Transformational Politics

AIG Bonuses

2009-03-19T00:34:00.000-07:00

First of all -- and this "first of all" part of this post is pretty partisan, which is out of character for this blog -- Republicans have NO ROOM TO CRITICIZE the Administration or congressional Democrats when it comes to these AIG bonuses. It is the failed economic policies of the Republican party that have gotten us into this economic mess, and Republican pockets have long been stuffed with donations from major corporations and CEOs. For these reasons, hearing lame Republican representatives ranting on shows like Hardball with Chris Matthews makes me want to hurl.

HOWEVER...one thing I really do not understand is the Obama Administration's commitment to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. I just don't get it. Geithner seems to have struggled in getting public confidence since he was first appointed, and now there is suspicion that the Treasury department went along with these bonuses or at the very least didn't resist them. If true, this worries me...why didn't Geithner push back?

Thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

Dustin Lance Black

2009-03-16T22:17:00.000-07:00

I wanted to post this soon after the Oscars but was a little slow. Here Tis.

My favorite speech during Oscar night was that of Dustin Lance Black, who won the Oscar for best original screenplay for Milk. He was warm and endearing in his promise to America's gay youth that they will soon have equal rights.

He also pointed out that, contrary to what their churches may tell them, God does love them.

I especially appreciate the spiritual aspect of Black's speech. Rarely is there religious or spiritual validation of homosexuality. My own political socialization has caused me to draw a hard line between religion and run of the mill leftist issues that I support, like reproductive justice and gay rights.

But there is not an inherent divide between spirituality and gay rights, or spirituality and reproductive justice. People have created this divide. Divorcing these issues from spirituality only serves to alienate people who face difficult circumstances, when these are the very people that religious communities ought to be reaching out to. This is particularly troublesome for young people who may be living in religious households or communities, where they probably experience a constant message that they are sinful, bad people, and are at risk of committing suicide.

Even more valuable was that Black’s speech had a leftist message, directed at a leftist crowd, at a leftist event, but emphasized spiritual inclusion. (As an aside, contrasting Black's speech with Sean Penn’s speech kind of makes me laugh. Instead of using his celebrity bully pulpit to be inclusive, Penn shamed everyone who voted for Proposition 8, California’s anti gay marriage initiative that was enacted during the November 2008 election. His admonishment just made me chuckle, while Black’s speech actually made me pause.)

Expressions of spirituality within progressive circles are difficult to come by, but gradually these expressions will help progressives build their movements.

the impact of inclusive messaging...

2009-02-19T13:26:00.001-08:00

This article discusses the defeat of a fetal personhood initiative in Colorado. Reproductive rights groups collaborated with labor unions and Latino voters to defeat this initiative, along with four anti-labor initiatives. It reflects the power of inclusive messaging, which is key to the future of the reproductive justice movement.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/18/defeating-amendment-48-mobilizing-latino-communities-union-workers-against-personhood-measure

In Praise of Rachel Maddow

2008-11-17T23:14:00.000-08:00

This blog entry is dedicated to the MSNBC and Air America talk show host, Rachel Maddow.

This is not just gushing fan mail misplaced on my blog. It is a tribute to her because she embodies what this blog is all about: transformational politics.

Most of the pundits, really most of the newscasters, who I see on television are white guys. Older white guys. Let’s call them out: Keith Olbermann. Chris Matthews. Joe Scarborough. David Gergen. Bill O’Reilly. Anderson Cooper. Paul Begala. Tucker Carlson. Sean Hannity. Shep Smith. The list goes on and on. CNN boasts Campbell Brown’s show called “No Bias, No Bull” but this show didn’t kick off until Maddow was already soaring in the ratings…I have a feeling that the folks at CNN noticed how good Rachel’s show is and realized they needed to add a little estrogen to their pundit lineup.

It is not just being a woman in a sea of male pundits that makes Rachel a transformational figure in the mainstream media world. Her background and personal experience factor in as well. Rachel is the only pundit that I know of who is a Rhodes scholar. (And what I really dig about her-she is the first openly gay Rhodes scholar.) She has dedicated her life to political commentating and activist work. She has a pretty face that she isn’t afraid to contort when being silly (which she often is) when delivering her top stories of the day.

But above all of the labels and categories and notches on her resume, Rachel is transforming punditland because of what she talks about on her show and the way she talks about it. Most pundits don’t stretch their arms very wide when commenting on the news of the day. Most of them are certainly intelligent and articulate, but they limit the scope of what they discuss to what I like to call pop politics — topics like the Obama family dog, Obama being stripped of his blackberry, and the political future and book deals of the Train Wreck In Chief, Sarah Palin. These hosts aren’t contributing much to our knowledge and understanding of the news.

Maddow, by contrast, is making her viewers smarter, as New York Magazine pointed out in their November 2 piece about the talk show host (see link to the article at the bottom of this post). Maddow talks about pop politics too, but she also talks about underreported issues that mainstream punditland does not care about/care to talk about. Her program featured a segment about how the United States lost a nuclear bomb in Greenland forty years ago and how the contents of one piece of the bomb may have dissolved in the ocean. She has found a way to weave the obscure anti-bourgeois cultural movement Dadaism into her program. When interviewing President-elect Obama just days before the election (which, by the way, was a real coup of an opportunity for a relative cable TV rookie) Maddow asked tough foreign policy questions and brought up the very astute point that Obama refused to criticize the entire Republican party during the campaign, but rather had limited his criticism to McCain. The guests she brings in to help her talk about the news stretch beyond the standard cookie cutter mix of commentators like Bill Maher or Hillary Rosen — she brings in creative bloggers like Shannyn Moore and history professors like Douglas Brinkley – articulate and relative unknowns in the cable news world. The entire theme of Maddow’s show is “mind over chatter,” and she walks the talk.

Bottom line: Maddow is amazing, and really is the future of smart political commentating. My only complaint? When she’s gone for the night and a guest host takes her place – very weak sauce.

http://nymag.com/news/media/51822/

A Mormon Feminist Discusses Prop 8 (sort of)

2008-11-11T20:22:00.000-08:00

Worth a read...

http://community.feministing.com/2008/11/mormon-feminist-and-kind-of-af.html

Reframing the abortion debate

2008-11-11T19:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/11/roundup-antichoice-movement-confrontation-or-compromise#comment-10832

I agree that abortion is still a personal liberty issue, and that we should work to reframe the assumption that it is "tragic." Those of us who have been patriots in the pro choice movement won't ever forget that, and that will always inform our activism. But I also believe that the abortion issue has become so divisive because we have focused so much on the personal liberty piece of the issue. We won't gain ground in the movement by focusing on personal liberty when the tide is probably turning in Rev. Joel Hunter's direction; that is, the "new" pro-life agenda that focuses on environmental issues and poverty and recognizes that abortion becomes dangerous and will actually harm life if illegalized. The new pro-life viewpoint is going to gain traction in our new, post-partisan, transformational political climate. I do believe that we can preserve women's individual rights and liberties through talking their talk, at least for now.

Framing a Reproductive Justice Agenda for the Obama Administration

2008-11-11T19:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/10/31/the-future-sexual-and-reproductive-health

A good summary of what ought to take place for the health of women in America and globally.

Why not leave Lieberman behind?

2008-11-10T20:55:00.000-08:00

Obama really IS a Christian

My proof? Obama’s decision to embrace Sen. Joe Lieberman with open arms reflects a love-thine-enemy attitude.

Well maybe it isn’t as lovey-dovey as all that, but it is as close as one can get in politics.

Despite the fact that Sen. Lieberman campaigned for Sen. John McCain in the Presidential campaign, President-elect Obama has expressed that Sen. Lieberman should still caucus with the Democrats. Former President Clinton has agreed, and has made calls to Democrats encouraging them not to ostracize Lieberman. So why this Christian-like, Gandhi-esque turning-of-the-other-cheek? Why not burn Lieberman in effigy for not backing the wildly popular Obama, the first Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter to win the popular vote, the candidate who gave McCain an electoral-vote-spanking on November 4?

The answer is at least twofold. First, Sen. Lieberman wasn’t supporting an arch-enemy of the Democratic party. As divisive and disastrous as his campaign was, Sen. McCain has a long record of getting along with Democrats. It is not as if Lieberman ran around cavorting with a Ted Stevens or a Trent Lott or a George W. Bush.

Before the Palin selection, the campaign-suspension, the “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” gaffe and the other little disasters that basically ended the McCain campaign, McCain wasn’t an easy candidate for some Democrats to run against. Reportedly after her primary loss, Sen. Hillary Clinton and McCain had a long, loving conversation; they’ve been described as political war buddies who share deep respect for each other. McCain has long supported campaign finance reform and has more recently expressed support for pro-environmental policies. McCain has supported federal funding for stem cell research (though not without hesitation). McCain himself probably won’t be an enemy of the Obama administration, so Lieberman probably shouldn’t be turned into one, either.

The other reason Lieberman isn’t being punished for his decision to support McCain is that despite the sweeping Democratic victory on November 4, Obama will need as many Senators and Congresspersons as possible to back his initiatives (first and foremost, his economic plans). The decisions that will be required of Obama are going to be tough and may not win popular support. Digging our country out of its dire economic straits may require even more expensive economic stimuli, and Obama has indicated that he plans to push at least one more bailout package, one that will help Americans affected by the mortgage crisis. Working to bring people together—including his political opponents—is a good way to start building support. Ultimately, Obama would only hurt himself by ostracizing Lieberman.

Since Obama’s victory on November 4, some in pundit land have posed the question of whether Obama will be able to pull the country along with him in an ideological way, as Reagan did during the 80s. But before he can begin to pull the country anywhere, Obama has to bring people together—that, really, has been his primary campaign promise. Extending an olive branch to Lieberman is a good start.

An Oldie but a Goodie

2008-11-10T19:59:00.001-08:00

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004001-1,00.html

This is a very astute piece from back in 2003, when Senator Trent Lott was ostracized by his own party leadership for his comments praising Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat Presidential campaign. Though I hesitate to give credit to the modern Republican party for working in any active way to resolve racial divides, I do believe that the Bush Administration has symbolically improved the status of African Americans. He appointed both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to serve as Secretary of State; Rice also served as National Security Advisor. Both had very high-profile positions; they were always in the newspapers and on TV as representatives of the Bush administration both at home and abroad. It may be that Powell and Rice have helped to make some Americans and world leaders feel more comfortable with the idea of African Americans serving in high offices; Powell and Rice may have helped lessened latent and blatant racism in the United States and around the world. Perhaps their high-profile involvement in the Bush Administration for the past eight years helped--at least symbolically--to prepare America and the world for Obama's candidacy, his victory and his Presidency.

Peggy Noonan on both candidates

2008-10-31T04:34:00.000-07:00

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html

Rachel Maddow on evolving political ideologies, and other stuff

2008-10-27T20:28:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7p_s53zkDI

Go Rachel!

Reverse Bradley Effect

2008-10-26T22:56:00.000-07:00

Some have suggested that an Obama victory on November 4 could be derailed by the emergence of the “Bradley effect,” hearkening back to the 1982 California Governor’s race where Tom Bradley, an African American candidate, polled high but ultimately scored low with voters and lost the election. Many attributed Bradley’s loss to the idea that while most Californians said publicly that they would vote for Bradley, they couldn’t bring themselves to actually vote for an African American man once the polling station curtain closed behind them.

I have for several months now felt that America might see the Bradley effect in this election—but this time, in reverse. Many Americans in conservative parts of the country may nod their heads in agreement with their families, friends and fellow churchgoers who express support for the Republican ticket and/or disdain for the Democratic ticket and Mr. Obama specifically.

But once they duck into their polling place, they are free to vote for Obama, and nobody will ever know their secret.

My largely instinctive belief in a reverse Bradley effect has been based on the simple reality that America is not where it was in 1982—we have entered a new era in which racism, though far from being eradicated, is not quite as pervasive, ugly or acceptable. And Mr. Obama has been campaigning for nearly two years—enough time for many early skeptics to warm to him and confidently support his candidacy. So even though a community may identify as conservative, there may be a critical mass of voters within those communities who are quietly supporting Obama.

I was encouraged today, when I was phonebanking to Indiana voters on behalf of the Obama campaign. Indiana of course is a "swing" state but has many conservative voters, many of which I spoke with on the phone and many of whom slammed the phone down when I said I said I am a volunteer for Obama's campaign. (One quite charming Indiana voter said he "ain't voting for no half-breed.")

However I spoke with one Indiana woman who, after I identified myself as an Obama volunteer, asked me in a low, hesitant voice “When I vote, will anyone know who I vote for?”

“No,” I replied, “The decision you make at the polling place is confidential. Nobody will ever know who you vote for.”

“Okay,” she said, sounding reassured. “Well, I plan to vote for Obama.”

This woman may express hesitance because she lives in a state that is generally a red state and she clearly has conservative McCain supporters around her. She may live among people whose identities are intertwined with being “conservative” and/or “Republican” and whose political discourse reflects this. She may not feel comfortable voicing her opinion given the political climate in which she lives. But this woman, and the people surrounding her, are also watching the news, hearing the speeches of both candidates, feeling the effects of a flailing economy and the Iraqi occupation, and in light of all of the above, at least some of them may want to vote Democratic this time around.

And they don’t have to tell anybody.

Valuable critique of the Obama campaign, but no praise for Mr. Bush

2008-10-24T12:29:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/syed.muslim/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

While she makes valid points, the author's praise for Mr. Bush's decision to visit mosques and otherwise campaign with Muslim Americans neglects that such campaigning has been self-serving, while his policy decisions have hurt Muslims in America and around the world. And, as Gen. Powell stated, the Republican party has fomented hatred and fear against Muslim Americans. I don't defend Mr. Obama's decision to keep Muslim Americans at bay, but I do believe the substance of his policies and his leadership generally will help Muslim Americans and all racial and religious minorities in America.

Eugene Jarecki's "The American Way of War"

2008-10-21T14:24:00.000-07:00

Eventually I will write a review of this book, but for now, I want to spread the word.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Way-War-Missiles-Misguided/dp/1416544569/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224624174&sr=1-1