Fear-Based Voting

Hola mi Gente,

Riddle me this: why would you admit to voting for Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal/ neoconservative, regardless of her policies? I ask because this is precisely what people are doing when they say they will vote for the democratic nominee regardless of who it is. If you send the message that your vote is sold regardless of a candidate’s policies, why would that candidate give a fuck about you?

* * *

Fear and Neoliberals

Fear keeps us focused on the past, or worried about the future, and ignorant of our present.

I don’t watch milquetoast TV neoliberals such as Chris Hayes, but a friend informed me that he had actress/ activist, Susan Sarandon. And sure enough, she wasn’t having any of Chris Hayes’ dominant Sanders media tropes.

For example, Hayes, fear-mongered about the likelihood that many Sanders supporters will walk away from Hillary, clutching his pearls, he said, “But isn’t that crazy? If you believe in what he believes in? “Yeah but she doesn’t,” Sarandon shot back. “She accepted money for all of those people. She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage. So these are people that have not come out before. So why would we think they’re going to come out now for her, you know?”

In fact, I like that she actually knew the meaning of “naïve” and used it to characterize Hayes’ position. At one point, Hayes asked Sarandon if she would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee and Sarandon refused to say whether she would because Clinton does not embody the policies Sarandon has fought for during her life. Hayes was actually surprised, saying, “Really?” And he pulled the Trump card (pun intended), implying that not voting for Clinton would bring Trump to power. Today, the headlines are, Susan Sarandon says Trump Might Be Better for America than Hillary Clinton. SMDH That’s not what she said.

Here’s part of what she actually said, “… some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Such is the blindness of people privileged enough to be OK with the status quo, that Chris Hayes was stopped in tracks. Giggling uncomfortably, he asked, “Really?” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “It’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”

And she's right! Voting for the lesser of two evils, decade after decade, is no longer “pragmatic” (if it ever was) when it's a vote for acquiescence to the very power that oppresses you. It's a lot like licking the boot on your neck. 

If you’re basing your vote on fear, rather than an attempt to create an equitable society and a government that responds to the will of the people rather than the moneyed interests, then you’re advocating a position much more dangerous than Trump. In fact, Trump exists only because we continue to fear envisioning and being the kind of society we want to be. Here’s the complete Susan Sarandon segment:

I will not be voting for Hillary.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Social Action

Hola mi Gente,

I made a promise I would post at least one blog post per day this year. I am in a rush and had written a draft of what I think is a great article, but I don’t have the time. I have to go meet someone about a J-O-B. So, I’m offering some random thoughts…

* * *

Social Action & Social Justice

A couple of years ago, I decided to go on a week-long silent meditation retreat. The retreat followed what is called “noble silence,” no talking, no cellphones, no TV -- I was completely off the grid doing vipassana meditation 12-14 hours a day. 

When the retreat was over, I was waiting for the bus back to NYC when I was confronted by a sight on the large flat screen TV in the waiting area -- Ferguson, Missouri was on fire. I mention this because having been away from the daily deluge of graphic violence, these particular images hit me in the gut. For one, being away from the habituation of media bombardment on my senses had the effect of making Ferguson much more graphic. Secondly, I was reminded that the struggle against state-sanctioned violence, which has existed since before the founding of this nation, is real and often deadly.

Yesterday, it seemed as if social media was lit up with posts regarding Black Lives Matters “victories” in voting recalcitrant prosecutors out of office -- as if it was done by the vote. This is so much unmitigated bullshit. Without the literally hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people acting in concert across the nation, doing direct actions and acting out in civil disobedience, getting arrested, and in many cases, getting their heads bashed, the vote wouldn't have mattered. What matters is challenging the status quo and bringing to light the injustice of racism. What matters is challenging white supremacy.

Believe me, there's no guaranteed “victory” -- that those voted in office will behave differently. In fact, we can be assured that as long as all we do is vote, the system that allows the cold-blooded murder of black and brown lives to go unpunished, state-sanctioned violence against black and brown people will continue. It's the system, stupid. Fuck!

If you look at history, all of the great social justice movements didn’t depend on the vote. The Labor, Civil Rights, Abolishionist movements, for example brought about change by acting outside of the parameters of politics. Within the nonprofit-industrial complex, there is a huge debate regarding the efficacy of electoral reform. My major criticism of those who seek incremental change is that this has become the dominant strategy for social justice change. I am not against incrementalists, nor am I against the franchise (the right to vote). I happen to think these are useful tools that have become the de facto approach to change in if the United States. Voting and legislation geared toward social change have their usefulness, but they were never meant to be the main form of agitating for change. Yet it has been this way for too long. 

And where do we find ourselves today? We have a labor movement in shambles, a mere stepchild to a democratic party ruled by neoliberals. Today we have more black people in cages than we had slaves in 1840, right before the Civil War. We have a representative democracy in tatters, with some respected social scientists saying our society now more closely resemble an oligarchy than a democracy.

Voting? Let’s conveniently ignore the fact that millions of people of color have lost their right to vote, or are languishing in prisons. Let’s forget for one moment the nation-wide movement to stop people of color through voter registration laws that serve to stop huge blocs of us from voting. Yes, let us ignore all of this and I say even if these obstructions didn’t exist, the system will never change through the vote alone. It never has and never will.

I think it is beyond condescending to ignore the many mostly young people of color who fought and paid a price to bring to light the atrocities of state-sanctioned violence to the rest of the nation and were often marginalized and ridiculed for it. The prosecutors in Cleveland and Chicago weren’t merely voted out, they were challenged by thousands, maybe millions of people fighting the good fuckin fight. I know because I am one of them. 

As Glen Ford wrote today, “The great task of independent Black politics is to pry Black folks loose from the Democratic Party’s lethal embrace. For that, we need a movement in the streets.” I would add that this is the task of all marginalized people.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… 

Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Energize the Latin@ Vote!

¡Hola! Everybody...
It was a rough night for us progressives, but considering we're in midst of one of the worst financial fuck ups in modern history (caused by failed conservative policies), a jobless rate going through the roof, and a president who just doesn't seem to “get” it, it could’ve been worse. for example, if the GOP had real cojones, they would’ve hitched their wagons to the looneytarians rather than the rabid teabaggers. Loonies are more attractive to people who identify as “independents (really: indies are shamed conservatives for the most part).

Also, I don’t get all this hoopla about the teabaggers, they’re not anything new: they’re overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly older. sounds like the same angry KKKristian KKKonsservatives to me!

The pundits are already writing eulogies for liberalism, claiming that voters have rejected progressive ideals. But this is so much bullshit. Half of the Blue Dog (conservative) incumbents were defeated, and by themselves accounted for close to half of the Democratic losses. Conservative democrats: Why vote for a make-believe conservative when you can vote for a true, meat and potatoes, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth one?

Considering all the above factors and taking into account that the midterms have historically always been bad news for the party in power, this wasn’t really a mandate at all.

Yes, the old guard Cuban American come mierdas in Florida went out en masse for one of the dumbest muthfuckas I’ve ever seen, Rubio (and considering the intense competition for that the designation this election cycle, that’s saying a lot). On the “good news” front, Latin@s came out saved democratic ass in a number of high profile races. Here’s a good piece on Latin@s from America’s Voice...

* * *

Energized by Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric, Latinos Win It for Dems in NV, CA

The Spanish-language press reports today on the Democrats’ defeat in the House of Representatives, and retention of a reduced majority in the Senate. They also focus on the role of Latino voters in key races, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s reelection in Nevada and Jerry Brown’s victory in the California gubernatorial race. While the anti-immigrant rhetoric used by many Republican candidates motivated millions of Latinos to vote for Democrats by historic margins, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives presents an obstacle to passing immigration reform.

Latinos key to Harry Reid's and Jerry Brown's victories. EFE writes that

“exit polls reveal that Latinos represented 16% of the electorate in Nevada, surpassing even the presidential election in 2008, when the percentage was 15%. The strong presence of Hispanics at the polls could have been crucial to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s victory."

La Opinión (Los Angeles) cites a Latino Decisions poll on the Hispanic vote commissioned by NCLR, SEIU and America’s Voice:

“One important reason for Brown’s triumph, according to the Latino Decisions poll, was the overwhelming Latino preference for the Democrat—to an extent never before seen in California: 86% for Brown and 13% for Whitman—which gave him an important advantage.”

The paper adds:

“This trend was repeated not only in California, but in other states where some candidates used the immigration issue--such as the Nevada Senate race and in Arizona, where the law SB 1070 became an issue in governor Jan Brewer’s reelection campaign.

“'This is the most Democratic vote we’ve ever seen in the Latino community—I mean, the margins are incredible,' said Matt Barreto, director of the polling firm Latino Decisions, noting that 'exactly in the states where anti-immigrant rhetoric was strongest—such as Nevada, Arizona and, in the case of California, with the episode with Whitman and the maid—is where Latinos revolted against Republicans."

Wins for Hispanic Republicans. The Spanish-language media also cover victories for Hispanic Republicans in Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. Marco Rubio has been elected to the U.S. Senate from Florida, and Brian Sandoval and Susana Martínez were elected governors of Nevada and New Mexico, respectively.

EFE writes that:

“while Florida’s Hispanic voters are divided with respect to Rubio, the new senator can provide a new perspective for Republicans in the debate over immigration reform.”

Anti-immigrant rhetoric swings Latinos for Democrats. EFE reports that, while Republican control of the House of Representatives will hinder the advance of an immigration reform bill in that chamber,

“in general, anti-immigrant rhetoric from the majority of Republican candidates was, ironically, a key factor in the mobilization of the millions of Latinos who came out to the polls. In Nevada and Arizona, where the immigration issue dominated statewide elections, 69% of Latino voters said that immigration was the driving factor behind their participation at the polls, according to the pro-reform group America’s Voice.”

The America's Voice series “‘Qué Pasa’ in Immigration” brings Spanish-language coverage of immigration and politics to a wider audience. Look for daily roundups (in English) of some of the best Spanish-language news.

The latest Spanish-language reporting and analysis on immigration can now be found at AmericasVoiceEspanol.com. Check it out!