The Pew Research Center came out with a study predicting what America will look like in 2050. The changes in the demographics could have repercussions for the future of the Democratic Party.
In 2050, whites will decrease from 67% to 47%
In 2050, Latinos will increase from 14% to 29%
In 2050, blacks will remain the same at 13%
In 2050, Asians will increase from 5% to 12%
In 2050, elderly will increase from 12% to 19%
The biggest impact is that whites are no longer the majority. If recent trends continue, then it is possible that the Democrats and the Republicans will be neatly divided racially. The Democratic party could become the party of color while the Republican party becomes the white party. In the current presidential election, this racial divide has been pretty stark, although it would be interesting to see what blacks do if Hillary got the nomination and what latinos would do if Barack got the nomination.
For the sake of argument, let’s say these recent trends continue. How might this affect each party’s platform? The key constituency for Democrats would be latinos. That being the case, they would need to have a comprehensive, liberal, immigration reform package. Democrats need to be on the left when it comes to immigration. They need to make a stark difference between them and the Republicans. And on the opposite side, I can totally see the Republicans becoming more xenophobic in order to cater to whites.
But if Democrats cater to Latinos, then they might have to drop the social/cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. Latinos are disproportionately religious and the number of latino evangelicals is rising exponentially. Republicans will always be able to garner Latino votes by pushing a socially conservative agenda and juxtaposing it against the socially liberal agenda of the democrats. If Democrats want Latinos as a solid pro-Democratic voting bloc, they might not only have to drop the socially liberal agenda, but adopt a socially conservative agenda.
Doing so might of course alienate all those groups that identify as socially liberal. Will they be alienated enough to want to switch over to the Republicans? Or are their numbers not significant enough to warrant attention? We kinda already see this happening. Whereas the current democratic presidential candidates seem to side on the socially liberal side, by no means are they strong advocates for such social issues like abortion or gay marriage. This subtle shift might soon take a more drastic turn. I fear that the political calculus is such that democrats would be willing to alienate social liberals in order to woo more latino voters.
Another traditionally Democratic issue to get hit might be social security. Social security is the third rail of politics partly because it has been such a mainstay of the democratic party. But this might all change with the anticipated racial majority along with the rise of the elderly. In 2050, the number of elderly will rise 7%. Most of these people will be white. Most of the workforce will be people of color. If the Democratic party becomes the party of color, then protecting social security might lose its importance for dems and become more important for republicans. If the republican party becomes the white party, then it will also become the elderly party. What we might see in the future then is a complete shift of economic conservatism. The Republican party might very well become the party of big government while the democratic party becomes known as the cut-and-slash party. This issue becomes particularly acute in the next couple of years when social security for the first time spends more money than it takes in.
If the dems become the party of color, then it will be interesting to see who becomes the swing vote. Blacks have always voted democrat. Latinos generally vote democratic, but not overwhelmingly so like blacks. The one racial group yet to really be drawn in by the dems are Asians. Asians might become the future swing group. In 2050, if blacks and latinos all voted democrat, that would add up to 42%. With Asians, they would get 54%. But if Asians go with whites and vote Republican, then Republicans could get 59%. In other words, neither democrats nor republicans can get above the 50% threshold without Asians.
I am not at sure how this bodes for the future. If party politics end up dividing along racial lines, party platforms will change dramatically. Yes we might finally have a rainbow coalition, but at what expense?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
The (home-grown) war on terror
There has been an on-going war on terror that started way before 9-11 and it has been waged against fellow Americans. I am of course talking about the war on gangs.
2008 marks the twentieth anniversary of the movie ‘Colors’ which introduced the country to what Los Angelenos had already been dealing with for years, gangs. Gangs are probably still the 2nd biggest export from LA, second only to Hollywood movies.
Here are some disturbing numbers. According to the Department of Justice, today America has at least 30,000 gangs, with 800,000 members, in 2,500 communities across the United States. At last count, Los Angeles County had more than 714 gangs and 80,000 gang members. That makes one of every hundred county residents either a hardcore soldier in a gang or an “associate.” In New Jersey alone, 13 gangs have direct affiliation with LA gangs. LA gangs are expanding faster than Starbucks and Wal-Mart.
Different answers are given as to the origins of LA gangs: Watts riots of 1965, the preemptive dismantling by the government of the Black Panther Party which left hundreds of black youths a sense of organization and discipline without having gotten the political education, the massive influx of cocaine into urban cities in the 1980s, not to mention all the more general sociological, economic, racist, and cultural explanations.
Now in LA, there is a vicious triangulation going on, which is eerily reminiscent of what is going on Iraq right now. Two black gangs, Grape Street Crips and Bounty Hunter Bloods are going at it. The rivalry goes back so long, no one can quite remember how the beef started, why they are fighting, and how it got so bad so quick for so long. What makes it even more complex is the growing dominance of Hispanic gangs, particular MS-13. The Hispanic gangs are particularly important, because not only are they growing in numbers but they also have the connections to the drugs, which makes sense since Mexico is the primary drug supplier. In other words, you have two sects fighting it out with a third group hovering in the background, watching the two sects fight it out. What all three have in common is that they all are trying to get their hands on the same resource, in this case, drugs.
In the 80s and early 90s, the occupying authorities/police department had compromised the rule of law and fought fire with fire, all for the sake of law and order. They had curfews; they banned cavorting in groups of more than 2; they indiscriminately arrested and detained people; they had show trials; they killed people. All in the name of law and order. The LAPD created a CRASH unit, which basically operated as a lynch mob in that they were not beholden to the rule of law and were free to harass, imprison, torture, and murder whomever they deemed dangerous.
But gangs are still here. Shit, they are becoming multinational conglomerates.
Now in LA, after they realized that their war on gangs wasn’t working, they then simply tried to contain the problem, making sure it doesn’t spill out into the nicer areas. In some areas, like the Jordan Downs housing project, if you have a problem, you don’t go to the cops, you go to the Grape Street Gang. (It reminds me of Sadr City in Iraq, where if you have a problem, you don’t go to the occupying authorities, you go to the Sadr army.)
This strategy is highly problematic, if only because containing the problem in certain areas is analogous to putting a cover on a pot of boiling water. Not only will it get hotter faster, but once it gets hot enough, it will inevitably get out. And once it gets out, it won’t just spill over. It will burst. We are beginning to see that. Just hear me out.
1985-1992 was one of the most violent periods of gang violence in LA. It tapered off in 1992, mainly as a result of a peace treaty between four of the biggest gangs in LA. This peace treaty was legit. 1998 reported the lowest rate of gang-related homicides as compared to the previous ten years. This also happens to be the period when the drug supply chain shifts from Columbia to Mexico, thereby significantly reducing the supply of crack cocaine and substituting it for other drugs like meth. This shift is important because crack is regarded as a major reason for violence. Anyways, this peace treaty, combined with the shift in the drug supply chain had national repercussions and allowed urban areas, like New York, New Jersey, and LA somewhat a respite and an opportunity to really deal with the problem. But the treaty is now over and we are beginning to see in the last couple of years that violence is going back to its pre-1992 levels. Perhaps I am placing too much importance on the 1992 peace treaty. But when it comes to the future of gangs, you look at LA. Gangs are to LA what fashion is to Soho. If you want to know what it is going to be hip and happening in fashion tomorrow, you go to Soho today. Same thing with gangs and LA.
To sum up, what we see in LA is the initial ‘war on gangs’ which was blatantly short-sighted and draconian and was subsequently followed up by a resigned, apartheid-like strategy of containment that was equally short-sighted. I fear not only could there be a teeter-totter effect in which we revert back to the initial ‘war on gang’ strategy, but that this teeter-totter effect would have to be even more short-sighted and draconian because the stakes are much higher now. In essence, I fear that a war that fails to resolve the issues that underlie it is doomed to not only be repeated, but also escalated.
2008 marks the twentieth anniversary of the movie ‘Colors’ which introduced the country to what Los Angelenos had already been dealing with for years, gangs. Gangs are probably still the 2nd biggest export from LA, second only to Hollywood movies.
Here are some disturbing numbers. According to the Department of Justice, today America has at least 30,000 gangs, with 800,000 members, in 2,500 communities across the United States. At last count, Los Angeles County had more than 714 gangs and 80,000 gang members. That makes one of every hundred county residents either a hardcore soldier in a gang or an “associate.” In New Jersey alone, 13 gangs have direct affiliation with LA gangs. LA gangs are expanding faster than Starbucks and Wal-Mart.
Different answers are given as to the origins of LA gangs: Watts riots of 1965, the preemptive dismantling by the government of the Black Panther Party which left hundreds of black youths a sense of organization and discipline without having gotten the political education, the massive influx of cocaine into urban cities in the 1980s, not to mention all the more general sociological, economic, racist, and cultural explanations.
Now in LA, there is a vicious triangulation going on, which is eerily reminiscent of what is going on Iraq right now. Two black gangs, Grape Street Crips and Bounty Hunter Bloods are going at it. The rivalry goes back so long, no one can quite remember how the beef started, why they are fighting, and how it got so bad so quick for so long. What makes it even more complex is the growing dominance of Hispanic gangs, particular MS-13. The Hispanic gangs are particularly important, because not only are they growing in numbers but they also have the connections to the drugs, which makes sense since Mexico is the primary drug supplier. In other words, you have two sects fighting it out with a third group hovering in the background, watching the two sects fight it out. What all three have in common is that they all are trying to get their hands on the same resource, in this case, drugs.
In the 80s and early 90s, the occupying authorities/police department had compromised the rule of law and fought fire with fire, all for the sake of law and order. They had curfews; they banned cavorting in groups of more than 2; they indiscriminately arrested and detained people; they had show trials; they killed people. All in the name of law and order. The LAPD created a CRASH unit, which basically operated as a lynch mob in that they were not beholden to the rule of law and were free to harass, imprison, torture, and murder whomever they deemed dangerous.
But gangs are still here. Shit, they are becoming multinational conglomerates.
Now in LA, after they realized that their war on gangs wasn’t working, they then simply tried to contain the problem, making sure it doesn’t spill out into the nicer areas. In some areas, like the Jordan Downs housing project, if you have a problem, you don’t go to the cops, you go to the Grape Street Gang. (It reminds me of Sadr City in Iraq, where if you have a problem, you don’t go to the occupying authorities, you go to the Sadr army.)
This strategy is highly problematic, if only because containing the problem in certain areas is analogous to putting a cover on a pot of boiling water. Not only will it get hotter faster, but once it gets hot enough, it will inevitably get out. And once it gets out, it won’t just spill over. It will burst. We are beginning to see that. Just hear me out.
1985-1992 was one of the most violent periods of gang violence in LA. It tapered off in 1992, mainly as a result of a peace treaty between four of the biggest gangs in LA. This peace treaty was legit. 1998 reported the lowest rate of gang-related homicides as compared to the previous ten years. This also happens to be the period when the drug supply chain shifts from Columbia to Mexico, thereby significantly reducing the supply of crack cocaine and substituting it for other drugs like meth. This shift is important because crack is regarded as a major reason for violence. Anyways, this peace treaty, combined with the shift in the drug supply chain had national repercussions and allowed urban areas, like New York, New Jersey, and LA somewhat a respite and an opportunity to really deal with the problem. But the treaty is now over and we are beginning to see in the last couple of years that violence is going back to its pre-1992 levels. Perhaps I am placing too much importance on the 1992 peace treaty. But when it comes to the future of gangs, you look at LA. Gangs are to LA what fashion is to Soho. If you want to know what it is going to be hip and happening in fashion tomorrow, you go to Soho today. Same thing with gangs and LA.
To sum up, what we see in LA is the initial ‘war on gangs’ which was blatantly short-sighted and draconian and was subsequently followed up by a resigned, apartheid-like strategy of containment that was equally short-sighted. I fear not only could there be a teeter-totter effect in which we revert back to the initial ‘war on gang’ strategy, but that this teeter-totter effect would have to be even more short-sighted and draconian because the stakes are much higher now. In essence, I fear that a war that fails to resolve the issues that underlie it is doomed to not only be repeated, but also escalated.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Democrats need to change the game if they hope to win the game: Rethinking the war on terror
In a recent speech, Hilary Clinton was arguing that she would be the better democratic nominee to defeat John McCain because of her years of experience of being tough on terrorists, no slouch about going to war, and willing to do whatever was necessary to keep our country safe. In other words, we should vote for her because she is more of a hawk than Obama. I find this highly problematic not only because it is completely buying into the Republican notion of foreign policy that centers around the politics of fear, imperial presidency, and utter disregard for the rule of law, but also because it reflects the absolute woeful lack of any kind of alternative. Other than Iraq, there is not much difference between the Democrats and Republicans in regards to foreign policy. I have yet to hear any substantive difference in regards to Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, torture, military tribunals, wiretapping, and FISA. As a matter of fact, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee just signed off on excusing waterboarding. By the way, he is a Democrat.
Foreign policy needs to be put front and center when it comes to the presidential elections and it is important that an alternative formulation be put out there now. If we don’t, then we are left with figuring out who can maintain the politics of fear the longest, who can be the most hawkish, and who is willing to sacrifice the most for the sake of ‘security’. If we don’t formulate a plan, there is no way to keep Hilary and/or Barack accountable, elect-able, and credible. We can’t beat the Republicans at their own game, and we shouldn’t want to beat them at their own game. And the time is ripe for a change. Between Bush’s historically low approval ratings and widespread dissatisfaction with the war, now is the time.
It is time to change up the political calculus that has emerged from this war on terror. The following is a starting off point. It is not ideal necessarily. I went for something that I think is an elect-able strategy.
1) Security can no longer be the trump card for torture. Yes, protecting our borders and keeping Americans safe are important, but it does not justify torture. We must eliminate the grey here. There are pragmatic reasons to eliminate torture, but I think it is important to center on the fact that torture is morally reprehensible and no ticking time bomb scenario can justify torturing a suspect. At some point, we must take a stand; we must insist that there is a line that we just will not cross. This should be an easy sell. We can evoke the nostalgic, patriotic image of America, as the beacon of hope, freedom and democracy. If we truly are the greatest nation of the world and we truly think every other country should emulate us, then let’s start acting like it. It is not enough to say we stand up for America. America needs to stand for something if we are to stand up for it.
2) Close Guantanamo Bay. It’s been 6 years and folks still haven’t gotten a trial. I say we give everybody left a trial. We can reassure the hawks by telling them that those they deem dangerous that were nevertheless found not-guilty will be placed under surveillance. (Let me reiterate: I am going for an elect-able foreign policy, not my ideal foreign policy) This is also an easy sell. One of the reasons why people hate us is because of Guantanamo Bay. At this point, Guantanamo Bay is hurting more than helping the war on terror. The international disgust that Guantanamo Bay has hit a tipping point and it is probably breeding more terrorists abroad than preventing terrorist attacks.
3) Beef up Congressional oversight. As the Bush administration is so keen on repeating, the war on terror involves a lot of intelligence gathering, confidentiality and planning. All of this is not conducive to transparency, publicity and democracy. But the war on terror is (supposedly) of paramount importance that demands our attention. Respecting for the moment the paramount importance of it, I think it is still possible to involve more people in the decision-making process. By people, I mean elected officials that serve in key Congressional committees. So far, the war on terror has been a one-man show. It needs to be opened up. Issues as important as these needs to be more inclusive, more deliberative, and more coordinated. If the war on terror calls for sacrificing civil liberties, spending trillions of dollars, and overhauling the judiciary branch, I don’t think it is too much to ask for some more people around the table. This is a harder sell, if only because it is not so clear cut. But I think the key here is coordination. Coordination is the key to waging a smart, effective war on terror. Coordination across branches, coordination across intelligence agencies, coordination across democracy. The more coordination, the more effective. The notion that threats alone justify a complete dismantling of government is ludicrous. We have to increase the bar of what constitutes a credible threat. The more credible the threat, the more legitimacy the government garners. And I think the only way credibility can be garnered is by getting buy-in from all the different branches, agencies, and departments. The more in-sync the government is, the more the public is assured that the actions taken are the necessary one. The first step in making the government more in-sync is beefing up congressional oversight. This is a baby step that respects the confidentiality that is (supposedly) needed to fight the war on terror, but an important step nonetheless.
Now some might argue that I make way too many accommodations to the basic premises of the war on terror. I don’t think so. The accommodations I have made are for pragmatic reasons. I think these three things are viable platforms by which the Democratic nominee can stand on and still win. But the key with all three points is that they are starting off points for more radical alternatives. All three points try and subvert the basic premises of the war on terror by succumbing the war on terror to its own logic. The first point is a subtle critique of the supremacy of security. What is there to secure if we don’t stand for anything? The second point is questioning the strategy of the war on terror. Locking people up indefinitely might actually be making the problem worse than better. The third point is questioning the long-term feasibility of the war on terror. The short-term strategy of the bush administration might actually be hindering longer term strategy for the war on terror. Not only are these elect-able goals, but I see them as possibly leading to even more radical possibilities. So it is a win-win. And again, if the Democratic candidate wants to beat John McCain, then they can’t try and beat him at his own game. They need to change the game, if they hope to win the game.
Foreign policy needs to be put front and center when it comes to the presidential elections and it is important that an alternative formulation be put out there now. If we don’t, then we are left with figuring out who can maintain the politics of fear the longest, who can be the most hawkish, and who is willing to sacrifice the most for the sake of ‘security’. If we don’t formulate a plan, there is no way to keep Hilary and/or Barack accountable, elect-able, and credible. We can’t beat the Republicans at their own game, and we shouldn’t want to beat them at their own game. And the time is ripe for a change. Between Bush’s historically low approval ratings and widespread dissatisfaction with the war, now is the time.
It is time to change up the political calculus that has emerged from this war on terror. The following is a starting off point. It is not ideal necessarily. I went for something that I think is an elect-able strategy.
1) Security can no longer be the trump card for torture. Yes, protecting our borders and keeping Americans safe are important, but it does not justify torture. We must eliminate the grey here. There are pragmatic reasons to eliminate torture, but I think it is important to center on the fact that torture is morally reprehensible and no ticking time bomb scenario can justify torturing a suspect. At some point, we must take a stand; we must insist that there is a line that we just will not cross. This should be an easy sell. We can evoke the nostalgic, patriotic image of America, as the beacon of hope, freedom and democracy. If we truly are the greatest nation of the world and we truly think every other country should emulate us, then let’s start acting like it. It is not enough to say we stand up for America. America needs to stand for something if we are to stand up for it.
2) Close Guantanamo Bay. It’s been 6 years and folks still haven’t gotten a trial. I say we give everybody left a trial. We can reassure the hawks by telling them that those they deem dangerous that were nevertheless found not-guilty will be placed under surveillance. (Let me reiterate: I am going for an elect-able foreign policy, not my ideal foreign policy) This is also an easy sell. One of the reasons why people hate us is because of Guantanamo Bay. At this point, Guantanamo Bay is hurting more than helping the war on terror. The international disgust that Guantanamo Bay has hit a tipping point and it is probably breeding more terrorists abroad than preventing terrorist attacks.
3) Beef up Congressional oversight. As the Bush administration is so keen on repeating, the war on terror involves a lot of intelligence gathering, confidentiality and planning. All of this is not conducive to transparency, publicity and democracy. But the war on terror is (supposedly) of paramount importance that demands our attention. Respecting for the moment the paramount importance of it, I think it is still possible to involve more people in the decision-making process. By people, I mean elected officials that serve in key Congressional committees. So far, the war on terror has been a one-man show. It needs to be opened up. Issues as important as these needs to be more inclusive, more deliberative, and more coordinated. If the war on terror calls for sacrificing civil liberties, spending trillions of dollars, and overhauling the judiciary branch, I don’t think it is too much to ask for some more people around the table. This is a harder sell, if only because it is not so clear cut. But I think the key here is coordination. Coordination is the key to waging a smart, effective war on terror. Coordination across branches, coordination across intelligence agencies, coordination across democracy. The more coordination, the more effective. The notion that threats alone justify a complete dismantling of government is ludicrous. We have to increase the bar of what constitutes a credible threat. The more credible the threat, the more legitimacy the government garners. And I think the only way credibility can be garnered is by getting buy-in from all the different branches, agencies, and departments. The more in-sync the government is, the more the public is assured that the actions taken are the necessary one. The first step in making the government more in-sync is beefing up congressional oversight. This is a baby step that respects the confidentiality that is (supposedly) needed to fight the war on terror, but an important step nonetheless.
Now some might argue that I make way too many accommodations to the basic premises of the war on terror. I don’t think so. The accommodations I have made are for pragmatic reasons. I think these three things are viable platforms by which the Democratic nominee can stand on and still win. But the key with all three points is that they are starting off points for more radical alternatives. All three points try and subvert the basic premises of the war on terror by succumbing the war on terror to its own logic. The first point is a subtle critique of the supremacy of security. What is there to secure if we don’t stand for anything? The second point is questioning the strategy of the war on terror. Locking people up indefinitely might actually be making the problem worse than better. The third point is questioning the long-term feasibility of the war on terror. The short-term strategy of the bush administration might actually be hindering longer term strategy for the war on terror. Not only are these elect-able goals, but I see them as possibly leading to even more radical possibilities. So it is a win-win. And again, if the Democratic candidate wants to beat John McCain, then they can’t try and beat him at his own game. They need to change the game, if they hope to win the game.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Who is more likely to beat McCain?
So, I just crunched some numbers from the results of super duper tuesday and here is what I have found. There are 8 states in particular I want to focus on. These are Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and South Carolina. I have found these 8 states interesting because not only did they all vote bush in 2004 but in 2008, more democrats voted in the primaries than republicans. In other words, these are possible SWING states. If everybody who voted in the primaries in these states go on and vote in the general elections, these states would change color from 2004 red to 2008 blue.
ARKANSAS - 261,266 voted in the Dem. primary and 183,133 voted in the Rep. primary for a difference of 78,133
COLORADO - 119,184 Dems. and 55,845 Rep. for a difference of 63,399
GEORGIA - 1,017,002 Dems. and 947,357 Rep. for a difference of 69,645
MISSOURI - 820,453 Dems and 584,618 Rep. for a difference of 235,835
NORTH DAKOTA - 18,856 Dems and 9,743 Rep. for a difference of 8,913
OKLAHOMA - 401, 656 Dems and 331,796 Rep. for a difference of 69,860
TENNESSEE - 612,782 dems and 548,612 rep. for a difference of 64,170
SOUTH CAROLINA- 530,322 dems. and 442,918 rep. for a difference of 87,404
These numbers seem significant, particularly Missouri and North Dakota. So this then begs the question: which Democratic candidate won these states? The answer is Obama won 5 of the 8 (Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Carolina) and Hillary won 3 of the 8 (Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee). In terms of electoral math, Obama would net 46 more electoral college votes while Hillary would net 24 more electoral college votes, assuming the states that voted blue in 2004 would continue to vote blue in 2008. The next question then is whether or not you think Obama can better hold the states that voted blue in 2004 than Hillary. There is reason to doubt that he could considering Hillary carried more of these states. But again, would states that voted blue in 2004 really change their mind in 2008 if the candidate was Obama instead of HIllary? If so, which ones? I really can't think of one. In addition, we still have yet to hear from Ohio which is a possible swing state. So here is statistical evidence to suggest that Obama would be more likely to beat McCain if he were the democratic candidate over hillary.
ARKANSAS - 261,266 voted in the Dem. primary and 183,133 voted in the Rep. primary for a difference of 78,133
COLORADO - 119,184 Dems. and 55,845 Rep. for a difference of 63,399
GEORGIA - 1,017,002 Dems. and 947,357 Rep. for a difference of 69,645
MISSOURI - 820,453 Dems and 584,618 Rep. for a difference of 235,835
NORTH DAKOTA - 18,856 Dems and 9,743 Rep. for a difference of 8,913
OKLAHOMA - 401, 656 Dems and 331,796 Rep. for a difference of 69,860
TENNESSEE - 612,782 dems and 548,612 rep. for a difference of 64,170
SOUTH CAROLINA- 530,322 dems. and 442,918 rep. for a difference of 87,404
These numbers seem significant, particularly Missouri and North Dakota. So this then begs the question: which Democratic candidate won these states? The answer is Obama won 5 of the 8 (Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Carolina) and Hillary won 3 of the 8 (Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee). In terms of electoral math, Obama would net 46 more electoral college votes while Hillary would net 24 more electoral college votes, assuming the states that voted blue in 2004 would continue to vote blue in 2008. The next question then is whether or not you think Obama can better hold the states that voted blue in 2004 than Hillary. There is reason to doubt that he could considering Hillary carried more of these states. But again, would states that voted blue in 2004 really change their mind in 2008 if the candidate was Obama instead of HIllary? If so, which ones? I really can't think of one. In addition, we still have yet to hear from Ohio which is a possible swing state. So here is statistical evidence to suggest that Obama would be more likely to beat McCain if he were the democratic candidate over hillary.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Audacity of Pushing: The Role of the Left during American Presidential Primaries
If I had a nickel for everytime someone asked me, “Daniel, you are a leftie, why aren’t you voting for Barack Obama?”
…Perhaps I am getting old and waxing nostalgic about days long past, but I can remember a time when we staged protests at the Democratic National Convention. I can remember a time when people were more concerned with the what of candidates than the who of candidates. I remember a time when we wouldn’t allow ourselves to get mesmerized by the allure of whatever media construction the parties threw out there and stuck to what I am going to term the politics of pushing.
Before I elaborate on this idea of the politics of pushing, let me briefly do a run-down on presidential history. 1) There has never been a left American President. The few times Presidents have done anything remotely leftist, they were pressured: Lincoln and the abolitionists, FDR and the labor movement, Johnson and the civil rights movement. 2) American Presidents have always tried to co-opt the left. Lincoln co-opted the abolitionists with this original plan to ‘reconstruct’ Louisiana. FDR co-opted the labor movement into not striking and accepting business unionism. Johnson co-opted the civil rights movement into not doing the poor people’s march and accepting affirmative action.
This brief excursus was meant to illustrate the at best tenuous relationship the American left has had with its presidents. If we want something of the president, we must be willing to push them and we must be forever vigilant.
So, with that said, we find ourselves in the thick of the presidential primaries that occurs every four years. And instead of hearing about what issues we want our next president to deal with, all I hear is who are you voting for. Fortunately, there are three issues that the left has put on the table: universal health care, global warming and the war in Iraq. Although some might quarrel that these are not left issues; rather, these are mainstream issues that everybody cares about is indicative of how successful the left has been. Four years ago, during Kerry’s campaign, it was taboo to talk about Iraq. It was too divisive and the election was too important. But now, the issue has become less divisive and more galvanizing. What, abu-ghraib wasn’t enough? Somehow 2,000 dead soldiers are okay but 3,000 is intolerable?
Even if those who thought the war was divisive back then were right, that only makes the present time ripe for a left resurgence. Particularly during the presidential primaries when candidates are fashioning their platforms and more attentive to the electorate, we should be pushing issues, not pushing candidates. So, you are for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq…great…now we want a commitment to close Guantanamo. So, you are for universal health care…great, now we want an increase in funding for food stamps. So, you think Bush was a bad president…great, now we want a commitment that you prohibit signing statements. This is the politics of pushing. This is the time to push the candidates to the left. In my opinion, no candidate is on the left. It is just not possible. Between the two party system, the special interests, the electoral system, etc…., I just don’t see how it could happen. And so to back a candidate now is in some respects to make light of just how inept, corrupt, and dysfunctional our government has become, is becoming, and continues to become. This is the time, when the parties are still picking, when we on the left should be arguing over issues about what we need and what we want from our next president. I am not looking for hope; I am looking for demands.
…Perhaps I am getting old and waxing nostalgic about days long past, but I can remember a time when we staged protests at the Democratic National Convention. I can remember a time when people were more concerned with the what of candidates than the who of candidates. I remember a time when we wouldn’t allow ourselves to get mesmerized by the allure of whatever media construction the parties threw out there and stuck to what I am going to term the politics of pushing.
Before I elaborate on this idea of the politics of pushing, let me briefly do a run-down on presidential history. 1) There has never been a left American President. The few times Presidents have done anything remotely leftist, they were pressured: Lincoln and the abolitionists, FDR and the labor movement, Johnson and the civil rights movement. 2) American Presidents have always tried to co-opt the left. Lincoln co-opted the abolitionists with this original plan to ‘reconstruct’ Louisiana. FDR co-opted the labor movement into not striking and accepting business unionism. Johnson co-opted the civil rights movement into not doing the poor people’s march and accepting affirmative action.
This brief excursus was meant to illustrate the at best tenuous relationship the American left has had with its presidents. If we want something of the president, we must be willing to push them and we must be forever vigilant.
So, with that said, we find ourselves in the thick of the presidential primaries that occurs every four years. And instead of hearing about what issues we want our next president to deal with, all I hear is who are you voting for. Fortunately, there are three issues that the left has put on the table: universal health care, global warming and the war in Iraq. Although some might quarrel that these are not left issues; rather, these are mainstream issues that everybody cares about is indicative of how successful the left has been. Four years ago, during Kerry’s campaign, it was taboo to talk about Iraq. It was too divisive and the election was too important. But now, the issue has become less divisive and more galvanizing. What, abu-ghraib wasn’t enough? Somehow 2,000 dead soldiers are okay but 3,000 is intolerable?
Even if those who thought the war was divisive back then were right, that only makes the present time ripe for a left resurgence. Particularly during the presidential primaries when candidates are fashioning their platforms and more attentive to the electorate, we should be pushing issues, not pushing candidates. So, you are for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq…great…now we want a commitment to close Guantanamo. So, you are for universal health care…great, now we want an increase in funding for food stamps. So, you think Bush was a bad president…great, now we want a commitment that you prohibit signing statements. This is the politics of pushing. This is the time to push the candidates to the left. In my opinion, no candidate is on the left. It is just not possible. Between the two party system, the special interests, the electoral system, etc…., I just don’t see how it could happen. And so to back a candidate now is in some respects to make light of just how inept, corrupt, and dysfunctional our government has become, is becoming, and continues to become. This is the time, when the parties are still picking, when we on the left should be arguing over issues about what we need and what we want from our next president. I am not looking for hope; I am looking for demands.
Lynchings: Back in Black
Golfweek Magazine. Jena, Louisiana. Columbia University. Suddenly, the strange fruit is back.
Although the three instances could not be more different, they are bound by a common theme: the explosive and complex claim that blacks are acting too uppity. Whether it is a golfer dominating a sport he shouldn’t, high schoolers hanging out where they are not supposed to, or a professor writing a book that upsets propriety; each seemingly forgot their place and needed a simple reminder. A stark and symbolic reminder.
What is it about lynching that has suddenly made it such a potent and relevant political metaphor today? After all, uppity blacks have existed throughout our history: W.E.B. Du Bois, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Arthur Ashe. Despite the audacity of one black man in particular, who is running for president, one can hardly say there is a sudden uptick in black self-assertion.
Lynching references have come back for two other reasons, having less to do with race per se than with the with post 9-11 political atmosphere. The first reason has to do with the solidarity that resulted in this new climate of fear. In a talk entitled “The Gifts of Black Folk in the Age of Terrorism,” Cornel West spoke about the ‘niggerization of America,’ which refers to the process in which all Americans after 9-11 have been “taught to be fearful, taught to be afraid, and subject to manipulation.” After 9-11, all Americans began to understand what it meant to be terrorized simply for being who we are. This widespread identity-based fear is ‘niggerization’ because Americans began to get an inkling of what it must have been like to be a black man in the South with the all-pervasive noose hanging under every tree. The terror of 9-11 is similar to the terror of lynching because it does not have to be personally experienced. The effects of lynching extend beyond its immediate victims, conjuring up nightmares by its sheer possibility.
In the immediate aftermath, this terror brought us together. It resurrected civic pride, inspired individuals to put aside their differences, and engage in patriotic self-sacrifice. When the towers collapsed, so did years of racial division, animosity and violence, because something more important, which threatened all equally, bound us together. At least, so it was said.
But now that the embers have cooled and the enemy combatants detained, we can go back to business as usual. Solidarity brought equality, an equality that was hard for some to swallow. Because terror is blind, we became momentarily blinded to each other. But we can close our eyes for only so long. The resurgence of lynching references is a reminder that even if this ‘niggerization of America’ is true, black is still black and white is still white. No matter how new this post 9-11 world might be, it is not enough to dismantle the deep-seated racism in this country. The recent lynching controversies are a reminder that unity in fear could only temporarily displace, rather than truly resolve the problems of a divided society. They signal that things are going back to normal, normally racist that is.
The second reason that lynching has re-emerged in the shadow of 9-11 has to do with how the Bush administration has handled the ‘war on terror.’ Indefinite detention. Unsubstantiated claims of impropriety. Extralegal procedures. Peace and order at the expense of law and justice. The methods the Bush administration is using to fight terrorism are eerily similar to the methods white Southerners used to oppose racial equality. In effect, Bush’s handling of the war on terror has harkened back to and given license to an old tradition of popular justice that is as American as apple pie. Is it of any wonder then why lynchings are back in vogue when the same kind of rationale used to justify lynchings are identical to those the Bush administration has used? We saw this with Andrew Jackson. As President, Andrew Jackson waged a similar ‘war on terror’ against Native-Americans. He was so ‘successful,’ that he is said to have encouraged and inspired many nativists, racists, and industrialists to wage their own ‘war on terror.’ Terror, then, is nothing new. Americans have been practicing it for years. And when our leaders do it, it spreads like wildfire, setting ablaze all sorts of local problems. Just because nobody gave any direct orders does not mean these are a few random acts by bad apples; our government has been giving extralegal justice official sanction for years. Like they say, mockery is the sincerest from of flattery.
Although the three instances could not be more different, they are bound by a common theme: the explosive and complex claim that blacks are acting too uppity. Whether it is a golfer dominating a sport he shouldn’t, high schoolers hanging out where they are not supposed to, or a professor writing a book that upsets propriety; each seemingly forgot their place and needed a simple reminder. A stark and symbolic reminder.
What is it about lynching that has suddenly made it such a potent and relevant political metaphor today? After all, uppity blacks have existed throughout our history: W.E.B. Du Bois, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Arthur Ashe. Despite the audacity of one black man in particular, who is running for president, one can hardly say there is a sudden uptick in black self-assertion.
Lynching references have come back for two other reasons, having less to do with race per se than with the with post 9-11 political atmosphere. The first reason has to do with the solidarity that resulted in this new climate of fear. In a talk entitled “The Gifts of Black Folk in the Age of Terrorism,” Cornel West spoke about the ‘niggerization of America,’ which refers to the process in which all Americans after 9-11 have been “taught to be fearful, taught to be afraid, and subject to manipulation.” After 9-11, all Americans began to understand what it meant to be terrorized simply for being who we are. This widespread identity-based fear is ‘niggerization’ because Americans began to get an inkling of what it must have been like to be a black man in the South with the all-pervasive noose hanging under every tree. The terror of 9-11 is similar to the terror of lynching because it does not have to be personally experienced. The effects of lynching extend beyond its immediate victims, conjuring up nightmares by its sheer possibility.
In the immediate aftermath, this terror brought us together. It resurrected civic pride, inspired individuals to put aside their differences, and engage in patriotic self-sacrifice. When the towers collapsed, so did years of racial division, animosity and violence, because something more important, which threatened all equally, bound us together. At least, so it was said.
But now that the embers have cooled and the enemy combatants detained, we can go back to business as usual. Solidarity brought equality, an equality that was hard for some to swallow. Because terror is blind, we became momentarily blinded to each other. But we can close our eyes for only so long. The resurgence of lynching references is a reminder that even if this ‘niggerization of America’ is true, black is still black and white is still white. No matter how new this post 9-11 world might be, it is not enough to dismantle the deep-seated racism in this country. The recent lynching controversies are a reminder that unity in fear could only temporarily displace, rather than truly resolve the problems of a divided society. They signal that things are going back to normal, normally racist that is.
The second reason that lynching has re-emerged in the shadow of 9-11 has to do with how the Bush administration has handled the ‘war on terror.’ Indefinite detention. Unsubstantiated claims of impropriety. Extralegal procedures. Peace and order at the expense of law and justice. The methods the Bush administration is using to fight terrorism are eerily similar to the methods white Southerners used to oppose racial equality. In effect, Bush’s handling of the war on terror has harkened back to and given license to an old tradition of popular justice that is as American as apple pie. Is it of any wonder then why lynchings are back in vogue when the same kind of rationale used to justify lynchings are identical to those the Bush administration has used? We saw this with Andrew Jackson. As President, Andrew Jackson waged a similar ‘war on terror’ against Native-Americans. He was so ‘successful,’ that he is said to have encouraged and inspired many nativists, racists, and industrialists to wage their own ‘war on terror.’ Terror, then, is nothing new. Americans have been practicing it for years. And when our leaders do it, it spreads like wildfire, setting ablaze all sorts of local problems. Just because nobody gave any direct orders does not mean these are a few random acts by bad apples; our government has been giving extralegal justice official sanction for years. Like they say, mockery is the sincerest from of flattery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)