Everyday Justice magazine

July 2026

Articles from Mercy:

• • Critical Considerations Are contradictions determining U.S. elections? (Karen Donahue, RSM)
• • Ecumenical Advocacy Days as a first timer (John Charles McAllister-Ashley; Institute Justice Team)

Local Justice News & Upcoming Mercy Events

Justice Resources & Links

---

Critical Considerations

Are contradictions determining U.S. elections?

Karen Donahue, RSM

This month, the United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. However, this milestone comes at a time characterized by high levels of political polarization and just four months before the 2026 midterm elections, elections that could well determine the future direction of the country.

Two recent articles shed some light on questions that have puzzled political observers over the past several election cycles: why do people vote for candidates who do not promote their interests, or vote for candidates who are seriously flawed?

In an article published in the Guardian, Saida Grundy, associate professor of sociology and African American studies at Boston University, said that white working-class voters who comprise the MAGA base are motivated less by economic concerns than by “access to power over other racial groups.” Grundy goes on to examine the long history of efforts to prevent African American and low-income white workers from joining together and acting in solidarity around their common concerns.

She observes that when governments support multiracial democracy or are seen as responsive to Black social movements, working class and poor whites tend to support politicians who push for tax cuts and slash the programs on which low-income people rely. In closing she says, “No amount of persuasion will move those who have chosen to maintain control and violence over putting food on the table when the point of their trade-off is keeping others from putting food on theirs.”

In response to the senatorial primary elections in Maine and Texas, where two scandal-ridden candidates won, Charlie Hunt, an associate Professor of political science at Boise State University, discusses party polarization and negative partisanship, two factors which have greater consequences today than in past years.

The gap between the two major parties on policy choices, issue positions and culture is wide today. This polarization is moving beyond these differences to personal animosity between Republicans and Democrats and is escalating to the point where they not only disagree but see the other party as a threat.

Voters are now “making decisions based not on who should win elections but rather on who shouldn’t. The opposing party is not just the less preferred option – it’s a threat that must be stopped at all costs. Voters constantly report feeling the need to “hold their noses” and vote for the “lesser of two evils.” The alternative – the other party taking power – is too grave to permit a truly principled stand. As a result, the race to the bottom continues, because the other side will always be worse.”

Back to top

---

Featured Contributor

Ecumenical Advocacy Days as a first timer

John Charles McAllister-Ashley; Institute Justice Team

This was the first time that I had attended an event with so many like-minded individuals. I learned so much and made amazing connections in a short 48 hours. From meeting people I only see periodically in on-screen, digital boxes (thank you, Zoom!) to making lasting connections with new people, it was an overwhelming experience but also so powerful to see that the work of justice is getting done by people in so many walks of life. I met a number of people who hold our Justice Director, Marianne Comfort, in high regard, and that really sealed the deal that I was in the right place.

I attended two workshops at EAD. Christian Watkins from NETWORK shared about How to Fight Authoritarianism, and Alex Parker of the ELCA Advocacy Office presented Advocacy 101, a solid foundation of where to start your advocacy as a beginner. I took a lot of what he said into our visits with House and Senate office staff.

Honestly, I was not in my element during our Capitol Hill visits, but I was accompanied by experienced advocates who carried the meetings, showed me the ropes, and made room for me to participate at a comfortable level. Our meetings, especially the first, were very productive. We met with Kweisi Mfume’s Legislative Director, Andrew Heineman. He spoke to us with respect and was very supportive of the FEMA Act of 2025 (H.R. 4669) and the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act (S. 455 / H.R. 1061). We also met with Senator Chris Van Hollen’s Legislative Correspondents, Myesha Hussein and Leo Confalone. They were both receptive to the FEMA Act and Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, but they were nowhere near as vocally supportive as our previous meeting. Finally, we met with Angela Alsobrooks’s National Security Advisor, Jonathan Lord. I was surprised our meeting was with him, as our subject bills were not in his area of expertise, but he seemed very optimistic about the FEMA Act and stated he would look into the Sensitive Locations Act. I was able to make a memorable connection in Senator Alsobrooks’s office, as I have a family member that works on her staff.

Overall, it was a great experience but not uncomplicated. The House and Senate office buildings create some sensory challenges with hard, echo-prone walls and confusing floorplans, and my discomfort was compounded by the feeling that I was underdressed. I enjoyed my time, but I would have felt more ready to express myself and speak up if I had done more homework on our chosen bills. I think with proper preparation, a more formal outfit, and a fresh haircut, I would fit exceptionally well in that environment and hold my own to contribute more meaningfully. Next time will be better, and there definitely will be a next time.

Back to top