by francislholland, Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 04:26:05 PM EST
Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/
This is an historical and political analysis of the central premise that underlies John Edwards' claim to the Presidency. This essay asks and explores the question, "Why Will Electing John Edwards Raise Women and Minorities Out of Poverty?" Everything in the above graphic represents only my own original paraphrased appreciation of the thrust of arguments made by others.
Everyone who has superficially studied the problem of American poverty knows that, although all demographic groups are represented among the poor, women and minorities are more likely to be poor than other segments of our society (e.g. white men).
In fact, historical patterns of discrimination that legally prevented women and minorities from buying and owning property, opening bank accounts, and moving to areas where opportunities were greater - all of these governmentally sponsored factors and more led to the feminization and the "racialization" of poverty. The poverty of Blacks began when we were forced to work for free, with government returning us to our "owners" if we escaped slavery with the intention of being paid for our own labor.
In light of this history of the causes of poverty, it is quite impossible to talk about alleviating poverty without discussing how to systematically root out the carefully lain government sponsored roots of poverty in de jure and de facto gender and color-based discrimination. To the degree that there is anything at all that the government is still doing that intentionally or effectively disadvantages the target populations of a proposed new poverty program, to be effective in alleviating poverty government must stop doing anything and everything that has historically led and continues to lead to the feminization and colorization of poverty.
by francislholland, Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 12:50:03 PM EST
Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/02/supporting-edwards-perpetuates-status.html
You can't end the monarchy by supporting the king, and you can't end the political, economic and social disenfranchisement of women and Blacks ("the poor") by electing another wealthy white male as President of the United States.
If you think about it, the most fundamental aspect of the status quo throughout American history has been the literal and figurative disenfranchisement of women and Black voters, as well as other sociological minorities. They could not hold electoral office and they never have held the highest office in the land because white men ALWAYS have arrogated that office unto themselves, sometimes with the complicity of white women. Women remain only 16% of the US Congress while 1% of the US Senate is Black in a nation with a 13% Black population.
If you define the status quo as "the continuing disenfranchisement of those who historically were denied the right to vote and hold elective office", it becomes clear that the election of John Edwards to the Presidency - another white male in a string of 43 consecutive white males - would constitute the clearest possible reaffirmation of the status quo.
by francislholland, Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:51:36 AM EST
Appointed Assistant US Attorney for Civil Rights during the Clinton Administration,
Deval Patrick is the first Black Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, winning another State House for Democrats that had been held by Republicans. Diversity works for Democrats.
A Diary Review
With under 3% Black participation,
some "progressive" Democratic blogs may not be entirely convinced
of the value of diversity among their participants, but the Clintons have been practicing diversity successfully for over three decades.
With Blacks making up 20% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, diversity is a crucial part of the winning electoral strategy and governing philosophy of the diverse Clinton team. This diary contends that the Clintons' proven competence at involving minorities and winning loyal Black and Latino support is a requisite skill that they have demonstrated when contesting and winning the Presidency.
by francislholland, Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:56:00 PM EST
Also discussed at: http://field-negro.blogspot.com/
Cross-posted at www.francislholland.blogspot.com
Matt Stoller of MyDD opened a compelling dialogue a few days ago by asking whether it was necessary for Blacks and whites (and I would add women and other sociological minorities) to frequent the same blogs in order for the Democratic Party to maximize Party chances for electoral success.
Now first I'm going to address this community about our culture. Most MyDD readers are comfortable within what I call 'Jewish political culture', which is a very individualistic, progressive style of argumentative discourse . . . There are lots of other cultures out there, and lots of other ways of thinking about the world. These represent themselves online, but they don't necessarily represent themselves here. Does it matter that they don't? Maybe. Maybe not. http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/12/1237
Because the phrase "divide and conquer" is such a fundamental part of our political parlance, it ought not be necessary to argue, as I do, that a political party whose communication is divided by a color line will necessarily be less successful than a party that communicates across lines of color. So, the short to Matt's question is, "Yes, blog apartheid within the Democratic Party does reduce Democrats' chances for electoral success.
by francislholland, Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 05:27:55 AM EST
Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com/
I am a Black man, as many of you know. Recently, I was banned from participation at DailyKos, where there are only 2.5% Black people and threatened with banning from MyDD, where there are only 1.5% Black people. http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/4/203958/7683#readmore (I post a link to the MyDD banning threat here in the interest of transparency.) The attitude seems to be, "It's not that we don't value people of your demographic group, but we think that your participation at this time is mostly negative and we would be better off without you."
I can't say this attitude surprises me, because it is the same attitude that many on the "progressive" Left seem to have toward Hillary Clinton. "It's not that we don't want a liberal Democratic woman to run for President, but we don't like you, Mrs. Clinton, and we think the race would be better off without you, even if that means that there are no liberal Democratic women in the race at all."