Call this ideological. I realize that I am nobody and that my critique is not particularly welcome, but oh well: this is one of those things where you just gotta say it.
While identity politics game-playing is annoying and perhaps unfair, the question of whether the elections were rigged or whether fraud was perpetrated is far more important - so much so that I do not like seeing the two issues mixed in the same pot.
Quite frankly, it comes across as petty to whine that the nomination should be contested because of race-baiting or sexism.
It is not petty to try to stop someone from stealing an election.
I feel the legitimate issues are not presented strongly enough. Fraud matters in a way that is deeper and significant than mere dirty politics.
Did people abuse their authority to act in ways designed to deliver a particular outcome?
Did they pretend to offer up a democratic process while secretly acting to subvert it?
Corruption and fraud are powerful accusations.
It isn't some mere ethical issue when the results of a certified election are overthrown and redrawn by a handful of people to make it conform to their vision of what is "fair". And yet this gets only one sentence buried somewhere in the middle, and not a particularly powerful one at that:
The members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and By-Laws Committee violated The DNC charter on May 31, 2008 by meeting in private, in direct violation of the Sunshine Rules Provision of said Charter.
On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded four delegates to candidate Barack Obama based on actual votes for candidate Hillary Clinton, and in addition, awarded him delegates based on votes for “Uncommitted.”
Earlier in the campaign season, the Democratic Party violated its own Delegate Selection Rules by applying penalties to only two states who broke Section 11 calendar rules, even though five states broke those rules. In addition, Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of 100% of their delegates, even though the rules stipulated a 50% penalty.
The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party.
Caucuses are a violation of the one-person, one-vote and secret ballot principles that have been cornerstone Democratic values for more than a century. They produced a skewed and unfair result this primary season. Caucus states are also over-represented in the pledged delegate count, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.
Then it goes into sexism and race-baiting, as if these issues were just as important.
These issues are not just as important.
Maybe these issues are just as important to other people, people who have less respect for the process. But on this, as a moderate*, I must say, I have a hard time following any suggestion that we should contest a nomination process because one of the candidates engaged in or benefited cheap-shot politics. Candidates always do that. It's up to the candidate who wins to win despite those sorts of obstacles. That's just reality. (Viewing the world through some lens of how things should be - and being willing to completely ignore how things really are - is where the liberal parts ways from both the moderate and the conservative.)
It's not right to go around contesting nominations for frivolous reasons (in just the same way it's not right to go around making Constitutional amendments for trivial reasons). It waters down the serious complaints**.
I don't see Obama exploiting the racial issues as a question of legitimacy. It's a reason to question his judgment, his beliefs, and his readiness to be a leader - but it doesn't make the election crooked.
Likewise, I don't see sexism as a question of legitimacy, either.
It's troubling that the DNC allowed such tactics to go unchecked - that they favored one candidate, that they feigned neutrality, that they defended and assisted one candidate while actually assisting the assault on the other candidate.
But I can't go along with saying that we must oppose Obama's nomination because of the identity politics issues.
And I can't go along with the argument that race issues and/or sexism cost Hillary Clinton the nomination. Sexism did not change the election outcome - Hillary Clinton, by all fair and rational measures, won the nomination. (And still could win, if the Democrats have a fair and open convention as per their own rules.)
It is better to separate all the things that make us angry into those which are legitimate complaints pf the sort demanding action and those which are not. The identity politics issues might make people mad, but they are not illegal, illegitimate, or out-of-bounds in an honest election. It's not a breach of integrity (the only real grounds for contesting an outcome***).
There are two different standards here:
- distinguishing between an election that is "honest" (fair, legitimate) vs. "corrupt" (dishonest, rigged)
- distinguishing between an election that is "clean" (civil, decent) vs. "dirty" (mud-slinging, unfair)
___________________________________________
* from what I have seen, moderates do not seem to be particularly welcome on the internet. This is no doubt because there is some sort of internet custom, that disagreement must be strictly regulated, and those who do not agree with a given site's official view are to be demonized and lumped together with the Other and with Enemy.
Sites that do cater to moderates seem to define positions in advance, so that you know what you can and cannot say - a friendly warning guide on how to behave (shut up! fit in!) if you do not want to be demonized and lumped together with the Other and with Enemy.
I cannot claim to have visited all that many sites, so my apologies to any sites I may be slandering. I am not thinking of any site in particular. However, since I prefer an approach where all disagreement is immediately met with stop-think-have a debate, I find I do not like this aspect of the internet much: it's like a cocktail party where everyone sticks to their own circle - and carries razor blades just in case someone wanders into the wrong clique.
And it amuses me no end that "Republican" is treated as some kind of dirty word.
** It's hard to take a complaint of rape and burglary seriously when the person making the accusation adds, "and he called me a poopyhead!"
***maybe this is the problem: I can't tell if they are serious about contesting the nomination, or if they are just saying "I"m not going to vote for this guy because I don't like him".
It appears to be a little of each, all wrapped up in the same document.
Either position is all right, in its own way. But, as Mr. Miyagi once said, karate guess so...[makes squishing gesture]
3 comments:
jacilyn,
I appreciate the honest critique. A couple of points in response.
Both the Declarations of Independence and of Sentiments were broad documents demanding action in the face of a serious injustice, such as what you're referring to with the RBC meeting and subsequent and earlier DNC decisions. I agree, those are the paramount issues, and that's why they got the first three spots on the Objections and the Resolutions.
The sexism aspect is included because it is a factor, even though a lot of people are embarrassed or afraid to admit that because of the vilification of feminism for the last 30 years. It's also included because we are seeking redress at the convention first, and we'll take every last piece of ground we can, including platform planks that include action on these issues. What do Democrats stand for when it comes to sexism and racism? It's hard to tell from their recent record.
This is exactly the tack that the founders of America, and of American Feminism intended with their documents as well. It's not a matter of simply plugging the hole from the injustice. We must also right the ship to float again.
All that said, the Declaration doesn't necessarily have to reach the Convention in it's current form. The idea got going late because of the z-list nature of my blog, but I, and I'm sure the others who helped edit it, are perfectly open to the idea of hammering out a better document. Maybe this particular document will just serve to get people thinking about creating a document like that to present to the Convention. I don't know. What I do know is how movements like this have traditionally sought redress (going back to our founding), and no one else was trying to figure that out, or posting how to do that. It's not just about demonstrations and mass e-mails.
Hope this makes sense. Again, thanks for the honest critique. I'm always curious to find out what people are thinking about it.
I'm sorry Jacilyn, I meant to include something in that note I left. I wanted to invite you, if you were so inclined, to help redraft another document. I don't know if it can be done, but maybe, as I suggested above, this is just to get that idea rolling. I need to contact some people in JSND and PUMApac, as well as Riverdaughter, but I think your voice should be heard too. Please feel free to e-mail me at peacocksandlilies AT gmail DOT com, if you are interested in starting a dialogue or an effort. Thanks again for your comment and support in posting the document, even though you disagreed with some it.
Anna Belle thanks for stopping by, I love your blog.
But honestly, I favor the idea of "keep it simple (stupid)"
(insult not aimed at anyone, it's just a saying).
The election stinks of rigging.
The price of legitimacy = a legitimate convention.
If Obama is so great, why can't he win fair & square?
That is all that really needs saying.
If the goal is a statement that all disenfranchised Democrats should rally around, I believe the The Denver Group
statement should be selected, because it is short, to the point, and focused on what people want. Why set up competition with something that works so well?
Post a Comment