Stacey Abrams: A Reversal Through Rejection
Win or go home. This is most every competitor’s mantra. Whether in the arena of sports, academics, or politics, defeating one’s opponent is not optional. It is a mandate. No one enters a race eyeing second place or a participant’s trophy. Bring on the gold with all its glitz, glamor, and glory. Better yet, a platinum prize will take it up a notch.
In 2018, the nation watched and the state of Georgia more closely as Gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, lost by 55,000 votes. In a heated race that would have made her the first African American woman governor, Abrams did not win the prize. Neither did she concede. Allegations of voter suppression at the hands of her opponent saturated Abrams’ comments some ten days post the election.
Still, Abrams did not fade into political oblivion. She did not leave the scene sulking and licking her wounds. Instead, this founder of The New Georgia Project rolled up her sleeves and went back to work. Rather than merely harboring on what she deemed was Georgia’s systematic voter displacement, Abrams made a concerted effort to do something about the matter. She engaged in never again praxis. While not throwing her hat into another political race, she labored to correct the system that denied her. Abrams turned a personal rejection into purposed rigor so to ensure future candidates would have a “fair fight.”
Forward to 2020, for the first time in 28 years, the state of Georgia turned blue. Not since 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, had The Peach State voted for a Democratic candidate. So profound was the political prowess and reach of Abrams and millions of African Americans that President-elect Biden paid homage to this demographic during his victory speech. Her being refused a “first” in the U.S. cleared a path for Kamala Harris becoming the first Black, first woman, first Asian Vice President. '
Abrams turned an individual loss into a national win.
How should we handle rejection? As a New Testament scholar, I tend to place biblical texts in conversation with the present. This exercise in rejection reminded me of a particular passage. In the Acts of the Apostles (1:15-26), the 11 remaining apostles must choose a replacement for Judas. Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus for financial gain, committed suicide (Matthew 27:3-10). There are two candidates, Joseph Barsabbas, also called Justus, and Matthias. After prayer and conversation, the apostles select Matthias. Joseph Barsabbas is rejected.
Both men have credentials. Both have what it takes. Yet, one gets the vote. The other gets the boot.
I contend Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene should have been on the ballot. After all Mary is listed among them who were “constantly devoting themselves to prayers (Acts 1:14).” Additionally, as “certain women,” although unnamed, are noted in this passage, Luke does not hesitate to mention them in the first of this two-volume work (Luke 8:1-3). Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna are followers of Jesus who give out of their own resources. However, patriarchy has a short memory and ultimately carries the day.
None of these women are even considered to fill the twelfth apostle slot. Sounds vaguely familiar.
What does one do to reverse a rejection? First, acknowledge that it happened. Abrams did not offer a concession speech, neither did she conceal losing. It is one thing to face rejection on a small scale with knowledge of just a few people in one’s circle. However, this was as public as public gets. For more than a week after the 2018 Gubernatorial election, Abrams retreated to private quarters. Perhaps she needed time and space to wrestle with and reconcile what everyone was talking about — her not winning.
It is no doubt Abrams was qualified. She was a politician. She had public service receipts. Yet, like Mary, Joanna, Susanna, and Mary Magdalene, perhaps certain male-centered systems were not ready for her gubernatorial giftedness in female form.
Second, Abrams teaches us that we do not have to always be politically correct. Well, she did not congratulate Kemp. She did not pretend to be okay with what happened to her. Women are often supposed to be gracious, guarded, and demure. However, I say with the fire of Fannie Lou Hamer and the zeal of Shirley Chisholm, we need to lift a stentorian voice to all oppression, suppression, -isms, and phobias. No, I do not aver impertinence or character demonization. We have had more than enough of that the past four years. Yet, if we see something, we must say something. We ought to do something.
Lastly, turning rejection around means we protest with our prayers and pray with our feet.
Yes, we do something. Our inward gaze must be a catalyst for outward action. A year after her loss, Abrams drafted a sixteen-page manual detailing Democratic trends in Georgia. Additionally, she wrote a book, produced a documentary with Amazon Prime, and founded a second organization dedicated to registering voters. In essence, Abrams kept it moving.
Only Stacey Abrams knows if she has recovered from her rejection. We can surmise our own level of recovery from such public and private, personal and professional loss. Even if we do not earn the wreath, may we be encouraged and empowered to fight the fight.
