I’ll Continue To Fight, But… FDR Would be Ashamed

I’ll continue to fight to get liberals and progressives elected, but the current batch of elected Dems are a bunch of disappointing, unimaginative pansies (not all, of course — but far too many of them). And, please, spare me the rationalization arguments regarding “political reality,” “the obstacles that red state Dems face,” and all that crap that some find convincing and soothing. A monkey with an IQ over 40 understands and is, perhaps, convinced by those rationalizations; it’s just that unlike a monkey with an IQ of 40, I’ve come to expect better from primates of a higher order.

Elected Dems that voted for cloture lack spirit and fight. The political sons and daughters of our greatest president should bow their heads in shame, they don’t deserve such rich legacy:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

FDR – October 31, 1936 [link]

I will fight for liberals and progressives, but I will not fight for anyone that undermines the gains that America made during FDR’s stewardship… I will not fight for anyone that turns their back on their ideological heritage, parentage. Too many of today’s Democrats are turning their back on FDR’s rich legacy.

A Progressive Rifle Association

Over at Dailykos.com I was asked:

What would be the difference between a Liberal gun group and the NRA?

And here’s how I responded:

I presume that the differences would be substantial, at least in terms of the new organization’s politics and issue advocacy.

The biggest difference I suppose, as you suggest, is that a progressive rifle association would not be absolutist when it comes to sensible gun regulation. I mean, just as we progressives have been made to accept that in rural areas some people “need” to carry weapons for whatever reason; well, people in those rural areas should understand that in our metropolitan centers it makes sense to more strictly regulate the owner ship of hand guns and larger caliber automatic weapons.

Now, in terms of their recreational and sports activities, I suppose that the two organizations would not be all that different. Now, I don’t know what the recreational activities the NRA provides, but I would presume that any progressive rifle association would conduct the following:

• Fire arms safety
• Conservation programs
• Target practice
• Fire arms collection

And many other activities that progressive fire arms enthusiasts would enjoy.

The biggest gain from something like this, aside from the opportunity for progressive gun enthusiast to come together, is that such an organization would throw a wrench in the Republican grassroots machinery, by potentially obscuring — if not out right taking away — the gun issue away from Republicans.

Jesus Cares for the Poor…

It is encouraging to see that we, progressives, are finally figuring out that we must be more vocal and assertive if we’re to “win the hearts and minds” of our fellow Americans. With that in mind, South Dakota Democrats have taken to the streets:

Identity Politics II

Aside from merely interesting, race/ethnic or identity politics is such a curious subject — particularly as it relates to African-American and European-American relations, given the “odious history of slavery” (and all that came after) in our country. Increasingly, however, when we speak of race relations, the picture MUST be more complex than merely how it’s routinely framed; that is, I belive that when the phrase “race relations” is uttered, it’s often used as shorthand for “black and white race relations”. Of course, in many parts of the country this dynamic still holds; however, more and more, specially in our urban centers (particularly in the so-called “Blue States”), when we speak of race relations solely in terms of “black and white”, we leave out a growing numbers of Americans.

I’m a 31 year old Latino that, like many progressives, specially non-European American progressives, my formative introduction to politics and community activism was largely influenced by my early involvement in identity politics organizations (i.e., Latino student organizations). Accordingly, much of my early political consciousness was centered around the idea of Chicanismo and of bridging nationalistic schisms among the various Latino communities — so that Latinos in the US could more uniformly assert political influence. My friends and I saw the African-American activist community of the 50s and 60s as the model to follow. Now, please keep in mind that we were just a bunch of very young people looking for ways to help our community, and our organizing efforts often fell miles short of the goals. However, my friends and I all learned many important lessons.

The most important lesson that I learned from my early experience with organizations centered around identity politics was to recognize the limits of that model of community organizing. Hmmm… perhaps that’s too strong a statement, rather, I should say, personally, I found the model of identity politics organizing to be limiting. Of course, racism persists and it always will. Of course, homophobia persists and it always will. Of course, sexism persists and it always will. Of course, xenophobia persists and it always will. Why do I belive that these social maladies will always exists? Because, like terrorism, these are conditions that cannot be 100% eradicated; as long as the name of the game is access to finite resources, the need for a scapegoat will persists. But, as I tend to do, I’ve gonne off in a tangent… back to my point.

What I found personally limiting about identity politics organizing is how hard it was to abandon the old models, and to look at things anew and across communities. Now, I ended up finding the traditional socioeconomic model (nothing new about it), rather than the identity politics model, more flexible and better suited for the populist (and I hope, progressive) politics that’s just around the bend. For me, this doesn’t mean that the dialogue on race relations ends. However, I personally find the need for a socioeconomic dialogue, across communities, increasingly resonant and, too, think that this conversation would afford us a much wider net.

Let me just add: as long as the social maladies that I listed above persist, there’ll exist the need for the identity politics organizing model; and, too, as long as socioeconomic disparities persist, there’ll be the need for the socioeconomic (progressive populist) model. Therefore, it looks like those of us in the progressive community that advocate or emphasize one approach over the other, will need to collaborate, coordinate and depend on each other — just as our opposition, the corporatist and social conservatives, have done in the other side.

“Separation of Church and State is Absolute”

I came across this on Talking Points Memo, via Andrew Sullivan :

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. — John F. Kennedy

President Kennedy was right then, and he remains correct now — and always.