Identity Pollitics Rears Its Head

Ryan Cooper believes "we're in for a rather bitter fight for supremacy over the Democratic Party between big money elites on one side and Sanders Democrats on the other."  He criticizes the recent boomlet for Senator Kamala Harris, who is derided for her work while Attorney General of California; New Jersey senator Cory Booker, distrusted because of his connections to Wall Street; and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who is a managing partner of Bain Capital. In turn, there have been dark, even illegitimate, implications that critics of the three are opposed because they are minority. (Booker and Patrick are African-American, Harris the daughter of a Jamaican-bor parent  and an India-born parent).

David Atkins calls for an end to this "civil war," wherein "voices within the Sanders coaliton"

that actively attempt to dismiss social discrimination as less important than class war must be ostracized from within not just because they are wrong, but because they actively hurt the cause of securing economic justice against the .1% in a party whose base has suffeed greatly from that discrimination....

Meanwhile, "establishment figures"

must acknowledge the need for a much more foreceful economic progressivism and accept that economic progressives also have valid litmus tests every bit as reasonable as those of social issue advocacy groups. Individuals who insist on trying to ostracize democratic socialists and treat their anti-corporate concerns as secondary or motivated by bigotry should be gently pushed aside themselves.

He recognizes

Some Sanders supporters eagerly want to see him run again in 2020, and are actively seeking to kneecap every potential challenger to him, especially those who might be able to more easily secure Hillary Clinton's coalition of older and minority voters.

On the other hand, establishment moderates since the early days of the Democratic Leadership Council have sought a marriage of the much-vaunted "Emerging Democratic Majorty" with an educated, upper-middle class, fiscally centrist donor class. This has been to the detriment of the economy as a whole, and to the electoral fortunes of the Democratic Party in general. They have no intention of taking a sharper sand against the predatory financial sector, and actively seek to use ideologically aligned women and minority candidates as a wedge against more readical activists who might threaten to alienate the wealthy donor class they have sought to woo away from the Republican Paty since the Reagan era.

This strategy is superior to disregarding the concerns (including for gun safety legislation or protection of reproductive freedom) of social justice warriors or one in which "anticorporate concerns (are treated) as secondary or motivated by bigory."

Yet Atkins fails to acknowledge that while the Sanders camp is generally favorable to the progressive approach to sexual preference, gender, and racial interests, Establishment Democrats have catered to the interests of the donor class. They have been cool (as in the case of the Clintons and Barack Obama) or downright cold- as with Harris, Booker, and Patrick- toward Wall Street regulation and policies which would impinge upon society's upper crust.

Regrettably, Atkins himself ascribes racial motivation. He argues "making an example of the top three African-American hopefuls in the 2020 field is a terrible mistake regardless of intent. It will backfire, and tarnish the entire movement as motivated by barely-contained bigotry.  "If not racist and sexist in motivation," he adds, "this strategy is racist and sexist in its effects and will attract the worst elements of society."

I have no idea what he means by "attract the worst elements of society." But speaking as someone otherwise not immune to the tactic, contending "if not racist and sexist in motivation" is a passive-aggressive way of charging racism and sexism. And rejecting three individuals- or two or four- for ideological reasons is not racist or sexist even in its effects.

Electing a white person isn't racist. Electing a male isn't sexist. It is, of course, if it is done because the person is white or male- but there are solid reasons of principle that Democrats interested in economic justice would be highly skeptical of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick. For some of us, including the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, an individual's record and his or her views are more important than characteristics set at birth.

Share |

Claiming The Moral High Ground For Himself

The Boston Globe reports

Governor Deval Patrick strongly defended his plan to provide temporary shelter for up to 1,000 children who have crossed the US-Mexico border illegally and said he had identified two possible locations for them, one in Western Massachusetts and another on Cape Cod.

The facilities are Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and Camp Edwards in Barnstable County, which housed evacuees from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The bases are being submitted for federal approval, and only one will be selected, said Patrick.

It appears to be a sound, sensible, and (as Bush 41 would have put it) prudent decision. But the Massachusetts Governor wants you to know it was a moral decision- and the only moral decision.

Staff writers Levenson and Ortega note that the Governor

reiterated that the shelter will be managed, paid for, and staffed entirely by the federal government. It would be ready for up to 1,000 children ages 3 to 17 and remain open for up to four months, he said. The children, aides said, would receive health screenings and vaccinations before entering the state. They would not attend local schools, but remain on the base while federal officials give them food and schooling and schedule them to appear before federal immigration judges.

In other states, the average stay for children was 35 days, he said. Ultimately, Patrick said, the migrants will either be deported or reunited with relatives in the United States.

Nonetheless,

Speaking at a news conference, the governor sought to move the issue beyond the caustic national debate over immigration and used the Bible to frame the problem as a moral one. He seized on the influx of migrant children in a way that other governors have not, showcasing the sort of oratory that helped propel him to office in 2006....

“My faith teaches that, if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him, but rather love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” he said.“I believe that we will one day have to answer for our actions — and our inactions,” Patrick said, choking up as he was flanked by religious leaders, including Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston.

“Every major faith tradition on the planet charges its followers to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated,” he added. “I don’t know what good there is in faith if we can’t, and won’t, turn to it in moments of human need"....

At his press conference, Patrick said he had “searched my own conscience,” and decided to shelter the children in Massachusetts for two reasons: “love of country and lessons of faith.”

Spare me.  The right wing tells us Jesus opposed abortion, same-sex marriage, and requiring employers who claim a religious exception to offer contraception to employees without the same religious beliefs.  And now we have a liberal Democrat, one of President Obama's most loyal supporters (somehow, not surprising), lecture us on his consultation with Jesus Christ to discern the latter's political will.

It was made all the more dramatic because the Governor was

flanked by religious leaders, including Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston...

O’Malley said the Archdiocese of Boston, though already struggling to help the needy, will do what it can.

“I ask my faith community and the wider public to understand compassionately the extreme circumstances these children are facing,” the cardinal said. “As a country and a church, we are capable of providing crucial assistance.”

Cardinal O'Malley is willing to provide "crucial assistance" (though not the facilities of his diocese) to the young refugees and immigrants.  To women, however, not so much assistance, given we read fourteen months ago in The Huffington Post that he

won't attend Boston College's graduation because the Jesuit school's commencement speaker, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny, supports legislation to permit abortion.

The bill allows abortion if a doctor authorizes it to save a women's life. Opponents say the bill would lead to widespread abortion by also allowing it if a woman threatens suicide.

In a statement Friday, O'Malley said abortion is "a crime against humanity" and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked Catholic institutions not to honor officials who promote it. Kenny is set to receive an honorary degree from BC at the May 20 commencement.

O'Malley said that since Boston College hasn't withdrawn its invitation, and Kenny hasn't declined it, "I shall not attend the graduation."

That wasn't abortion on demand the Belfast government was considering.  Nor was it to permit abortion beyond the point of viability (determined by the US Supreme Court to be 24 weeks), or when complex fetal brain activity begins (approximately the 25th week) or when a fetus starts to breathe (week 32).  It was abortion to save a woman's life. (Legislation passed; Kenney spoke. Courage prevailed.)

A scriptural argument can be made against abortion or same-sex marriage or as Governor Patrick has, in favor of children who have illegally entered the country. Or against or for anything, even reproductive freedom, for  "the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature," suggesting that life begins at birth. Perhaps Patrick's critics might refer to Romans 13: 1-7, Titus 3:1, or 1 Peter 2:13, each of which counsels individuals to obey duly-constituted authorities who, in this country, have over the years established immigration law.

So Patrick and O'Malley may be right, though the Church is not under the same duress as the residents of Chicopee, Massachusetts and Bourne, Massachusetts.  A civic leader arguing his case on behalf of "faith," the Bible, or Jesus Christ may find that this door swings both ways (bringing to a disorganized mind Herman's Hermits, below), and sometimes right into the backside.












Share |

An Issue, Barely

Most of the debate over the debate Senators Obama and Clinton had in Austin, Texas on February 21, 2008 involved the matter of plagiarism. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, an early and ardent supporter of Senator Obama, exclaimed in October, 2006 while running for the Statehouse:

But her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, [applause and cheers] that all men are created equal.’ [Sustained applause and cheers.] Just words – just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words! ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words!


Campaigning in Wisconsin on February 16, 2008, Senator Obama declared “Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! [Applause.] ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words — just speeches!”


Following the debate, Clinton was generally slammed because she commented during the debate "and, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think...," a quip met by boos from the enthusiastic, if somewhat rude, Obama supporters. No one seemingly noticed that she had immediately prior noted "well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition."

Senator Obama appropriately points out that Patrick is national co-chairman of his campaign, that he and the Governor confer periodically, and that the issue is of relatively little significance. Still, Merriam-Webster online defines plagiarize as "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source." So Obama did indulge in plagiarism. If the mainstream media wants to downplay its significance, even to continue to ridicule Mrs. Clinton for a joke that fell flat, that's just fine. But when the GOP plays up the matter in the fall campaign, consistency demands that the media be equally harsh on the Repub party for exploiting the issue. I'm not optimistic.