In these days of musical famine, where the industry responsible for bringing new talent to the forefront is very much still hemorrhaging money left and right, the latest buzz frequently focuses on Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, better known by her stage name, Lady Gaga. But, as often is the case, Lady Gaga's politics and provocative behavior frequently overshadow the songcraft and the melody. Her videos and stage act are sexually subversive and highly controversial affairs, focusing in particular on willfully flipping gender roles and gendered assumptions upside down. She has spoken out vocally on behalf of LGBT rights and is herself openly bisexual, though she has since expressed regret at the admission, stating that she recognizes that the confession might have been perceived purely as a means of attaining cheap attention. When the stigma of being out for much of the community is still a liability rather than an asset, Lady Gaga did not want to be seen as another bisexual-for-headlines celebrity.
Meanwhile, young Feminists are often lumped together into a catch-all umbrella term known as the Third Wave, a construct that satisfies no one and yet has to suffice since no one can think of anything better. It's an unsatisfying qualifier at best, but does nonetheless capture the general sympathies of Generation X and Generation Y women's rights activists. Though its mere existence remains frustratingly lodged under the radar of many people, just as invisible and unknown as the broad extent of its stated agenda, it lives and thrives for those who have tapped into it. Those committed deeply to its continued health recognize the challenges at play, the sort that keep it in line with a niche interest group rather than a fully integrated part of the discussion. So this is why that a movement desperate to find a point-to spokesperson for its causes has adopted Lady Gaga, even when the woman in question has bristled and hedged a bit at adopting the label for herself. Any organization or movement looking for increased visibility and instant identification in the wider world often seeks a celebrity or highly public figure to call its own and so it is with the Third Wave's courting of Gaga.
Feministing and Feministe, two of the largest, most established, and longest running feminist blogs routinely feature the output of or miscellaneous content pertaining to Lady Gaga. One can be sure that the instant the latest video is posted, Gaga's most recent interview is published, or some snippet of criticism finds its way into the public consciousness that it will quickly appear on the front page of the bigger sites. After being posted, the participation and interest level among readers and regular contributors will very noticeably spike. The purely sensationalist aspect of Lady Gaga's public persona is, of course, to be attributed to much of this massive fascination, but to reduce her to merely a provocateur would be an unfair characterization. She does have quite a bit to say, though how she says it can easily be confused with or sometimes even muted by her means of presentation.
Survey Third Wave communities and one descriptive phrase keeps coming up over and over again regarding Lady Gaga---badass. In such spaces, no higher compliment could ever be paid than that. When so many women feel that their voices are routinely stifled or that they've been conditioned to stay silent while men talk first and act first, young feminists understandably find something courageous and enviable about women, particularly women their own age, who force the world to accept them on their own terms. Furthermore, Lady Gaga's music videos in particular have directly, though a bit clumsily at times, taken on questions of same-sex attraction between women and done so in terms that are far closer to the way it actually exists in reality. The pure fantasy and grotesque parody of lesbianism, itself a construct clearly adopted by men, is at least pushed to the background of her work rather than set forth as the truth.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Lady Gaga has recently been the subject of wild, unsubstantiated, often internet-driven speculation as to whether or not she is really a hermaphrodite. In her latest video, entitled "Telephone", she has seemingly put that rumor to rest, so to speak, though I would be shocked if others just as bizarre and scurrilous were not to follow. Feminist communities in the Third Wave have deliberately made room to incorporate queer voices into the discussion, so Gaga's let-it-all-hang-out style resonates well with a group eager to dissect and deconstruct homophobic and sexist attitudes as a means of properly dispensing with the bigotry in an attempt to get at the truth underneath.
Still, Lady Gaga's output, be it as a recording artist or as an activist isn't a complete, satisfying fit with Feminism. Her entire shtick, be it her music or her music videos, traverse the same basic ground as many others who have come before her. I find what she stands for much more interesting and original than the music itself, which is rather derivative to these ears. I suppose as well that I have a different attitude regarding the objectification of the female form. Far from a prude, I still believe that while it might seem empowering for a woman to make a conscious decision to show off skin for whatever reason, rather than have that decision be forced upon her, the ultimate end is the same.
Gaga's latest video finds her in some version or another of undress, and regardless of the intentions, only a very few will be in on the gag. The average viewer is bound to notice the titillation and miss the commentary. While the obvious statement set forth does speak to the idea that women ought not be subject to nearly constant scrutiny regarding their own sexuality in ways that a man never would be, I'm not sure a brash response, one in effect throwing the sexist assumption back in the faces of those who hold it is the best strategy ever devised.
Still, like my fellow feminists, I can't fault her for her intentions. Rather than lower the boom, I'd rather state that I appreciate anyone who is willing to risk being misunderstood. As I age I find myself increasingly disinclined to split hairs. After all, we come to a greater understanding in our own time, and each of us rests somewhere along that great continuum. Learning continues forever, as does development. Few of us fit neatly into the exacting parameters of any movement, and our unique humanity may be the reason why. Though we ourselves would never appreciate anyone who put us in a confining and vastly limiting box, we are often frustrated when our heroes can't manage the same trick. We may need to understand that there's a certain fluidity with labels just as surely as there is with human sexuality and gender. The same goes with feminists, Lady Gaga, as well as you and me.
With the passage of time, fellow Friends at meeting have come to me with helpful suggestions. They insist I should read this book, or this epistle of George Fox, or this collection of essays by one of our Society's notables. Obligingly I have read these one by one and am certainly fortunate that I now have a better understanding of Quaker history and how everything came together in space and time to make the faith the way it exists today. It is always helpful to see the intersections and make the connections throughout time that link the past with the present. Indeed, as history was my major in college and has been a lifelong passion, my interest already leans towards such pursuits. Certainly nothing I read was ever taught in any history class I took, even in graduate school. Each have been fascinating reads, but as I dug deeper and deeper into them, I couldn't help but ask myself, "Why have we hidden our light under a bushel?"
Beyond spiritual functions, I've gotten the same treatment from people who feel as though I need to do my homework first before I step any further into any activist group, association, or organization.
If you'll forgive the archaic sexism of the passage, the King James Bible renders Matthew 5:15 as
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
This passage has given rise to a familiar idiom, the act of hiding one's light under a bushel. It doesn't matter what gathering of believers I attend nor whichever secular group that receives my membership that I don't see something along these same lines. Assuming you talk to the right person or persons, you'll uncover much that is inspirational and fascinating. Yet, why not extend full understanding or full comprehension to all without the need for intermediaries? Is that which I speak merely an oversight of habit that must be corrected by whomever speaks up loudly enough? Or, is it some deliberate distrust of those who have yet to suitably prove their mettle or commitment? The intentions may not be sinister, but they are certainly detrimental, regardless of why or how.
As always, I find the beginning of any movement the most fascinating---the first efforts where, in this case, one man's vision became adopted and advanced by other believers. This initial flowering appeals to my senses most keenly. Likewise, my favorite musical songs are appreciated for the moment at which the opening chords and melody blossoms into the hook. I am drawn to the instant at which the attention of everyone is drawn to this new creation. I am also drawn to the promise of wholesale fulfillment and with it the incredible possibility of that of that which might lie beyond. I extend this same interest to a desire to build from the ground up in my own life and by my own example. The passage has particular resonance with a Quaker audience, particularly with our belief that the Light of God exists within each of us.
To provide some contrast, in my activist work, I keep a close eye on the issues in debate within Feminist groups, particularly those issues which pertain specifically to Young Adults like me who wish to contribute to the movement. A week or so ago, an articulate and intelligent voice wrote a highly pertinent but also very critical essay taking aim at The National Organization for Women, known to most as NOW. The post took the organization to task for its failings to stay current to the existing political debate while expressing no small frustration that it seemed like there was nothing the author could do personally to make the internal changes necessary. Even from within, the author's voice had fallen on deaf, or at least uncomprehending ears.
The essay was, I am happy to report, received in the spirit in which it had been intended, and a response by NOW was drafted and posted. In it, the reader was greeted to a very well-researched narrative detailing how the organization had been founded, providing the names of the people instrumental in putting it together, and documenting well the great struggles of those who expended the time and energy to build it up from the roots. It was a fascinating read, but as I dug deeper and deeper into it, bouncing from the story and contribution of one largely unknown person to another, I couldn't help but ask myself, "Why have they hidden their light under a bushel?" Certainly nothing I read was ever taught in any history class I took, even in graduate school.
If it be modesty or shyness on the part of those who have the strategies and wisdom, then this can be corrected. If it be to avoid attention, others more comfortable can vocalize that which needs to be shared with a larger audience. Friends and friends alike, what if the solution existed within us? What if that solution could be realized and put into place so that we could best attack a lingering problem? What if we didn't we didn't hide our lights under a bushel---all of us? What sort of world would we live in then?
The drupal software used to create their website is opensource.
We just need some webspace, and some people willing to do promotion on the other blogs like metamars does only in a less condescending way. We also need someone to start a youtube and facebook group for us. http://drupal.org/
I thought the green tea party would be a good name. No you don't have to be a green, or a democrat. You just have to be a progressive. Our goal will be results on things like government supported universal healthcare, ending the wars, and civil rights. We don't advocate violence, but our main concern is not civility, either. Our slogan would be something like "real change!" or "results not hope!" I don't think the ofaers or the kossacks could coopt something like that.
Let's work together on this. Many people here have different talents. I have already created one drupal website for my linux disto u-lite. http://u-lite.org . I don't have the time to write though, and I know nothing about making youtube videos.
Lord knows I'm not village party shill, so it would be real grassroots, unlike the tea or coffee parties!
Oh, I guess in order to get attention on this blog one needs a music video!
I recently posted in a diary by ANKOSS, called Bloggers awake! I very much like the general thrust of that diary, which concluded with
The facts are plain. Blogging without direct action is an impotent evolutionary dead-end for Internet politics. We must learn to use the Internet to mobilize EFFECTIVE political action. It is time to awaken from the enfeebling trance of empty emotional blog posting. It is time to take action.
However, the diary specifically suggested an action against a corporation, instead of an "action" targetting government. And even worse, IMO, was that there was no mention of an "action" targetting government, which had the specific electoral goal of getting better Congress critters elected.
President Obama has proposed a whopping $54 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants.
What does that mean? If the costly new nuclear plants aren't finished, then taxpayers cover the huge financial loss.
If they are built, then we're stuck with power plants that generate overpriced electricity and create deadly radioactive waste that will remain toxic for thousands of years.
Either way, the nuclear industry wins, and we lose.
Nuclear power creates deadly radioactive waste, from the mining process onwards. It's got a scary history: think Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Just recently, a nuclear plant in Vermont was ordered shut down after radioactive tritium, which is linked to cancer, leaked from the plant into local water supplies.
Nuclear power is so financially risky that even Wall Street won't bet on it. It's a public health and financial disaster waiting to happen.
Instead, our government should promote energy efficiency and a decentralized power system based on safe, clean, renewable energy.
A strong aftershock struck Chile on Sunday, a day after a destructive 8.8-magnitude earthquake left hundreds of people dead and a long swath of the country in smoky rubble.
The death toll was expected to rise, particularly around Concepción, Chile's second-largest metropolitan area, which is roughly 70 miles from the quake's center. The aftershock was reported around 8:30 local time Sunday morning from the capital of Santiago, where it shook buildings, according to Reuters.
More than 1.5 million people have displaced by the quake, according to local news services that quoted the director of Chile's emergency management office. In Concepción, which appeared to be especially hard hit, the mayor said Sunday morning that 100 people were trapped under the rubble of a building that had collapsed, according to Reuters.
Elsewhere in Concepción, cars lay mangled and upended on streets littered with telephone wires and power cables. A new 14-story apartment building fell, while an older, biochemical lab at the University of Concepción caught fire.
In other words, what Chilean President Michele Bachelet called a "catastrophe."
Time, again, to get out the checkbook. Please remember that this is the internet. Heroics aren't required, all that's needed are large amounts of people giving small amounts of money.
Save The Children -- Save The Children is sending an emergency assessment team to Chile, and is asking for contributions to its Children's Emergency Fund to aid these efforts.
World Vision -- The international development, relief and advocacy organization has already sent its first relief flight, from Bolivia this afternoon, with supplies like tarps, blankets, plastic sheeting, and collapsible water containers for survivors. Support these efforts with earmarked gifts to families that need them.
AmeriCares -- Vice President of Emergency Response, Christoph Gorder, says AmeriCares is sending medical supplies and humanitarian aid to Chile. Make a direct contribution to AmeriCares' Chilean earthquake fund.
Habitat for Humanity -- Habitat for Humanity has a continual presence in Chile, where the group has constructed more than 1,300 homes. Habitat will be essential in reconstruction efforts, especially in hard-hit rural areas.
International Medical Corps -- IMC has a presence in dozens of countries around the globe, providing immediate medical care to those affected by natural disasters. Contribute to its emergency response fund.
ShelterBox -- International disaster relief agency ShelterBox has mobilized a team to bring aid to Concepcion, Chile's second largest city, which saw the worse damage.
There are other groups I like to support I have not listed here. I will update this later to add them. Also, I have some antipathy to some of the groups here, particularly World Vision, because of their proselytizing activities to indigenous people in the high Andes, but right now I think the primary idea is to get aid on the ground. There doesn't seem to me to be time to apply litmus tests to the groups that can help right now.
Update: 2/28/10, 1:15 pm ET: Please add to groups that can help the following:
Tigers are on the brink of extinction. This fact brought me initially surprise, and then immediately grief, despair, rage, anger and sadness. So, I've written about it-- this is the fourth essay in a week -- in an effort to alert others to this catastrophe. I consider the extinction of tigers and other big cats an environmental emergency, an impending disaster.
It happened once, twice; I trust the third time could not charm me more. I have witnessed the power of a gesture, one made without words. I have seen the light that glows when people connect in quiet ways. Now experienced on more than one occasion, I have come to appreciate the peaceful power of consistent communication. I had not fully acknowledged what could be accomplished until I arrived on the scene, alone. Then I saw it. I felt it. I could hardly believe that a single steadfast individual, could convey a message without words, and still receive such a resounding response. Yet, while there, it occurred. I was struck by what had not been apparent for near a decade. The stance of a quiet soul, stated calmly, clearly, and with care, can move more persons than I ever imagined.
I know now that it is foolishness personified to believe that the Democratic Party, nor any of the existing spheres of influence currently established will provide the strong leadership we need. Back in 2006, I was, of course, certainly elated that we had won back control of the House and the Senate, but my reservations then were that the core of the majority body were the same bumblers and bloodless supposed "leaders" whose inaction led to a loss of control in the first place, back in 1994. Unfortunately, these fears seem to have been confirmed. Some have proposed term limits to counter-balance this tendency and while I have my own reservations regarding that solution, I know that surely there must be a better way than what we have now. Long ago, my home state, Alabama, knew that its concerns were likely subordinate to that of wealthier, more well-connected states, so it consistently has elected the same weasels to office, knowing that with seniority comes power and with power comes the ability to set legislative priority.
Even dating back a hundred years ago or more, the state continued to elect the same decrepit, graying elder statesmen for this very reason. The most notable example of this was when, out of fear that these men would die in office, a special election was held, whereby voters could select not only these long-standing candidates for perhaps the last time, but also those who would immediately take power the instant they passed away. "They will be our pallbearers", one of the ancients was reported to have said at the time. This unique balloting situation was partially due to the fact that Alabama was a poor state and couldn't afford the additional expense of printing out a second round of ballots if one of its aging representatives died, but it was also due to the fact that the state wasn't willing to give up its share of influence in the Congress until it absolutely had to, either. If Robert Byrd runs again, one wonders if the voters of West Virginia would be similarly inclined to pursue this strategy. One also wonders if this unique course of action had been employed in Massachusetts had Ted Kennedy's illness come to light back in 2006 how different the situation facing us today would have been.
I think part of what we are struggling with is an ability to adjust to uncertainty. I have recently noticed that workers in their forties and fifties, those who have paid into the system for years, are now beginning to get laid off in scores. First came the low-wage earners, then came the young, now a group previously insulated from layoffs. This makes for an angry, confused electorate, one which might finds itself unable to construct much in the way of a unified front from within, but still votes to throw the bums out when it comes time to cast a ballot. What I do know, based on observing larger trends over time, is that the economy will come back eventually. This is, of course, not exactly comfort food to those drawing unemployment and subsisting on a fraction of their previous income. And, we must admit, nor is it a good sign for the party in power.
We can tout a stimulus as a job saver, but the true measure of its impact might potentially not be measured for years. The same goes for health care reform. What leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many about the program is that it begins collecting the necessary tax revenue to properly fund it almost the instant it is enacted, yet is not fully implemented until 2014. Not only that, some parts of it will not be in full force until a few years after that. While this implementation stage might be the only way the system can go into effect without toxic shock, that very fact has and will prove to be a powerful talking point for Republicans and disaffected Independents already skeptical of increased taxation, for whatever means.
In situations like these, the natural inclination is to look for a historical antecedent, and some point back to the 1982 Mid-Congressional elections as well as the 1966 cycle. Neither of these fit the profile neatly. The Democratic majorities in the House, for example, were far greater than they are now. In 1966, the Democratic party shed 47 seats but still had a majority cushion of more then 50 seats. In 1982, Republicans picked up 26 seats, but the majority Democrats still had over 100 more than the GOP. No one knows the number of seats that will be lost this coming November, but I still am unconvinced that control will change hands in either chamber. What is more likely is severely reduced numbers which will likely require more conciliatory and concessionary measures with minority Republicans. And, to be blunt, perhaps that isn't all bad since resounding majorities in both the House and Senate have not prevented legislation from proceeding forward at anything more than a snail's pace. The Republicans may have put all of their winnings on obstructionism, but inter-party fighting has proved itself a far more effective opponent than anything the GOP has flung at it.
What concerns me more is the completely justified anger at Wall Street and big business, who have methodically bought up every seat at the bargaining table if not other seats in other contexts. This sort of conduct is indefensible from whichever context it is examined, and President Obama and the Democrats in power could launch attacks against this base inequality that would prove to be very popular with voters. Though a few Republican voices might sound the alarm, it is a position that rarely goes sour and can always tap into an endless source of anger, frustration, and bile. Populist anger at the wealthy is an ancient tactic and one that even the most fervent second-guesser can do little more than scream about, since few actually will listen, or have much in the way of general sympathy.
As for more contentious matters, Democrats must avoid letting their opponents frame the issue for them. To some extent, I understand anyone's fear of big government, if only from the context of reduced efficiency of work and decreased quality of service. Since the Recession began, I have noticed that in many government agencies, budget shortfalls and layoffs have gummed up or slowed to a trickle what would seem to be rudimentary, straightforward processes. In so doing, this has given government employees no incentive to do an efficient job. If you will please pardon, I will again refer to a personal example from my own life. When I filed for food stamps two and a half months ago, the framework existed to allow and encourage claimants to send out applications online. But, as I found when it took twice as long as it ever should have to receive my benefits, budget deficits prevented the agency from being able to hire and train the necessary people to process these online claims. Thus, my file sat on a desk for a month and if I had not contacted an advocacy agency, it would probably still be there.
In Progressive circles we talk frequently about Good Government™ and its enormous potential to do a massive amount of laudable things. I, of course, believe in it as well, though I recognize that up to now it is still a dream kicked further and further down the road. President Obama was swept into power talking about the merits of smart government and, lamentably, up to this point, I'm afraid I don't see it. Yet, neither am I willing to sagely propose, as some do, that there is some purity in the private sector. Different name, same trough. I suppose it depends on that which you fear the least. It is the formation and perpetuation of systems which have shortchanged all of us that leads people to make conclusions as to the ultimate success or failure of any new enterprise, government or otherwise. Our pessimism might not be justified, but our skepticism is not.
Though I too have engaged in finger-pointing as to why we've reached this climacteric a mere year after it seemed like we were on top of the world, I recognize that it is ultimately a self-defeating activity. In the end, it doesn't matter whose fault it was, unless that entity or collective body is willing to reform itself. Barack Obama was a rock star once, not a vacuous celebrity as some tried to paint him. Having released a critical disappointment that didn't sell nearly as well as advertised, he is now facing the first openly hostile reviews of his career. Yet, have no fear, fans. Americans love a comeback, particularly with an extensive tour attached to it. Someone as talented and as capable easily has the dexterity and strength to exceed our wildest expectations again, but only if he has the help he needs and he presses an agenda with a reasonable chance of succeeding.
No person is an island. We have wept and prayed and fasted and purged and been delayed by the same impasse. My own contribution to a growing canon of proposed solutions is that we take a more active stance within government itself. Anyone can lock arms, hold hands, and sing stirring songs. Anyone can find themselves beholden to Protest Culture™, whereby one assumes that rallies, marches, and symbolic posturing are sufficient in and of themselves. Anyone can oppose and find with opposition a million followers, a million voices of affirmation, and a million friends and supporters validating each and every sentient point. We can hold the feet of our elected Representatives to the fire, but I believe in the value of electing new feet that won't need to be forced towards the fireplace on a maddeningly consistent basis. This is within our power.
I am reminded of how much talk yesterday revolved around a plea for us to not sanitize the legacy of Dr. King and to keep his memory alive as a revolutionary who made many in positions of power very uncomfortable. Indeed, if all we remember him today was as a purveyor of sentimental, feel-good platitudes, then we forget that he was more than that. Far more. Had he been merely Santa Claus, he would not have been assassinated. At times, traditional liberalism has been reduced all too often to a never-ending Pete Seeger concert, with the sting removed and without any obligation whatsoever to be self-reflective. When I left a more conservative, more Christ-centered faith of my own accord and moved towards unashamedly activist liberal faith, I always found it curious how easily the John Lennon song "Imagine" was adopted as a kind of mission statement of sorts. If one examines the lyrics literally, its lyrics advocate an atheistic, anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist Utopia---a fact that gets overlooked due to the attractiveness of the melody that obscures what even a cursory examination of the words implies.
It is time for Democrats to be bold and edgy again. I see this all the time in the blogosphere, but I rarely see it among elected representatives. And even when a Representative or Senator does stick his or her neck out, it is usually to make a splash by forcefully uttering some patently inflammatory or controversial statement, knowing full well it will be media catnip. The immediate impact is usually positive, but few know how to push their agenda beyond immediate shock value and dramatic statements that sound compelling at first hearing, but often are a bit on the childish end of the spectrum by the end. And, it hardly needs adding, even these sorts of attitudes are in short supply, all told. No one ever confused the base as being anything less than fired up and ready to go. If those elected to serve us are not willing to listen to us, we have an obligation to replace them with those who will, and in so doing, being willing to drafting candidates from within our ranks to fill the slots. Those willing to complain are legion, but those willing to serve are often not. Participatory Democracy does not depend on a particular Patrician class we deem the experts and the only sorts that can get the job done. The skill set needed now and forever is only the willingness to run and the ability to learn the game.
As many of you have been doing, I am nervously monitoring the special election for Massachusetts senator. By now, one would hope that no one needs reminding of the repercussions and consequences a defeat would portend both for the short term and for the long term, but one would hope also that its instantaneous impact would spur many to make long-deferred reforms. To wit, Coakley's defeat would make a powerful statement to residents in even the bluest of blue states. To wit, liberalism must self-monitor and must fortify itself against a desire to snooze and slumber. Nothing is owed to us in this world and a person is only as successful as his or her last triumph. This realization can be applied well beyond the Democratic party and all the concentric circles of influence and power that feed into it. Indeed, the ripple effects if Scott Brown wins will be felt across the country and will spawn a thousand prophets in the publication wilderness, each proclaiming that the end is nigh for a Democratic majority.
Constipated activist organizations now tapping out a panicked SOS are profuse, but as is my want, I'd like to single out one in particular. One can only hope that if, God forbid, Coakley were to lose, the mainstream Feminist™ organizations currently pushing for her election might be forced to concede that their strategies are out of date and their larger influence is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Coakley's detached Front Porch Campaign did not resonate well with voters inclined to distrust and thus to be turned off by on candidates who seem above kissing babies, shaking hands, and being highly visible to the prospective voter. Though I do not welcome the sense of helplessness that might reverberate through many workplaces come tomorrow night, I know that sometimes people have to learn their lessons the hard way. And in so doing, they have to sometimes have to learn them more than once. Still, how many times do some have to be on the losing end of easily preventable catastrophes before they recognize that the problem is with themselves, not with external factors?
Sloth and entitlement are usually fatal flaws in politics and activism, and at least one recent harsh blogosphere attack against the established players of Feminism™ was penned in an effort to shake them out of their old ways. These organizations do have a function and I'm not advocating that they need to be dismantled, but they do need to step into the times and embrace new realities. The true tragedy is that there are any number of highly qualified women who could be enlisted for the cause and be convinced to run for any number of high elective offices. Instead, someone decides to earmark and denote a particular legislative office for a Female™ and then feels obligated to advance a candidate with the highest possible degree of name-recognition, regardless of whether she is a good fit for the office. In addition to being bad policy, this is tokenism writ large. Tokenism has never truly advanced anyone's noble imperative. What it has done is appease someone's guilt and in so doing serve as a temporary concession rather than a desire to completely integrate women actively into the political process. If we were really committed to the idea of equality, then such decisions would be a matter of course, not a conscious effort towards appeasement.
In this same regard, a prior school of political theory and general leadership philosophy believed that in order to be taken seriously and to survive in a man's world, women in positions of authority ought to strive to be as tough and as masculine as their male counterparts. In effect, as the theory goes, they ought to adopt the pose and guise of a man for fear of seeming weak or being summarily discounted as ineffectual and ineffective as a leader. One would think that thirty or forty years of this would have given us the ability to recognize that sexist and misogynistic attacks come from everywhere, at any time, for any reason. Women who make no apology for "encroaching" into traditionally male spaces will find themselves insulted for any reason at all, really. For example, in the past few days, Coakley has found herself the target of a bizarre remark implying that someone ought to sodomize her with an electrical appliance. One can't get away from the offensive voices, unfortunately, but one can advance the authenticity of self as an excellent counter-weight to push back against the name-callers and childish smears.
I still recall how Hillary Clinton shed tears at a campaign stop shortly before the New Hampshire primary, showing not just a very human, vulnerable side, but also a very feminine side as well. In so doing, she transformed what was expected to be a sound drubbing into an improbable win that gave her campaign new life. Women voters related heavily with the gesture and cast their ballots accordingly; I'm not entirely dissuaded from the notion that some men might have been taken aback in a good way, recognizing that there was more to the candidate the icy, calculating stereotype that made her seem supremely unlikeable and at times threatening to the male voter. If we are ever to live in a world where the content of our character is more important than both the color of our skin and our reproductive organs, we will reach the point that no one ever feels the compulsion to pass, assimilate, or modify one's authentic self to seem more fitting to majority norms. Humanity and with it authenticity is what voters crave more than anything. Policy wonkery and strategy are lost on the average voter who seeks to identify himself or herself personally with the latest slate of candidates for elective office. When we can see ourselves clearly in those who run, then we are compelled to pull a lever for them on Election Day.
I voted, in part, for Barack Obama because I saw parallels between his life story and my own. In particular, the description of his mother closely mirrors my own---a woman passionately devoted to a cause beyond herself who sought to see the world through an optimistic lens, even though many criticized her desire as foolish and a trifle naïve. Others saw their own dreams mirrored in his rhetoric and the possibility of what he represented. Though a year later reality has set in and we are far less enthralled with the President then we were then, we continue to find his policies more objectionable than who he is as a person. Personality has limitations, but it can go a long way. A politician who is disliked as a person must rely on the political atmosphere around him or her, and sometimes only maintains power when his or her opposition is reviled even more.
Competence goes a long way, too, and I know that, speaking from a strictly women's rights perspective, we can't expect to not have reproductive rights compromised for the sake of passing a massive reform act if we are unable to break free from the scourge of tokenism. Victories are won with a collection of smaller successes that, linked together, move closer towards ultimate triumph. An occasional arm-twist, guilt-trip or, worse yet, established tradition of being granted an occasional "favor" in exchange for unwavering support are not going to get us where we need to be. No one would ever confuse that for complete integration and total parity. We should know instinctively what it will take to get there, but the question remains if we are willing to do the hard work on the ground to actualize it. The ivory tower might be cushy and familiar, but it is a universe in and of itself, one wholly removed from any semblance of the actual lives of working people. We have in front of us an opportunity to learn from what will be a debacle whether victory is won or lost. Let's not ignore it.
I am an activist for my people. As I have grown older, I have more likely performed my activism with my words, which is the tool I have had at hand.
Sometimes I am repetitive. I am a teacher. Some lessons are hard. That's a clue to the fact that they are important. Important lessons need to be taught more than once, again and again, time and again, using different words, approaching the issue from different points of view. That's what I do. Some of you claim that I do it "ad nauseam." It's your nausea, not mine.
Many of you know me as the transsexual woman (or whatever you call me...I'm sure that it is not favorable in many instances). Some of you know me as an artist or a poet. Some of you see the teacher in me. Or the glbt activist and PFLAG parent. I am all of these. I am a human being.
I was born in a place and time. I have absorbed the life lessons presented to me since then. I am still learning.
I've tried to pass on what I have learned. I continue to make that effort, in whatever new venues are available, wherever I can find an opened eye or ear.
In recent conversation with a friend, we discussed the means by which any organization or group might best enlighten those who cling to bigoted, ignorant, or otherwise offensive points of view. It is a conversation no different from the very same ones we have in a multitude of related corners, spaces where abstract theorizing has to take the place of hard fact. As an anthropologist, my friend is constantly aware of the intersection where intellect and biological construction meet and couches her views from that point. As she puts it, evolution of any sort is a tediously slow process. We have, for example, still not really advanced to the point that we have gotten the hang of this whole walking upright issue. The human body's propensity to arthritis is but only one of those most visible examples of this fact of reality. If our skeletal construction are but unfinished business, it would stand to reason that many others are too.
jeffroby has written several essays since coming to Docudharma that I think ought to have their own tag. If what he's writing about had its own unique tag, I'd tag this essay under it. But I can't even come up with a properly descriptive word so to hell with you all! Stop nagging me!
Times have changed. What worked back then won't work now. Or rather, anything at all will work if the ground we stand upon is firm.
I've seen that building a movement on quicksand isn't a very good idea. So no thank you to that!
See, I wish I could stand upon the lofty mountain of moral superiority and loftily challenge The Coalition of the Comfortable in a supremely lofty fashion.
Unfortunately, I am still in the process of extricating myself from that Coalition (thus the quicksand analogy), so my house is too glassy for that.
So much of my activism has been and no doubt will be, this process of extrication from the conditioning I have been unable to avoid but which I am now aware of and opposed to.
Buhdy's essays on this ought to be under this unnamed tag as well, come to think of it, at least his "coalition" stuff.
Isn't it an action to really dig deep to see what the ground is upon which you stand?
In the I-Ching there is the hexagram of "The Well." I could write books and books upon that one hexagram, but will limit myself to what I think is pertinent to this essay:
... there are ... prerequisites for a satisfactory political or social organization of mankind. We must go down to the very foundations of life. For any merely superficial ordering of life that leaves its deepest needs unsatisfied is as ineffectual as if no attempt at order had ever been made. ...
Being comfortable also means not going "down to the very foundations of life" and thus will not withstand the strong forces one will encounter as an activist that work from the opposition to shatter our solidarity.
I guess I'm saying politely that I would need something really powerful and deep to hold to when I inevitably hate my closest allies because of my own vain, antisocial and thin-skinned nature.
So that's my grail in a way -- oh, I'm not asking for perfection in this quest, but something I can agree upon with my allies that will withstand any temporary disagreements or distrust.
In this New Year, I resolve to learn the balance between that which I can positively effect and that which I cannot. I make this resolution not in a desire to shirk my responsibility to my fellow person, but out of the understanding that life is too short to hold myself to a series of arbitrary, exacting rules that remove the joy of daily living. This goes beyond the familiar language of the Serenity Prayer and has application to every activist cause of which I espouse. Though we may be tough on the offenders, we are even tougher on ourselves, and that inevitably leads to burn out and soul-killing cynicism. There is no sin in recharging our batteries periodically or at least recognizing that the greater problems which face us will remain no matter how many hours we devote to their eradication or how intensely we seek to amplify the volume to raise public awareness.
For example, dietary laws were extremely important to the First Century Christians, and indeed in still so in many Jewish and Islamic circles (as well as some Christian ones). Moreover, the idea of unity with God by eating a meal was an integral concept within Jewish, Christian, and Pagan traditions. Those who had converted to Christianity from Paganism were uncomfortable consuming food that had been presented as a sacrifice to Pagan gods and asked for guidance. To this, Paul replied,
Someone may say, "I'm allowed to do anything," but not everything is helpful. I'm allowed to do anything, but not everything encourages growth. People should be concerned about others and not just about themselves. Eat anything that is sold in the market without letting your conscience trouble you.
I'm not talking about your conscience but the other person's conscience. Why should my freedom be judged by someone else's conscience? If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it?
I understand the importance of social justice, particularly social justice through food purchase, which has driven a cottage industry. Organic food, for example, was hippie food first, then became yuppie food. Aside from the obvious, however, it is a curious quirk of humanity that we often cast aside one form of rote legalism for another form of it that closely agrees with our current sensibilities. I know of Atheists who are themselves converts from conservative Christianity and in rightly pointing out the restrictive elements of their upbringing, they then adopt a philosophy of their that is no different in its basic construction. We often focus on that which is intolerant, but living a life dictated too heavily by rules and restrictions doesn't just eradicate freedom, it also removes the pleasure and fun of life. I firmly believe that life is to be enjoyed. Enough problems exist with our time here on earth than to be further dragged down and burdened by looking for problems. Furthermore, if we focus on law, we adopt a neurotic posture that revolves around ourselves first and foremost. If, however, we focus on unselfish love, then our concern shifts to other people.
This isn't true just for that which we take into our bodies. Far too often the fear of climate change and global warming leads to its own a kind of legalism that assumes that through an well-intentioned obsession with minimizing our potential damage to the planet that we can somehow fulfill our obligations. Global warming or some form of environmental decay has led some to rush to turn off lights, micromanage the settings of thermostats, and turn noses up at products likely produced by objectionable means. This is, of course, not to say that aiming to be environmentally friendly and less conspicuously consumerist is not worth our time. However, when our lives become Sisyphean to no good end, then we ought to concede that it is our own salvation through works that is predicated on personal conduct that leaves no room for error. If I could teach any lesson to those of us who ascribe to an activist philosophy, that would be it.
In my own life, it is a big temptation to rush to judgment towards those I deem not conducting their own affairs in the manner in which I demand they should. In particular, among online activist forums, a kind of extreme skepticism takes hold among participants. It stems from a collective understanding of just how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant and the ill-informed, and with it comes understandable feeling of despair that nothing one can possibly do will change that fact. Still, if we adopt that stance, we are assuming that people are forever prisoners of their fate and that they can never change for the better. Even though many may never revise their beliefs and may cling to that which we deem unenlightened and maddeningly stupid, we must never forget that there is always a chance that some may see the light. Perhaps it is we who must modify our expectations and take a more realistic position regarding our poor power to add or detract to the tally.
A year or so ago, I taught an online course of American History to technical college students. My students were predominately working class, blue collar toilers who were seeking to further their education by means of attaining certification to achieve a specific higher paying vocation. They were far from the typical college freshmen of which I had once been. With my middle class education and background, I recognized quickly that it was highly unlikely that I would have ever befriended even one of my students, nor gravitated towards the same things as they in my own life. At the beginning of the course, the views of many of my students were identical to those that Progressives often lament or caustically dismiss as hopelessly backwards or offensively naive.
Yet, after I was fortunate enough to really engage and reach my students, I noticed many of those old prejudices were being openly challenged and few were resisting this exercise in liberty and personal freedom. I never sought to change anyone's mind, but what I did note with much satisfaction is that until that instant, no one had ever bothered to expand and broaden their understanding beyond soundbytes and inexact, hackneyed rhetoric. Once the complexities of human nature and historical reality became known to them, one could almost observe the metaphorical light bulb going off. It was a thrilling thing to observe for me, the instructor, and after I took some degree of pride in my hard work, I recognized again how much class differences and economic disparities go into forming a concept of identity and system of belief. Many of those who may have thus far taken a completely opposite political stance to mine never had the opportunities I had. What I often find most frustrating among those who consider themselves worldly and intelligent are that they are usually the most stubbornly intractable regarding entertaining the notion that they could be wrong or that their own personal canon of wisdom might not be as airtight as they claim it is. Those who, like my students, almost have a hero worship of the educated are much easier to enlighten and empower, though with that blank slate comes its own set of responsibility and ethical conduct.
Jesus spoke to those who felt as though they knew-it-all,
Then he said to them, "I can guarantee this truth: Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
This is not to imply that I am infantilizing my students in some kind of exercise of mock pious Paternalism, but rather to note how much easier it is to open the minds of those who have not kept theirs resolutely snapped shut. We are never too smart, nor too old to learn or to be taught a lesson. Elitism begins to creep in whenever we act or think otherwise. Elitism is a enemy of Progressivism as sure as any of the well-documented offenders that never leave our radar screens. Constructing hierarchies of influence locks out those who wish to belong and want a spot at the table. Who cares if they don't fit the profile up front! So what if they can't write a brilliantly crafted blog entry or propose some pithy statement in comments! If we, myself included, were a bit more patient with each other and embraced the idea of a loving family rather than as an outlet for people who desperately want their own views to be validated in a public forum, then we might be making some serious progress. No one doubts how desperately we seek and need a community and how many of us find it within activist political circles, but the shortcomings and the problems cry out for reform just as badly as any number of the worthy causes we demand be addressed.
This then, is my greatest New Year's Resolution,
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
Jesus repeated the question: "Simon son of John, do you love me?" "Yes, Lord," Peter said, "you know I love you." "Then take care of my sheep," Jesus said.
The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."
Eleven months after President Obama took office, many Progressives are feeling understandably shortchanged. We were led to believe that finally a candidate with authentic liberal credentials had a legitimate shot at the White House, and so we embraced pragmatism when the most liberal candidates dropped out of the race. To be sure, there were several voices screaming out that Obama, if elected, would be far more indebted to the center then he ever would be to the left. These were loudest in the blogosphere, by far, and a few of them have recently exercised the cathartic, but ultimately hollow right to say I-told-you-so. This song and dance has historical antecedents that stretch back decades, but it would be best if there were no need to repeat the process once more.
I think we may have put the cart before the horse. I think we might have assumed that reform could be accomplished purely by political means, instead of reform being reached by grassroots mobilization that forced government's hand. Recently we have become aware, once more, that the American political system is not designed for sweeping change. The rules of the Senate were instituted to ensure that those with sober contemplation, not rash passion, ultimately won in the end. We can lament this fact and rightly decry it as anti-democratic and elitist, but the truth of the matter is that this is how the system works. I don't think that the President failed us nearly as much as the system did. In mentioning this, I'd much rather focus on going forward than licking our wounds.
I understand why we placed our trust in Barack Obama. We recognized the destruction wrought by eight years of neoconservative rule and with it the disconcerting notion that government predicated on evil can level its opponents and eviscerate easily. That it is much more difficult to build up rather than ruin is perhaps the toughest lesson of all. But with it comes the realization that established precedent is nearly impossible to reverse when passed. We may be unhappy with the scope of the bill, but we would be wise to celebrate that if someday Republican rule returns, it will be difficult for them to dismantle that which will be signed into law shortly. We should not accept this as any final word on the matter, but neither should we refuse to note how an eighteen-round fisticuff with the American mentality ultimately turned out in the end. This country was forced to confront some of the most massive fault lines that lie deceptively harmless most of the time, until seismic tremors threaten to shake us apart.
Any worthy social movement promising transformative change begins among an oft-quoted small group of thoughtful, committed citizens. The Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights, and our latest struggle for LGBT marriage equality fomented and were codified from well outside the Beltway. Though ultimately legislation was proposed and passed by means of the Legislative branch, the energy and forward momentum swept up a million unsung heroes whose names may be lost to history or relegated to obscure footnotes, but whose bravery and achievements cannot be understated.
While it is touching that during the Presidential Election we temporarily shelved our skepticism as a result of being star-struck, we should not have failed to recognize that leadership comes from everywhere and every corner, not just the occupant of the White House. We focused our entire attention and hung our hopes upon the success or failure of one person, and while it is true that one person can change the world, his or her leadership ability must be augmented by other leaders. These inspirational individuals are frequently not pulled from the ranks of public service. Their occupations vary, just as those who desire change pull from all walks of life and all vocations. It is more leaders and more passion that we need.
Dr. King may have been the towering giant of the Civil Rights Movement, but Ralph Abernathy, Bayard Rustin, Ella Baker, Fred Shuttlesworth, and many others less well-known filled out the inner circle that produced progress on a scale that is still difficult to fully comprehend. Along with the notable names are a million others who are the pride of their city or town, but little more than strangers in other places. I hardly need note that none of the public figures I have outlined were members of the House or the Senate. Reformers are rarely beholden to the political game because it requires a kind of willingness to bend to the prevailing will and howling winds of popular sentiment, else one find oneself out of power. So long as this is the case, real reform measures will be stymied or watered down during the process of deliberation.
I almost need not mention that Congress is meant to work for us, but that it only pays attention to our concerns when we articulate them with force, clarity, and with united purpose. When we are united behind a cause, not a personality, and especially not a party, then the sky is the limit. Making our dreams a reality requires more than one election cycle and we ought to really contemplate why it took a once-in-a-generation candidate to patch up the variety of competing interests and disconnected factions of the Democratic party to achieve a sweeping victory.
Instead of cursing our fate and gnashing our teeth out of betrayal, we should re-organize, but this time around the issues that our elected representatives either will not touch, or will whittle away to ineffectual mush. We have before us a fantastic opportunity to change our priorities and establish successful strategies. Legend has it that right before they put the rope around his neck, the labor leader Joe Hill stated, "Don't Mourn! Organize!" Liberalism is alive and well and if we learn from this experiment we will not have failed. The new birth of freedom long promised is ours for the taking, provided we grasp hold of it. We will live to fight another day.
"You have to begin somewhere" I remember somebody telling me that when I first started lifting weights in a gym. (Not much weight on the bar, you see. IIRC, there was actually no weight on the bar.) However, it's true in a lot of areas - like all of them.
So, even though I'm not a Democrat, I'm trying to help jeffroby get the 'Full Court Press' going for Dems. (I expect I'll try and help Republicans get their version going, if I can find any Republican-leaning citizens who are interested). Because we all have to start somewhere, and complaining in the blogosphere and petitioning those in power don't seem very effective, we need to truly dump sellout Congress critters.
Chris Bowers has wisely advised us to do things correctly, legally speaking, so I sent an email to a lawyer I had retained, who I knew was a Democrat and seemed like a very good guy, overall. What follows is a modified, de-personalized version, that has a lot of links which will be useful for telling friend, family, and even strangers about the new group.
Admittedly, at a local level. But magnify this organized, directed passion to a nation-wide effort, pushed in communities across America, and you'll start to see Full Court Press candidates win, even with minimal $$.
This week, we have something new for our Training Tuesday series. We still have plenty of videos left to come from Democracy for America's Campaign Academy, but a couple weekends back, we attended the Organizing 2.0 conference in New York. This conference was a unique opportunity for activists to learn about new media and online organizing from some of the greatest online organizers around.
Last weekend, I attended the Organizing 2.0 conference in New York, put together by Charles Lenchner of the Working Families Party. This conference brought people together to hear from some of the greatest minds in the online organizing world. I came out of it with lots of great footage, and today we are previewing some of it. The majority of the footage, however, will be featured in our Training Tuesday series. So check back Tuesday at 6:00pm for more Organizing 2.0 footage. We are also collecting all our Organizing 2.0 footage onto one page here. But if you are reading this, then you really should find the time to watch these videos.
(I will be cross-posting at OpenLeft and thomhartmann.com)
I.e., a set of national demonstrations by which people will demonstrate not on any one or two particular issues which serves as a theme, but rather on any issue for which they believe that neither the Democrats nor Republicans represent them. Another way to think of this is: the protests are jointly directed at the Democratic and Republican parties, themselves. I've never heard of such a thing, so the novelty, alone, might make it significant.
I've already thought up my sign's slogan: "Down with the Dumbos, and down with the Jackasses! (If I want clowns running things, I can go to a circus.)"
Besides the Demonstration-As-Free-Speech-Expression aspect, and the (probably vain) hope that Congressional D's and R's will change course, such a demonstration COULD HELP FOSTER COOPERATION BETWEEN GROUPS THAT, THOUGH HAVING UNBRIDGEABLE GAPS IN SOME OF THEIR POSITIONS, WOULD DO WELL TO COLLABORATE IN THROWING OUT CORPORATIST SCOUNDRELS, OF BOTH PARTIES.
Voting bloc technology is going to make this more practical than it is, right now, but getting rid of UNECESSARY polarization could help us get a jump start on bottom-up, collaborative processes.
Another benefit is that it'll help Independents to realize their collective power.
Yet another benefit: I'll bet you could make an entertaining book and movie out of the demonstrations. Hopefully including a friendly competition of skits wherein the hypocrisy and apparent incompetence of members of the government (especially Presidents) is the subject - but the audience will not be told, ahead of time, the ideological orientation of the actors (if any). Think of political skits on "Saturday Night Live", but with more of a bite, and with an implicit motive of actually doing something about the situation. The idea here is educational as much as entertaining - instead of wallowing in the "aren't they stupid?" mudhole, Democrats can see that Republican voters aren't happy with Republican politicos, and vice versa, and often for some of the same reasons. Such a video and book might prove seminal as the public moves to an e-democracy.
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
