, which brings me to my final point.
Trump’s entire agenda is political violence.
Trump has armed, trained, and empowered a violent paramilitary partisan organization and unleashed it upon American cities with a budget over eight times what it had in previous years.
Dozens of people have been murdered as a result - yet the Council has not condemned this wave of terror, and it was not mentioned in the discussion of political violence.
After all, by definition, terrorists can’t work for the state. Trump’s solution was simple, yet effective: give every right-wing terrorist a badge and a gun, and the right-wing terror numbers will go down even as the body count of political opponents goes up.
Trump has extrajudicially and illegally murdered nearly 200 people on boats since taking office the second time.
Trump has illegally deployed the US military against American cities.
Trump has illegally invaded and deposed the government of Venezuela.
Trump has illegally conducted a massive war against Iran.
Trump has created and expanded a network of concentration camps.
Trump has transferred hundreds of people to a torture death camp.
This is not an exhaustive list. Though American capitalism under the leadership of both major parties has always been more brutal and violent than most of its supporters would like to consider, it is undeniable that the violence has increased exponentially under President Donald Trump.
This resolution is a gift to Trump.
Both-sides denunciations that try to parse out “political” from “non-political” violence are an absolute gift to dictators and authoritarians.
It is a gift to Trump to normalize his illegal, horrifying, and nonsensical policy.
It is a gift to Trump to pre-authorize his attacks on free speech and protestors by tacitly agreeing that he and other government officials should receive special protection from the police.
And literally every member of the Democratic caucus on the City-County Council gave the President this gift.
As for me, I will hold strong to my pacifist ideals, yet all the same I fight on.
If you're with me, chip in a few dollars as I start working on my re-election campaign next year. I'd like to raise enough to help support other grassroots candidates running against the status quo.
In love and solidarity,
Jesse