LWolf
LWolf's JournalOkay.
Divided party
Two different directions
Distance grows forward
Leaving behind the
Establishment politics
Its revolution
Values betrayed make
the partisan betrayers
the worst enemies
It's not about her
It never was, then or now
It is about us
Dissent not silenced
Even if censored right here
It's still everywhere
I could go on all day.
These are interesting reads.
For myself, I'd say that, while some good points are made, there are other points to be made as well.
First of all, I'm a white woman in her 50s, if you want my demographics. I wouldn't try to determine my level of unconscious racism by those factors, though, because it wouldn't be accurate. I freely admit that I have not experienced the racism I've seen directed toward others, including some in my family. I have, though, experienced bigotry leveled against me. Some of it, the sexism, has been systemic.
That said...
To begin with, I have to say that I was absolutely horrified by the whole debacle in '08. I was horrified that the Democratic Party, and Democrats, were willing to make politics about identity instead of issues. I thought the party should equally represent all, especially all oppressed groups. To make the battle race vs gender disgusted me. And, to make it worse, the black man and the white woman were both neo-liberals, which made neither of them my choice. And they were all that were left standing MONTHS before my late primary rolled around. I was dis-invested in the entire process, and I was angry. I'm an issues voter; I'm not about identity nor symbolism. Yet, when November came around I cast a symbolic vote, since that's what my party forced upon me. I voted for a black woman. Obama was safe in my state, so it was safe to do so. I voted for McKinney. On election night, I watched and cried as the first AA won the presidential election. I sent him a letter and a book. Both were returned unopened. Apparently, Chavez could give him a book, but I couldn't.
Then I watched the appointments with growing horror. By his inauguration, I was totally dis-enfranchised. I never experienced the "hope," and didn't get the change I wanted.
When Bravenak explained, more than a year ago, why criticisms of Obama offended the AA population, I understood. Even though I've been a vocal critic. I understood, even if I wasn't there myself. I was still about issues, not about symbolism or identity.
When this primary rolled around, I was thinking, "Well, at least this time it's not going to be identity politics, it's not going to be racially based, and there's a strong candidate who is not a neo-liberal that I can support."
Boy, was I wrong. The race card was pulled very early on, with an organized, concerted effort to paint Sanders' supporters as racists, while touting Clinton's support among the black community despite her clear, obvious racial problems. Yes, I'm sure there is a racist element among some of Sanders' supporters, simply because racism exists; there will be racists in any population of U.S. citizens. I don't think that reflects upon Sanders; his record speaks for him for those who allow it to.
And I understand that some minority voters weren't convinced that Sanders would make racial reform a priority. I just don't understand why they'd think Clinton would. Between the two, Sanders seems the obvious choice.
Then, of course, the gender card was also played. "THE FIRST WOMAN POTUS!!!!" I wasn't moved. While I really, really want to see a woman president in my lifetime, I don't want a symbol. I want the right woman. Hillary Clinton is not she. She's an embarrassment.
Another factor I considered: I recognize that AA as a group, if not as individuals, are more conservative than I am. If identity politics is set aside, there may be a larger number who actually prefer Clinton's neo-liberalism to what they'd get from a left-wing administration. I don't agree with them about that, obviously.
I agree with you that local action is the most important, and that's where my time and energy will be going. As far as Trump is concerned? No, I don't want him to be president. Neither do I want Hillary Clinton to be president. My votes this November will not be about Trump, nor will they be about Clinton. If and when Clinton actually becomes the nominee, the presidential piece is over for me.
If the Democratic Party, including the key PoC voting block you refer to, chooses to nominate a candidate that cannot inspire voters to support her, that cannot beat Trump (and that's what polls have been telling us for many months,) that's on them. There is no honesty nor integrity in then turning blame on the people who you knew wouldn't be supporting Clinton in November. It does mirror Clinton herself, of course, who has some difficulties with honesty and integrity. There is no respect to be had, though, in playing the blame game, in refusing to be accountable for your own choices. There's also no respect to be had from me, anyway, in using fear and guilt factors to try to get people to shut up, get in line, and vote for someone they oppose.
Trump is not a factor one way or another for me. All the rationalizing in the world won't make it so.
As a woman,
I hope to see a woman president before the end of my life.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not that woman. I have known that about her since the '90s. I'm not going to vote for, nor support in any way, a candidate based on gender when she fails most or all of my actual criteria for earning my vote, which is based on issues, not identity.
I'll be upfront: my support for Sanders has less to do with Sanders and everything to do with issues. In the spring of '15, all I wanted was a non-neo-liberal to run against HRC in the primaries. I didn't care who; any candidate who was not a neo-liberal would have done. I think Sanders stepped forward because he saw that need, and nobody else came forward. I embraced his candidacy with relief.
He's done so much better than I ever thought he could. I am inspired and energized by his campaign. I will continue to support him until the convention is over, and then I'll support him on whatever path he finds himself. I want him there until the end.
The bottom line: Hillary Clinton never had my support, is never going to get my support, and as a woman I find the whole effort to use her gender as a reason to nominate her or put her in the WH despite her many, many flaws when it comes to issues and record to be repugnant and a betrayal of what feminism should be about. It should not be about entitlement because of gender.
And speaking of arrogance...Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most arrogant Democratic candidate I can remember since the other Clinton. That arrogance, and the arrogance of the party establishment, and the extreme arrogance of her supporters, doesn't win any support from those who aren't already "with" her.
I think the Democratic Party
is rapidly approaching that point of no return, and I think it's deliberate.
Bernie? I want him to keep going. I don't agree with your assessment of his supposed actions. I don't want him to bow out.
If the point comes when he needs to bow out, which will happen, if at all, at some point during the convention, I'm sure he will do it gracefully. And I'm sure he will endorse HRC. I don't agree with you that those are the "right" things to do, but I understand why he will do so.
I'm also sure that he cannot, and he knows he cannot, "unite his constituency behind Hillary." His "constituency" supports him because of where he is on the issues. As he's said all along, it's not about him. The political revolution continues whether or not he wins the nomination, and that revolution working to, among other things, remove neo-liberals from power is not going to suddenly "unite" behind a neo-liberal.
For so much of his "contingency," it's not about the nominee, nor is it about the GE. It's about taking the party back from neo-liberals or abandoning it altogether. They will either stay to continue the fight, which, again, does not include uniting behind neo-liberals, or they will abandon the party.
I do agree that we have passed the point of no return, when it comes to uniting with neo-liberals, anyway. And that is not about Sanders, and not something that is under his control.
No. I'm not now, never have been, never will be,
a neo-liberal.
And no matter what label it's wearing, DLC, "New Democrat," "Third Way," "Centrist," or any other label, it's neo-liberalism: destructive to the 99%, destructive to the Democratic Party, the nation, and the planet.
Will Democrats
be as hated by, and irrelevant to, independents (you know...the 39% of the electorate, more than Democrats or Republicans) if and when the corrupt neo-liberal party establishment succeeds in shutting the non-neo-liberal wing of the party down?
And what makes people blow an opportunity for positive change and good work like this? What sad little people.
Discourse will be stifled when a Dem is in the WH regardless of race or gender.
That's the game.
Tell people to shut up, get in line, and hold their nose to vote for the neo-liberal nominee now, and to work for change from within!!!! once that candidate has been elected, inaugurated, and is in office.
And once that happens, stifle all dissent because it's disloyal and unsupportive of the Democratic!!!! POTUS, who can't be held accountable because, you know, Republicans.
Race or gender issues simply add some spice to that recipe, but the recipe doesn't change.
It’s Not About Bernie
From my facebook feed today:
It’s Not About Bernie: Why We Can’t Let Our Revolution Die in Philadelphia
by KSHAMA SAWANT
Why Demands to Endorse Hillary Must Be Rejected
A growing chorus of voices is declaring the Democratic Primary over, and calling on Sandernistas to dutifully line up behind Hillary.
Unfortunately, the pundits are right about the mathematics. Sanders would need more than 64% of remaining delegates to take the lead. It would require a political bombshell to turn things around, especially with so many closed primaries where independents are shut out of this rigged process. And even with a majority, Bernie would still face the undemocratic brick wall of the establishment’s hand-picked crew of superdelegates.
But while the media establishment may be right about the numbers, they’re dead wrong about Sanders supporters flipping for Clinton. To throw our support behind Hillary’s corporate campaign would be to sabotage our political revolution.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/04/its-not-about-bernie-why-we-cant-let-our-revolution-die-in-philadelphia/
I'm behind Sanders all the way to the convention and beyond, but she's right, and he's said it all along: it's not about him.
Twitter Just Unleashed on Hillary Clinton and It Is Savage
From my face book feed yesterday.
Hillary Clinton is getting blasted on all sides from Twitter users, and many of the top tweets on the #DropOutHillary hashtag are coming from women and people of color — two demographics that traditionally vote for the former Secretary of State over Bernie Sanders.
http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-twitter-dropouthillary/
Do you really want an answer?
Or are you just using rhetorical questions to put that movement down?
On the off chance that you really want an answer, I'll give you what I've got. I don't speak for the movement or the revolution, just myself.
I am one of a number of people that have been disenfranchised by my own party during the neo-liberal takeover of the Democratic Party. Those not affiliated with partisan politics: independents and small 3rd parties with little power saw it first, the slowly building erosion of progressive values and support for the 99% within government and the Democratic party. For a long time, we were just discounted as "fringe" and tossed under the bus when it came to political representation.
Some people spoke up, and were made pariahs.
Then, though, as neo-liberal policies continued the destruction of the 99% begun under Ronald Reagan, and more and more people were disenfranchised, there began to be a rumbling.
We saw it in the response to the IWR and the Patriot Act, and those who turned out to protest, and were ignored. Of course, we could blame all of that on Republicans since it happened under the illegitimate GWB administration. No matter how many neo-liberals and other scared Congressional Democrats jumped on to the war and security bandwagon; people's fear was used against them.
We saw it further in the occupy movement, which lasted a very long time and was more public than tptb would have preferred before going more underground.
Then the primary season began. For myself I can say that I didn't really care WHO stepped up to the plate, as long as someone who was not a neo-liberal DID. Anyone. They are getting rarer and rarer within the party. I just didn't want to be faced with more neo-liberal choices that I couldn't, in good conscience, support. I wanted some hope.
When it was Sanders, I was fine with that. I wasn't holding out for Warren or anyone else. I just wanted SOMEONE. Sanders stepped in, and he's done an amazing job. He's run a powerful campaign and connected with all of us who are sick of neo-liberalism and corporate control of our government. In the beginning, I just wanted someone to represent me, so that I could vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone. That rarely happens. Then, the campaign did so amazingly well that I actually began to hope that we had a chance. That's my experience.
As far as "movement" and "revolution" goes? The Sanders campaign is a natural continuation of OWS. Win or lose, the sentiment, the anger, the determination, and the movement has been there before his campaign, and it will continue after.
With or without the Democratic Party.
I'm one who thinks that it is a fundamental error for the Party to have worked so hard to put that movement down. It renders them, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, an enemy of that movement. Beating it out of the party in 2016 will be costly in the long run, because it's not going away.
That's my answer, fwiw.
Profile Information
Member since: 2003 before July 6thNumber of posts: 46,179