Harold's Left:
Ahh... the classic conservative mantra that people are only poor or unemployed because of their personal failures and laziness. It's nothing new in the strategy of a movement that has been defined by exclusion, denial, and outright ineptitude.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), has held up crucial legislation in the Senate that would allow the government to continue allocating unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the last couple of years. But, of course, only all of the lazy stupid people lost their jobs. Furthermore, unemployment benefits only give incentive for the unemployed to stay unemployed... right? Wrong.
This notion that anyone who receives government benefits is somehow a lackluster citizen that is living off the system is silly. However, it's part of what drives not only the Republican debate on unemployment benefits, but health care reform as well. Republicans have this sentiment that "I don't want to pay for anyone else", even if many of us were forced to pay for an Iraq War that was hardly justifiable. This sentiment is rooted in racial prejudice and managerial bias.
Why racial prejudice? Because since the 1960's the Republican Party has made it point, both implicitly and explicitly, to lead white voters in the South to believe that any social program that is designed to help the unfortunate is really a program designed to help blacks. Instead of whites from Appalachia voting for programs (like health care reform and unemployment) that would help them, they end up loathing programs because they believe they are going to help "someone else".
The only good news for the Democrats on this is that it highlights to the rest of America some of the underpinnings of why conservative ideology is bad for the average American.
Harold's Left:
John Mayer, the multi-platinum, multi-grammy award winning artist, has got his foot so far in his mouth it's tickling his stomach. Mayer is one of my favorite musicians of our generation and I checked my Ipod this morning and I have over 100 Mayer songs on it. He's a brilliant guitarist and and excellent songwriter. However, this does not excuse his overt brashness and tabloid antics. His latest stunt was clearly over the top, and has created somewhat of a media typhoon .
When asked whether he has a 'hood pass', which a term used to describe acceptance by the urban black community, Mayer responded:
"Someone asked me the other day, 'What does it feel like now to have a hood pass?' And by the way, it's sort of a contradiction in terms, because if you really had a hood pass, you could call it a nigger pass."
He keeps going...
PB: Do black women throw themselves at you?
JM: I don’t think I am made for that. I have a supremacist dick that is rather white supremacist. I possess a Benetton heart and a fuckin David Duke cock and I am going to date separately from my dick.
So there are really two different issues at work here. One that I believe is inexcusable and one that has perhaps been made into a bigger issue than it should be. The use of the N-word and his apparent dislike of black women.
Mayer is a political liberal by nearly every measure possible. He spent time on the campaign trail with Obama, and is probably never going to vote Republican a day in his life. He is (well, he was) also very well received by the black community. Mainly because he has been featured on numerous hip-hop artists songs and seems to embrace black culture in his music, especially his deference to blues. This feeling of connectedness with the black community is in part what made Mayer think it was okay to use the N-word in this context. Yet, there is something else at work. John Mayer is the classic example of an uber-liberal white person who is liberal precisely because of his internalized, and often unrecognized, belief in inherent white supremacy. Yes, John Mayer and folks like him want to help people. Yes, John Mayer and folks like him would march in rallies for civil rights. But, his progressiveness seems to be predicated on a belief that "I am better".
Molly Securs of the Huffington Post comments, "Suffice it to say Mayer's words were symptomatic and indicative of white arrogance. Only someone who is certain he is above recrimination could publicly utter indefensible slurs against black women and think he could get a pass."
The second issue at play is a bit different although for many equally controversial. In the Playboy interview Mayer comments that he does not see himself as attracted to black women and goes on to say "I have a supremacist dick that is rather white supremacist". Here is where I break with lots of other folks; I think no less of Mayer because he is attracted to a certain type of woman. Granted it does seem presumptuous to say that he would never date outside his race, but if that is what he's attracted to then so be it. It does not offend me as a black American. When I look at my life I realized that I have never dated a white woman, ever. Not because I have some personal or even attraction issue. It just has never happened. I think people should be allowed to be attracted to whomever they wish without punishment. I do understand that for many black women, issues of attractiveness are a sore spot given that the features of white women are deemed as precious. My own daughter cried last year when she realized she would never look like the white Disney and Barbie princesses. Even with all of that I think Mayer is within his right to like who he likes, even though he worded his feelings in a completely ridiculous way.I still think Mayer is a brilliant musician, but now his tabloid personality is overshadowing his talent. I was literally days away from purchasing tickets to his concert this Spring, now; I'm not
so sure.
Harold's Left:
Tom Tancredo, perhaps the most openly bigoted legislator since George Wallace, opened the Tea Party national convention in Nashville with predictably divisive rhetoric. Tancredo claims that teabaggers must stop "the cult of multiculturalism" and that maybe Obama, who he called a "committed socialist ideologue", was only elected because "we do not have a civic, literacy test before people can vote in this country". He went on to say that " People who could not even spell the word vote (cheers), or say it in English (bigger cheers)" were to blame for Obama's victory.
People like Tancredo don't make mistakes when they use this sort of tone. He knew exactly what he was trying to say when he spoke about poll tests and the 'cult of multiculturalism". Tancredo knows that poll tests were used as a way to block blacks from voting for nearly a century after the passage of the 15th amendment. Poll tests, which were of course rigged for certain folks to fail, essentially excluded blacks from American politics until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Tancredo's comment was also aimed at Latinos as he says that some of the voters in the last election could not say "vote" in English. The Tea Party movement hates multiculturalism because it means that their idealized, and completely false view of America as a country that belongs solely to middle-class whites, is drifting away. It's not a coincidence that this movement sprang under Obama. They love to lie and say that this is purely about "voter rage" of "big-government spending and deficits", which I find amusing because these folks never had a national convention under Bush when he ran deficits through the roof. Moreover, this is not about big government, nor is it about deficits. We all know what this is about. It's a movement of 40+, Southern and Midwestern whites who feel that the America they idealize about is slipping away.
The comments of Tancredo highlight exactly the sort of core values that this movement possesses. Bigotry, an aversion to multicuturalism, a disdain for religious freedom, a loathing of tolerance, and a general hatred of a black man as President. Of course they will lie and say that none of these issues are relevant to their anger, but the proof is in the pudding. Tancredo says it's time for them to "rise up and take our country back"... from whom?
Harold's Left:
There is just a whirlwind of important issues going on in and around the White House. We are living in a time when Americans are dissatisfied, both progressive and conservative. We are worried about the rise of China as a legitimate counterbalance to American hegemonic power. We are worried about our military being spread too thinly around the world. We are worried about our massive debt and deficit. We are worried about the gridlock in Washington, which is propagated primarily by the Republicans, that calls for a 60 vote majority to enact legislation which was hardly the intent of the Constitution.
Obama scored a quick touchdown against the Republicans in Baltimore at the House GOP retreat weekend. He looked like a monarch on a tall throne taking questions from the gallery. Not only that, apparently the Republicans forgot that this sort of impromptu setting plays right into Obama's strengths. On the flip side, it plays to the weaknesses of Republicans. You know, like thinking on their feet or issuing remotely useful ideas. They are aloof and still quoting Fox News talking points that are neither real nor plausible. When Rep. Jeb Hensarling tried to talk Obama down with the last question on deficit reduction, Obama slammed him as an example of why bipartisanship is not working. Big win for Obama here.
However, even with that touchdown, the President has the honor of debuting his budget for 2010 which will run another 1.5 trillion dollars in the hole. Now. We all know where the root of the deficit problem stems from. It comes from an unprecedented Bush tax cut in 2001, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug bill, and a pseudo-illegal war in Iraq. This is why the deficit has ballooned in the last decade. Moreover, we've had to spend money to stimulate the economy because of the lassiez-faire policies of unbridled free-marketeering. Regardless, this rise in the deficit will look like another spending spree by Obama, which will hurt his image. The thing that bothers me is that people complain about the deficit, but are not willing to pay higher taxes. People want to go to war, but they don't want to foot the bill. See how that works? Yeah, it doesn't.
Harold's Left:
Their arrogance is unnerving. I will make this quick, but does anyone else think it's silly for Bob McDonnell to give his Republican response to the President's State of the Union address in front of 'his' bicameral house in Virginia. Well, if you don't, here's why you should...
Because it is yet another example of the Right's arrogance and disrespect of the Obama presidency. We all talked about this at length this summer, but the vestiges of Republican arrogance have certainly not dissipated. Based on the news you'd believe that Democrats were a party that was on the quick decline with little power. However, we have an unprecedented majority in the House and Senate, and a president who's approval rating has just gone back up over 50%. Granted we may (and probably will) take some hits in November, but let's not get carried away and start giving Republicans everything they want.
I wrote a piece awhile back about how Obama may want to take some attributes of W. Which sounds weird initially but makes some since in the end. When would you ever hear a conservative Republican like Bush try so hard to make a point to "govern from the center". Obama needs to show passion for the progressive ideals that got him elected. Period. However, he needs to stand above the childish and insubordinate moves of the Republican party's response which is meant to simulate a "presidential" environment.
Mr. President. Don't placate the Republicans. Tell America who they really are. A group of obstructionists who don't care about the welfare of the people. A group who will stop progress at all costs. A group who's ideals have always been on the losing side of history. Nail them to the wall Obama and give us a reason to believe again.
Harold's Left:
With the State of the Union address just a few days away, the President has a lot of figuring out to in the aftermath of the the loss of the Massachusetts senate seat formerly held by the late Teddy Kennedy. First, let's just reveal a bit in how telling this defeat is. Brown ran a splendid campaign, period. Regardless of the fact that I think he will be awful for the people of Massachusetts. He made several brilliant moves. One of them was iterating over and over that this was not "Ted Kennedy's seat", but rather "the people's seat". Which is indeed true. Second, he capitalized on a terrible candidate in Coakley. He shook hands with voters in the freezing cold while Coakley simply scoffed at the idea.
I'm certainly not here start a love fest for Scott Brown, however I think his win, along with others, shows a changing paradigm in both parties as to how candidates win elections.
This past summer I read a wonderful book called "The Last Campaign", about the last several weeks of Bobby Kennedy's presidential bid in 1968 that ended in his assassination. One of the resonating and interesting themes in the book was the tension between Kennedy and others in the Democratic establishment, as he was running against an incumbent Democratic president. Despite that, Kennedy believed that Johnson's advancement of the Vietnam War was the wrong course of action. He believed this so strongly that he ended losing his life for it. However, the pertinent lesson here was that Democratic politics (and similarly Republican politics as well) was all about who was next in line to fill a particular position. If you were VP, you ran for President. If you were Attorney General of a State you ran for Governor. When picking any position it seemed parties looked to the next person in line.
As we have seen over the last few years in politics, as the public becomes increasing inundated by the 24 hour news cycle, and a political campaigns and candidates become more savvy, "who's next" has less of an effect. We only need to look at Obama to see this. In 2004 he was a state senator in Illinois and certainly not "who's next" to be the President of the United States. Hillary Clinton was, and we all know how that turned out.
Similarly, that's what hurt us (progressives) in this election in Massachusetts. We nominated someone who was next up for a shot to be Senator, as opposed to evaluating someone who could be humble and brilliant enough to win. That's the greater lesson here for the midterms. A poor campaign that does not connect with people will not win, period. How silly was it for Coakley to just assume that she would be a shoe-in. To think that voters would just hand her the seat. The reason she lost was not a referendum on Obama. How could it have been when she had a 17-point lead in December? What was the variable that caused her lead to evaporate? Her cavalier attitude, her forwardness in taking voters for granted, and her tone deafness to the people of Massachusetts.
Moreover, the over-arching theme here is that Democrats should not just look for who is the next in line to become the nominee for a specific position. Our progressive political machine must be fluid, smart, and flexible. If someone looks like a bad fit, they probable are. Let's learn this lesson and fight in 2010.
Harold's Left:
There is an important trend happening in American politics. Paul Krugman, noted progressive economist and thinker, explains in his wonderful book Conscience of a Liberal that part of the reason that America has not been nearly as progressive in initiatives like health care and corporate regulation as Western Europe and Japan is because America has a fixation with race that has hindered this growth. It's an interesting proposition. Krugman basically says that the reason whites in the Mid West, Appalachia, and the Deep South have continued to vote against candidates who support policies to help poor and working class Americans is because many people have been convinced by the right-wing communication machine that supporting working class rights is supporting minority advancement.
A classic example of this was in the early 1980's when President Ronald Reagan illustrated the blame for the cause of what he called the "welfare state'. He said that there was essentially some over-weight, under-educated black woman in Chicago who was popping out kids and living off you (you of course means the blue-collar white). He called this notion the "Welfare Queen". Since then, and perhaps before that, there has been this intrinsic part of conservative politics that plays on the fears of some whites that if they support social programs they are underhandedly supporting minorities and more importantly; they are supporting lazy folks who do not deserve their tax dollars.
If you are a Republican strategist, it is a brilliant policy, and perhaps a necessary one. A policy that is at the underbelly of some of the dissent against health care reform. So I have been asking myself: Why are Americans willing to pay over 800 trillion dollars for an illegitimate war in Iraq, but yet willing to listen to the nickel-and-diming of the Right on health care reform? Now, an important caveat is that when I say "willing to pay" regarding Iraq, I don't say that because Americans were supportive of the war, I say that because you almost never heard politicians nickel-and-diming it's appropriation. So, based on that here are a couple of important things to think about: One is that much of the criticism one would hear on health care reform from the average person is that "I don't want to pay to help someone else". This notion poses an interesting quandary. Why is it that folks are willing to spend bundles of money to help folks in far corners of the world with their tax dollars and the lives of their sons and daughters, but are not willing to help fellow Americans. Many, including Krugman and myself, would argue that there has been a consistent and effective attempt in the U.S. to link social help to helping the lazy "welfare queen". Secondly, history shows that money has been used as a way to traditionally support the nixing of social progress. Many who attempted to look unbiased in the 1800's argued that the American economy was too tied to slavery and would fail without it. Many argued that opening public places to blacks in the South would drive away the very white customers who made them successful and would end up costing the American economy money. And when MLK day was argued in the Senate the bigots used the loss of an American workday as a justification for not honoring his contribution.
In the present we see a growing trend of whites moving away from progressive politics. As many of us discussed this summer, the Republican party has used the election of a black president and his promotion of social programs as an interesting way to make the racial divide a growing part of our political future.
Harold's Left:
Riddle me this... How is it that the Senate seat of one of our most beloved progressive heroes, Ted Kennedy, could be lost because a potentially moronic and horrifically run campaign by Martha Coakley could potentially derail the President's agenda and be the beginnings of a resurgence of the obstructionist agenda of the Republican Party. Here's why:
1. It would crush health care reform and any semblance of a progressive agenda
Health Care reform is in a precarious predicament without the possibility of losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. If we do lose this seat, then we can forget doing almost anything useful for the next several years. As I mentioned a few days ago, Republicans have changed Senatorial protocol by using the threat of the filibuster to force cloture votes at a rate since 2006 that is three times that of any other time in history. So, can you imagine what will happen if we don't have a 60 (even if that includes Joe the Dummy) vote majority? Yeah... nothing.
2. Fox News and the Right will make it a referendum on Obama
If Coakley losses, even if it is because of her mismanaged campaign, the Right will use it as a way to claim this is about Obama. And can you blame them? If we loss Massachusetts. MASSACHUSETTS. That's like the Republicans losing Utah. How can we blame them for attacking Obama on it. Not only that, it's the Senate seat of the most important liberal senator of the last century. You can bet that if we lose this, Fox News will beat the drum off Tea Party nonsense and a Republican resurgence.
Folks. If you are in Massachusetts, please go out and vote tomorrow. If for nothing else to uphold the legacy and the lifelong work of Ted Kennedy. It would be an absolute disaster if we lose this seat. We cannot let this happen. I will be making calls tonight to voters in Massachusetts and I don't even live there. Let's not let it happen.
Harold's Left:
Over 20 years ago there was a struggle to elevate a man who moved American history in a way few others have. During the early 1980's, the Republican Party was up in arms over the proposal of a national holiday to celebrate the legacy of MLK. President Reagan threatened to veto, and Senator Jesse Helms threatened to veto the bill. Opponents, who tried to use all sorts of excuses to cloud their racism; that it would be too costly to create another federal holiday, that it would be unfair to elevate so ethnic leader to a position of national prominence, and that he was too much of a leftist and possibly a communist.
The reality is that King and his legacy represent the best of what it has meant to lover this country. He used a keen respect for the founding values of America to challenge folks who were intent on denying them for centuries. King has been elevated to a level that has surpassed most of the former Presidents of this country, as is also evidenced a new Washington memorial between the Washington and Lincoln memorials now being called the "line of liberty".
On today, we celebrate the legacy of one of the most important progressives of the 20th century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
