Austin C. McCoy

“Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.” –Germaine Greer

“Cause, everybody wants a shot, in this land of opportunity/Look at what this country’s got/ There shouldn’t be nobody homeless/ How can the president fix other problems when he ain’t fixed home yet?/The earth wasn’t made for one man to rule alone./To all colors and creeds is to whom it belongs…” –Nas

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” –Thomas Paine

“The metaphor is deliberate; it is a gamble. Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning. To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world.”–Howard Zinn

American flags, shirts, pins, cookouts, parades, commemoration of the fallen and the founding fathers are staples of the American July 4^th celebrations. Rightfully, a handful of individuals risked their lives to found a country based upon various then-radical and revolutionary ideals—representative democracy, freedom, and liberty. These ideas and the subsequent founding documents became dominant models of governance for other groups of individuals seeking independence from tyranny. Most importantly, scores of individuals from various nations have fought and died to preserve what they believed to be the best ideals that the West has ever created.

However, while everyone gathers on their porches to watch parade participants pass, I will be thinking of President Thomas Jefferson’s famous remarks concerning the patriotic ideal, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” I will be thinking about the alternative, and often suppressed, version of patriotism extended by ex-slave, famous orator, and civil rights activist, Frederick Douglass. In 1852 Frederick Douglass delivered—to a crowd comprising mostly of white individuals—his famous speech that not only acknowledged the past accomplishment of the founding individuals, but also criticized the United States, as a whole, for its unwillingness to repent for its original sin—slavery. Highlighting the contradictions of America with his biting, yet elegant, rhetoric, Douglass asked in his address “What to a Slave is Your Fourth of July?”:

“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery…”

These words are representative of the legacies of a patriotism that does not manifest itself in the wearing of lapel pins, the flying of flags, or the dissemination of slanderous email messages. Douglass’s criticisms of slavery provided an example of patriotism that stands up for those less fortunate, less powerful, and residing on the margins. These words provide a model of patriotism that constantly reminds American citizens that this country has to be perfected, not by politicians or governmental institutions, but by its citizens. It is not the job of the citizen to defend inequality like in the days of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Even if the nation’s leaders decide to export democracy at gunpoint and dress injustice in the rhetorical garments of “freedom and liberty,” it is the job of the American citizen—along with the media—to expose budding empire. As Thomas Jefferson once stated, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” I would also add the constraint of civil liberties, more marginalizing and profiling of individuals who look different from “us,” and more unjust violence.

This patriotism is both local and on time. Patriotism does not just mean the flying of a flag in front of one’s home. It means standing up for the best ideas of humankind—equality in all of its forms, dignity, respect for individuality, group culture and difference, recognition, critical thinking, respectful dialogue, knowledge, wisdom, understanding, heart, critical support of allies, an intolerance of inaction and most importantly, empathy. This could be as simple as standing up for an aggrieved friend when confronted with evidence of discrimination (race, gender, sexuality). As both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and Senator Barack Obama stated on occasion, there is such a thing as being too late. Each time one misses the opportunity to address what they consider an injustice—no matter how benign it may appear—they allow it to continue and flourish. Remember, oblivion, denial, inaction, and silence—whether collective or individual—are the allies of the forces of inhumanity.

A progressive patriotism also means telling the truth in all of its dimensions. An American patriot does not just convey a normative narrative of American historical events. A citizen investigates, interrogates, and communicates the contradictions embedded within the fabric of America. As most people know, Thomas Jefferson probably drafted the Declaration of Independence while African slaves tended to his household needs. He also helped to construct a racial ideology complete with stereotypes and hierarchies in his often noted, “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Jefferson, as historians like Staughton Lynd have documented, was also one of the nations more formidable radical democratic theorists. Patriotism and the American experience are not a one-sided nor one act play, as Senator Obama demonstrated in his speech on race, and as scholars such as W.E.B. Dubois and Howard Zinn established in their writings, it respects and thrives in historical nuance. This nation will only be strong and indivisible when it can accept and respect the grey areas and diversity in human experience.

Patriotism is empathetic. An American patriot is not just “thankful,” she or he remembers those less fortunate. Patriotism gives voice to the echoes of a dream deferred; the homeless, those who cannot marry the ones they love, the American Muslim anxious about whether or not they can be accepted, the sick and afflicted, the poor, those who have paid their debt to society, individuals wrongly held on death row like Mumia Abu Jamal, women confronting sexism, the white, black, brown, and Asians banding together to address the historical racial inequities and stereotypes, those stuck in ghettoes and barrios only wishing they could escape. The United States seems to have a high volume of apathy and a low reserve of empathy. Many of us tout the thoughts, words, and actions of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalia Lama, but struggle and complain of giving too much to others—whom, depending upon certain characteristics, are often depicted as “undeserving”—in need. To address this low reserve, we will have to dig deep into our own wells and fulfill a higher level of empathy, a level that sociologist Joe R. Feagin calls autopathy in his book, Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. According to Feagin, an individual in this stage can envision herself or himself in the world of those who struggle and those who are less fortunate. This individual responds to individual and collective suffering by also feels their pain. Yes, patriotism requires imagination. If patriotism is good then it should seek to alleviate all suffering.

Patriotism is moving with the times. We have always lived in a world of interdependence, independence, individual similarity, and group/cultural difference. Only dialogue (“think diplomacy”) and understanding will be able to truly address disputes, not taking swings, firing weapons, or war. Change is the new liberty. Embracing change can be liberating in the sense that we realize that uncertainty is not just one of the few realities that are inevitable, but it is optimistic and hopeful. Patriotism, change, and freedom are representative of a reality where individuals come together without having to totally suppress their differences in order to solve the problems in their school districts, universities, social, cultural, industrial, medical, and political institutions. Presidential primary and other electoral systems have become archaic. The top-down leadership model is tired. Grassroots organizing and democratic recognition and participation (with a small “d”) in all arenas—the (industrial) workplace, classroom, politics, etc.—have to become values that we associate with the “change we can believe in” and ultimately practice.

Patriotism is online and it links individuals and groups who aspire to and struggle in their fight for change. Labor activist Tony Budak’s Community Labor News, Feminist activist Jessica Valenti’s website, Feministing, and the celebrity organizing of Ariana Huffington’s Post are formidable examples. Patriots walk and organize among each other at a campus—Kent State University–where four individuals sacrificed their lives to end the Vietnam War. Just a short distance from where Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroder were shot, young student-citizens such as Issac Miller and Katie Dougans continue the fight against war and international oppression. Various students like Preston Mitchum and individuals in the History Department, as well as other student groups like Black United Students, Kent NAACP, and the Kent State Anti-Racist Coalition have been, and beginning, to confront racism and promote cross-racial and cultural understanding on campus. While causes and individuals seem to frequently come and go, these citizens remain dedicated. It is easy for anyone to stand among many but they, as well as many other of my friends and family, are not afraid to stand among the few or alone. They nor anyone else should ever become discouraged when membership and/or participation seems to be low. As anthropologist Margaret Mead once insightfully said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.” And like my friend and fellow activist-citizen Aaron Beveridge wrote in an issue of Spirit of the Nation! in 2005, a movement is two.

Patriotism is grateful. Yes, individuals should live this day with a sense of gratitude and pride. But too much gratitude and pride only breeds narrow-mindedness, complacency, and ultimately blind faith, silence, and denial during the times when only critical-thinking, questioning normative assumptions, standing up and speaking to power can prove positively decisive. We should also beware of those individuals preaching narrow nationalisms from gold-plated microphones and profiting from such divisiveness. That is not patriotism, that is demagoguery. Patriotic individuals stand and deliver the truth. They stand and fight. They do not wait to see what the person next to them is going to do. They stand up—whether it is with their writing, whether it was four black American men sitting at a Woolworth lunch counter in 1960, young Americans protesting war, an individual challenging normative assumptions and stereotypes, a hip hop artist addressing controversial subjects in a society that scoffs and seeks to marginalize her or him. Regular people stand daily. One just has to wake up and open their eyes to see. To the dismay of all of the allies of passivity, to those that believe change comes from sitting on one’s hands waiting for it to “just happen as it should,” power concedes nothing without demand. Like Frederick Douglass once intoned in 1857, you cannot have rain without the thunder and lightning. It is the job of American patriots to bring the thunder and lightening to bear upon the forces supporting indifference, denial, and injustice.

© 2008 Austin C. McCoy. All Rights Reserved.

Who’s Patriotic? (SpN! Spring/Summer 2005)

– Aaron Beveridge

Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave. Our current use of the word patriot would have caused Paine to put pen to paper and write yet another pamphlet. Were he to be revived from the grave and complete another work of dissent it would be patriotic in a sense that is currently lost from our contemporary use of the word patriot.

It seems that in the wake of the current middle east military action, in our post 9-11 world, the common use of patriot is rather confusing if it is thought of it in regards to the men who originally fought for our freedom and independence from Great Britain. The use of patriotism at that time was not to create a hyper-nationalism, as it is used now, but was used to rally support for the fight for freedom and independence. Granted, President Bush has dubbed our military action in Iraq a fight for freedom and independence, but he has yet to show the world that the Iraq war is accomplishing (or about) either. Moreover, President Bush is well known for naming his political deeds nearly opposite for rhetorical affect—take for instance No Child Left Behind and The Patriot Act.

While the President’s use of the word Patriot is bad enough—it is the daily common use that is most disturbing. Patriot is currently used to refer to those who support the war effort or support some sort of national agenda. Many who have come out to protest the war or question the President’s current foreign policy have been described as being unpatriotic, but is it their patriotism that is being questioned? No, what is being questioned is the essential element of a democracy—a citizens right to speak out against the government.

As of late, many citizens are taking our right to question and speak-out for granted.. Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen wrote a response to Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States which is titled A Patriot’s History of the United States. In the intro to their response they accused Zinn of having Marxist biases because his book is titled a “Peoples” history. However, Schweikart and Allen show their ignorance to what democracy means in their critique of Zinn. They not only overlook the fact the demos, the root of the word of democracy, means the people, but they also seem to forget the first three words of our constitution: “We the people.” Would they argue that the writers of the constitution had Marxist biases?

The meaning of most words changes over time, but the word patriot has nearly come to mean the opposite of what it meant early in our country’s history. In the past, it meant working against the British institution and fighting for an independent country which would hopefully acknowledge individual rights; someone who wasn’t afraid to question the institution, or the people who were attempting to maintain control. Real patriots are not people who blindly support Presidential policies and national agendas, but they are the people who are willing to risk going against the grain—people who understand that questioning the status quo may not be popular but is definitely necessary.

What is the Fourth of July to a Progressive American Citizen? (SpN! Spring/Summer 2005)

– Austin McCoy

If the United States was built upon dissent and revolution, then why is our nation so afraid when one suggests change? Even one of the most beloved political documents ever written stated that “it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” (Declaration of Independence). So, why are we afraid? We, as citizens, get together every Fourth of July to celebrate this dissolution. We, as citizens, assemble in scores, to celebrate – we enjoy attending/eating at the cookouts, play with sparklers, and watch the fireworks display. Ultimately, the Fourth of July has always had an intrinsic meaning that has ever been so peculiar to all other nations in the world. Why? Because we were a nation that was built upon revolution, our actions were anchored in dissent, and our beliefs in ourselves seemed to have derived from the interplay between the laws of nature, our Creator, and an tenacious, hard-working, and utterly radical citizenry.

However, this meaning, over the course of centuries, which has been characterized by the pervasiveness of the market economy, has also undergone change. When we think of the Fourth of July and the meaning of freedom, now, we think of national and economic security, not so much as our ideal ability to enjoy our civic duties as well as social rights, but our ability to buy; the freedom to consume. Granted, those aspects of liberty and freedom are important, however, we, as citizens, appear to be missing the point – the significance behind the Fourth of July lies in the ideal of affecting change through a progressive citizenry willing to take risks, not necessarily of our “freedoms” being protected, or the “need to feel secure,” or to consume.

So, now is the time. It is time for the American citizenry to put the focus back upon the real reason(s) surrounding Independence Day – not just stare in awe at the fireworks like the zombies like in the recent movie Land of the Dead, because even those zombies were able to resist this stimulation in order to realize that they were oppressed by a city on a hill, and thus, mobilize themselves to invade the city that they were locked from.

No, I am not calling for an invasion or mass instances of civil disobedience during this time, or during future celebrations of Independence Day. I am calling for a reconsideration of why we celebrate this day. Do we rejoice because of our militaristic campaigns in foreign countries, or because of our belief in freedom, in the belief of taking risks, and moving with the times? Why do we celebrate the 4^th of July?

Now, if this reconsideration causes people to react in a way that calls for protest, then so be it. Because, akin to those who built this nation, risks must be taken in order to realize change, essentially, risks must be taken in order to move with the times.

One of my friends asked me how I would advise Senator Obama after he won the Democratic Primary last Tuesday night. So, if I were an advisor (and a novice at that), these are some of the points I would try to convey. As a warning, this advice is not meant to be exhaustive. I am an outsider when it comes to the politics of Washington. I am sure others have expressed similar concerns. And these points are only the tip of the iceberg. I enjoyed figuratively wearing the hat of political advisor nonetheless. I intend to follow up this piece with one that frames potential principles and objectives of the Obama movement.

Congratulations to you, your supporters, and your party. You have accomplished what many Americans assumed to be unthinkable—defeat one of the most formidable potential nominees in her own right, Senator Hillary Clinton, to become the first Democratic presidential nominee who happens to be black. Most importantly, armed with your message of change and hope and equipped with a tight-knit political organization, you and your campaign have galvanized millions of Americans from various religious, racial, ethnic, cultural, and class backgrounds and made them believers in the potential of fixing a broken political system. Now, the real task begins. It is up to you and your organization to do something only two other Democrats have been able to do in the last forty years—actually win the Presidency. You and your campaign have at least two things going for you: we are nearing the end of a political era and the American people seemed to have grown frustrated at the present political order. The advantages are, in fact, interrelated. Based upon the past insights of Republican strategist Kevin Phillips, the political pendulum should swing back to the Left generally and the Democratic Party specifically. In his 1969 book, The Emerging Republican Majority, Phillips deduced that the orientation of American politics tends to manifest itself in cycles lasting in between 32 and 36 years with an interregnum of one to two presidential terms by the minority party (1828-60: 32 years of virtual Democratic rule, 1860-96: 36 years of virtual Republican rule, 1896-1932: 36 years of rule by what Phillips deemed “industrial” Republicans, or probably progressives, and 1932-68: 36 years of rule by the New Deal Democrats).[i] Hence, with the Republican Party approaching its 40^th year of rule thanks to the neoconservative movement of the late 1960s and 1970s and the Reagan Revolution during the late 1970s and 1980s, the American populous is war weary, economically strapped, politically fatigued, and thus (hopefully), ripe for change.

As the Democratic Primaries have revealed, however, having the benefits of time and circumstance does not preclude a democratic victory in November. Due to political gridlock, Americans have less faith in Congress than the President. This cannot be overlooked. No matter one’s stance on the issue, many of Senator Clinton’s supporters feel disaffected and alienated from the political process. They cannot be forsaken. And as if the primaries were not enough, many Americans remain skeptical about a political message that—to them—seems superficial and naïve at best and they perceive you as too messianic, foreign, elite, and distant.

Luckily the Republican machine has not been able to close ranks as of late. As conservative political strategist, Bill Kristol, has written in the New York Times, conservative Republicans are struggling to rally behind their own nominee. However, in light of these developments and this unique moment in American history, you cannot make mistakes similar to Senator Hillary Clinton during the primary by running as the anointed or inevitable candidate. In fact, like McCain you will have to project a sense that (especially to your most zealous supporters) that you are not entitled to George W. Bush’s desk in the West Wing. Your victory in November is not inevitable. This will keep your campaign focused and in proper perspective. Remember, your greatest strength—your message and mass movement for change—could become your greatest weakness if you run into enough Machiavellians. Political optimism and exuberance must be balanced by a pragmatic realism, organization, and wisdom. Keep this in mind, historically speaking; it took Reagan to lose the nomination to incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976 before he was victorious in 1980. Essentially you have four months to achieve what Ronald Reagan accomplished in five years.

1. The Vice Presidency—While it is arguable that your selection may not mean much in terms of determining one’s choice for president, your choice could become a potential pivotal moment in you campaign for a variety of reasons: your battle against negative (and often unfounded) perceptions regarding certain political issues, how Senator McCain’s campaign, and other Republican strategists, frame the meaning of a potential Obama presidency, and probably most significantly, how you will choose to define your administration. Also, if you are elected and lucky enough to serve two terms without scandal (or at least too many of them), you may want to choose someone who could take over the reigns after your second term. Although it may seem too far ahead for many Americans to think about it, your administration will be setting the tone possibly for the next sixteen years if another Democrat within your own political umbrella can win the Presidency in 2016. You have plenty of well qualified men and women from which to choose including Senators Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Jim Webb, Governors Ted Strickland of Ohio, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, and Edward Rendell of Pennslyvania, as well as many more. Allow your committee—Jim Johnson, Caroline Kennedy, and Eric Holder—to do the work of vetting the potential candidates and make your announcement at the proper time.

2. Polarize the argument—you and the Democratic Party represent change and Senator McCain (despite his past reputation as a political maverick) and the Republican Party represents the status quo. His recent voting record and his stance on the large issues (war, economy, health care) seems to be more in sync with the current administration than with the McCain who ran as an independent Republican in 2000. Make your call for change as tangible as possible. Go into detail about your voting record and legislative accomplishments in U.S. and state Senate. Do not shy away from framing this issue in ways similar Clinton during her concession speech—we are about to embark on a pivotal and hopefully transitional campaign and presidency. We should not be afraid to contemplate whether or not we got it wrong with Nixon in 1968, because we do not want to make a similar mistake in 2008.

3. Continue to tell your story—you may have to go into more detail about your upbringing in order to provide clarification. You will also need to show people that you embrace all of the seemingly disparate aspects of your identity. Although you could be successful with contextualizing your (racial) identity within the historical context of race and race relations within the United States, beware with trying to explicitly explain that your blackness is as much a product of the past concerns with the idea of racial purity in the United States—what is considered the one drop rule since the issue of race is (and always has been) complicated. There are people who assume (for one reason or another) that you have merely “chosen to be black” (which is not the case). Remain nuanced—your black identity is not in spite of your Caucasian lineage and identity—you are at once the embodiment of what Dubois’s double consciousness: the two warring black (African) and white (American) selves threatening to tear one asunder (which may go over people’s heads if they are not familiar with Dubois’s seminal text, Souls of Black Folk) and what the United States of America is supposed to be—an harmonious and conflicted amalgamation of a variety of cultural, racial, ethnic, religious, and political elements. Also have your advisors and spokespersons direct concerned individuals to your first book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Use your website to encourage people to give your book to others as gifts, create reading groups, and sponsor public readings. If your people can, locate any interviews or footage of speaking arrangements where you have discussed the circumstances of its production. Remember, you have to define yourself because if you do not, then the Republicans will do it for you. You cannot win if you do not honestly define yourself.

4. The republicans will continue their strategies to disingenuously cast you in a variety of ways to see which depictions stick. Even though people have access to the information needed to draw and develop independent assessments of your potential strengths and limitations fearful people have accused you of being Muslim, naïve, “too black,” un-American and unpatriotic. In a rather bad impression of McCarthyism, Tom Delay has even recently came out and called you a Marxist. Do what you can confront every single false accusation and characterization. As MSNBC strategist and progressive radio show host, Rachel Maddow, has recently suggested, “name and shame” those individuals whose motivations are to “inform” Americans by smearing you. Encourage your supporters to also engage in this naming and shaming by exposing outrageous email messages via email, Youtube, Myspace, Facebook, and/or personal blogs. Your campaign must stay on the offensive. Define yourself while embracing difference. Although I am not the biggest proponent of American exceptionalism, you and your campaign have a chance to show the world that we are not afraid of embracing populations that conservative republicans see as “troublesome.”

5. While presenting your argument and telling your story it is advisable that you begin to reconfigure your constituency. One of the reasons why I was drawn to your campaign message was your assertion that we can no longer afford to sustain the current Rovian style of controlling the whole country through a simple majority (what I call 51-49 politics). This is why the government is in such a deadlock now. Thus, you will not only need to retain your current coalition (roughly speaking since there are members of these groups can be found in McCain’s base)—various older and young individuals, working, middle, and upper class whites, African American men and women, gay and lesbians, antiwar and labor activists, as well as those in the celebrity, intellectual, and scholarly circles—you will need to incorporate Senator Clinton’s base constituency—her supporters from those aforementioned groups, older white women and working class individuals in the rustbelt and Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky). You will also need to solidify your base of independent voters on both the left and the right. I am sure your 2004 DNC Convention speech remains fresh in your mind. You have a chance to redraw the political landscape to include not just the northeast and parts of the Midwest, but to truly employ a 50 state strategy. Your ambitious voter registration campaign also stands to enhance your goals to expand the base, compete in “red” states, and turn the red and blue states into the United States.

6. When reconfiguring your coalition stick to your message of unity over division. You will have to convincingly articulate a message that gets people to believe that their interests are tied to one another. While our respective historical, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual, and cultural experiences are unique and need addressed, our interests are tied together because we all aspire to be treated with dignity and respect. While many of us may be different we have a lot in common. Many of us do not trust the government, yet many of us want a government that works for us. Whether it is a white worker in Appalachia, a black laborer in Detroit, a Latino/a working to make ends meet in Chicago, they all want to the ability to properly care for their children, strive for success and positive self-development, and be able to enjoy their lives with family and friends in their times of leisure.

As many people are drawing distinctions between yourself and Senator Robert Kennedy please heed the thoughtful letter that Harold Ford, Jr. wrote and published in a recent edition of Newsweek. Take your own tours through Appalachia, walk through the streets and talk to the people. Even bring a diverse group of supporters with you. Have frank and open conversations about your differences and similarities, your shared concerns and hopes.

7. Yes, I am curious to what an Obama presidency may look like, but I am more intrigued with the potential composition of an Obama Administration. The democrats are fielding a group of public servants that could possibly do wonders. Hopefully you will be able to find a place for Senator Hillary Clinton (Health Care Resource, Attorney General, or Supreme Court Justice?) Gov. Bill Richardson (Secretary of State), Sen. Joe Biden (National Security and foreign affairs), Senator John Edwards (Poverty Resource), Vice President Al Gore (Environmental consultant), Senator Jim Webb, and even Republican Chuck Hagel. Emphasize change, pragmatism, and progress over political party.

8. Be the first male presidential candidate to fully articulate a vision for gender equality in the United States. Incorporate Senator Clinton’s female political program. Look to and hire feminist intellectuals in your fight against gender discrimination. Pay homage to the women who were at the forefront of the various strains of the women’s movement and those who fought so hard for Senator Clinton. It may not hurt to endorse an investigation of the various instances of sexism that may have occurred over the course of the primary campaign. Point to your previous legislative measures benefitting women. Also, tell men that gender equality is not just a woman’s fight; it is a fight that every human being should engage in one way or another. We need to remember; one cannot wage a fight against one injustice (like racism) and not acknowledge another. It is like what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

9. On a minor note, take this opportunity to lead a reform movement within the Democratic Party. It is encouraging to know that the DNC is taking your lead and sending back all lobbyist funds. Take your reformist impulse one step further and publicly endorse the need to restructure the nomination process. Some have argued that the caucus system hinders participation from those who may have to work weekends or otherwise do not have the luxury of devoting half a day to the process. This is a good argument; however, make sure to explain that the Party is also seeking to preserve a balance of power between both large and smaller states.

10. Stick to the issues! I do not think I need to elaborate on this point any further.

© 2008 Austin C. McCoy. All Rights Reserved.

[i] Kevin Phillips. The Emerging Republican Majority. (New York: Arlington House, 1969), 36.

  — Jessica Winck         

There is a prevalent incomprehension among some older feminists that young women or any feminist could support a man over Senator Clinton. Nevermind who this man is or what his values are or the ways that he has, for many women, adequately proven himself as a politician who supports their causes - without forgetting that they must be supported alongside the causes of black people, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and the poor. In the “second-wave” feminism tradition, Senator Clinton’s campaign fails to present analyses that address the realities of all women. This detail is not seen as a failure, but rather, as Susan Brownmiller writes in her memoir of the women’s movement, it is regarded as a subject used to guilt white women into believing “they had no right to make any demands for themselves.”

Feminists at the time of the women’s movement rarely considered that racism was a huge woman problem for those who experience(d) it both on the giving and receiving ends. They seemed too tied up in resenting black women standing by their men and accusing them of ignoring siren calls for sisterhood and not recognizing their every-womanness. Robin Morgan, editor of the 1970 anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, wrote in the introduction that black women, “who are obviously doubly oppressed, have, for the most part, chosen to fight beside their black brothers, fighting racism as a priority oppression.” Morgan and her white sisters, presumably not affected by racial oppression, are unable to gauge just how much racism affects a black woman’s personhood. Did women who were born and sold into slavery deny the racial reality of their partners and their sons as well as their mothers and daughters as a prerequisite for resisting the rape and sexual assault by white men? Would prioritizing their femaleness, as if their blackness did not exist, have erased the problems they faced as black people? And with racism not dealt with, wouldn’t their problems as black women persist?

Real problems needing widespread attention like sexism and racism have been divided so that they “belong” to only one group that bears the entire responsibility of eradicating the problem, even as, at times, a group free of responsibility can all by itself perpetuate the problem. Dividing them completely as opposing absolutes makes racism a “black problem” and sexism a “white woman problem,” but it also makes black women into dangerous agents capable of helping or hurting one side or the other; worse, they can even be rendered invisible.

Setting forth with this blindness in the 70s, feminists worried that they would lead an all-white movement that would quickly lose credibility. They worked on “recruiting” black women, a word Brownmiller used in her 1999 memoir In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution. A recording from a formal session on attracting black women to the movement, re-created in text by Brownmiller, shows that some feminists in attendance only seemed to care about getting one “militant Black Power woman,” because “black women hold the cards on oppression…and they let white women know that.” At least until the time Brownmiller wrote her memoir, she seemed genuinely bewildered that more black women were not interested in what developed as an almost all-white women’s liberation movement. Perhaps they tried to pull black women into a political space that inflexibly accepted them and resisted being shaped by their interests and realities. It seemed that only one black woman present as white women developed their ideology was adequate. Similarly, out of over seventy essays published in Robin Morgan’s edited collection, only three are dedicated to the black liberation movement, set-off in a section painfully titled “Women in the Black Liberation Movement: Three Views.”

Simultaneously, the recruitment attitude appeared to be “I don’t care who you are, if you’re a woman, you should join this movement.” Nevermind that at times, the women’s movement advocated separation from men, a full and free exploration of careers, education, child-free lives, all made possible by nannies who were poor women and women of color, for whom financial support and leisure time might have been an improvement in their lives, not what it was for educated white women: a manifestation of oppression that was universalized as every woman’s plight. Failing to address this discord, Brownmiller used her memoir to adamantly stand by the claims made in the 70s: “no movement agonized more, or flailed itself harder, over its failure to attract vast numbers of women of color.”

Perhaps these “flailings” were insincere. Some feminists certainly might have agonized over not attracting all women without seeing that they had not continued the anti-racist work of understanding the realities that make all women’s experiences of sexism much different from white women’s experiences in particular. They might have believed they had already, in the words of bell hooks, unlearned racism. They also loved the movement and benefited too much from it to be entirely critical, even in hindsight.

Now, in the 2008 presidential primary, Senator Clinton’s campaign attracts this feminist support. Not questioning the nature of the support or attempting to shape feminism as a movement that ends sexism for all women, Senator Clinton has gained a lot of popularity among feminists. I would ask, when did she become this feminist mother, a savior for women? She did not. What happened was the realization of this woman as a possible female president, an end to forty-year struggle and the desire for pay off, not a continuation of hard-won feminist gains in a widespread movement wherein women of all ages and color and background act for gender equality in all the ways it can be realized for all people, even if this means electing an exceptional man to the highest office.

The problem is that many who were active in the movement do not trust young women to do feminist work today. We have been accused of apathy toward our right to abortion, to birth control, to careers and/or to family life. We have been accused of aversion to power, even as the definition of female power has changed and is constantly changing to include objectification, cosmetics, motherhood, involvement in politics, having sex before we are ready, having it when we are ready, wearing designer sunglasses, staying thin, going to college. The mixed messages are amazing, and older women have thrown more than their frustration at those young women who step bravely or without burdening self-consciousness into the realms etched out for us, realms whose boundaries seem to have been carved deeper against feminist gains.

Is it this hopelessness in the younger generation that makes some veteran feminists use their name recognition and their writing to burn us by neglecting issues that will affect us and our partners, daughters and sons, to demand payment for their lifetimes of work not with their daughters’ and sisters’ continued health and welfare, but with the static image of Senator Clinton at her inauguration?

Many women who support Senator Clinton say they want to see a woman president in their lifetime, claimed even in the midst of the impending weakening of our reproductive justice laws, pay discrimination, sexual harassment, the neglect of women’s health, a quarter of young women having an STD, abstinence-only programs, rape, the feminization of poverty, young women’s declining access to birth control, domestic violence, prostitution, sexual slavery, sexual objectification. One adamant fifty-something Clinton supporter on the Huffington Post commented that she will take her chances on Roe and vote for McCain if Clinton loses the nomination.

Robin Morgan writes in her introduction to Sisterhood is Powerful that the women’s liberation movement “is the first radical movement to base its politics - in fact, create its politics - out of concrete personal experiences. We have learned that those experiences are not our private hang-ups. They are shared by every woman, and are therefore political.” Nevermind that they are not shared by every woman and are, for that reason, political. Nevermind that celebrating personal experience and interests by privileging them reinforces the “I” and “she” pronouns found in Senator Clinton’s campaign, demonstrating that her campaign has much to do with her and might, with that starting point, have little to do with the masses of women who do and do not support her, but who would nonetheless be recipients of whatever harm or good she may accelerate as president. It would be a mistake to privilege what I want based on my own perceived experience with “second-class citizenship” without even questioning where my experience falls in the spectrum of human plight. I would inevitably produce what could be the unintended effect of eclipsing the experiences of others; yet this is what Senator Clinton’s campaign has encouraged through those feminist messages characterized by demands for gender loyalty and of our votes as gratitude.

As we debate who feminists should vote for and debate who black women should support, we have taken a moment of privilege to ignore the real problems that have not suspended themselves as we talk. During this entire election season, with a woman running for president, we feminists have not demanded very much from her. Instead, many seem to be overwhelmed by unwavering loyalty and resist criticizing her.

Why have we not demanded more? What about a formal debate about those reproductive issues unique to women? Especially as Republicans get airtime to discuss ways women should be punished for getting abortions “when Roe is overturned.” Why have we not forced Senator Clinton to talk about women? She might mention “the hard-working waitress in the Midwest” or “the little girl who can now dream of being whatever she wants to be,” and we feminists swoon at the nods. But they are just not enough. For this reason, I have difficulty supporting her as she openly discusses sexism so late in the campaign. First, I am skeptical because I always thought she could take whatever the misogynists would throw. And she has! There is no question that Senator Clinton is a strong woman capable of defending herself when an attack is low. Second, even though all sexism is a problem for those who experience it, it is not the same for everyone. By redefining sexism as unwarranted attacks against women in power positions, her campaign and her supporters draw back the extent to which feminism as a political movement is relevant. If I am a feminist who cares about reproductive justice, anti-racist activism, women affected by violence, pay discrimination, and sexual harassment on the job, Senator Clinton hardly represents the ultimate resistance to sexism. Should I give up on my president and government if I am told that it is not their job to address these problems, or should I demand more from my president and my government? Especially when the front-runner for the Democratic party has demanded more and has asked us to demand everything from him and from ourselves.

If this campaign were really about the women Senator Clinton claims to lead for, she would have addressed their experiences with sexism a long time ago. As sexism becomes dolls that crack nuts, demands to cook and iron, and men discussing her “cackle,” what is it when the women who most need access to abortion are met with policy that restricts it? When those women also have difficulty accessing birth control? And then, with children, when those women cannot seek the education or the wage that would make them less dependent on a male partner whether or not they have one? What is it called when they work and are likely to experience sexual harassment but feel forced to keep the job because they need it? While that system and others are in full-force all day, every day, we focus instead on the tragedy of some old-fashioned men who do not like Senator Clinton. When they call her a “bitch,” we should regard it as a compliment: they probably cannot debate Clinton’s policy and they know it is difficult to win an argument with her. They have nothing else but “bitch.”

We need to laugh off the name-calling. We cannot risk redefining sexism so that America does not have to address poverty, reproductive justice, and the experiences of American women everywhere. We risk seeing those problems only in the context of race and class and may not even consider them in light of gender anymore.

As feminism reemerges as a topic of discussion during this election season, we have missed the opportunity to talk about the interests women really would want a woman candidate to address. Senator Clinton has not stood up as a leader for women; instead, for the purposes of her campaign, sexism became the only issue at stake once she could afford to address it. Ironically, gender loyalty has been the only channel through which our support should flow. Is it possible that her campaign might inadvertently work to secure conditions that negatively affect more women than her symbolic win would positively affect her feminist supporters, some of whom gained fame in the 70s and want to see a woman elected president before they die?

Where have the real issues been? Where is the urgency? Why are we resting? Maybe we can afford not to address them, but there are more American women than make up our own privileged sect who cannot afford it.

In a recent piece called “Goodbye to All That No. 2,” Robin Morgan chastises young women who cannot identify with Senator Clinton and who do not feel compelled to call themselves feminist. Equal attention should be paid to Clinton, who does not declare that she advocates feminism or is a feminist. Investigate her ability to be the feminist you want her to be among the men who would reject her for it. Make sure that the choices she makes (which sometimes identify with sexist thinking) actually function to eliminate gender inequality as experienced by masses of women and men who do not want to run for president or do not care about politics.

Throw them away as misled young people with divided loyalties, as her supporters did to women of color and others in the 70s? Or reach out, be willing to listen to and believe them, and begin to lead for them all? I will wait for improvements in her continued service in the senate or in some other political capacity, but I reserve my right to withhold my feminist support of Senator Clinton for President of the United States.

© 2008 Jessica Winck. All Rights Reserved.

Here are a few questions that I have pondered over the course of the last year. I want to submit them myself since there are not too many people asking them in the media.

1. Why are democrats acting like they have a cohesive platform right now?

2. Why has the Democratic Party been the reactionary party over the last twenty years?

3. Why is it an issue that 90% of African Americans have been voting for Senator Obama? Why was this not an issue when 90% of African Americans supported Gore in 2000 and 84% voted for Clinton in 1996? Does this mean that black Americans are only supposed to support a non-black candidate en masse (and when it is convenient for the majority of Americans)?

4. Is this the reason why there is not a similar discussion about whether or not Senator Clinton could carry the “black” vote? Could one infer that Democrats are taking the vote of African Americans for granted?

5. Why did it take Reverend Wright’s sermons for people to stop thinking Senator Obama was Muslim?

6. Is it a crime for anyone in the American government to be a Muslim or hailing from any nation in the Middle East? What are we saying to Iranian/Iraqi/Saudi (etc.)-Americans? Why are people so distrustful of Senator Obama and not a government that mislead the American public at best, and lied at worst, about weapons of mass destruction and constantly redefined the reasons for an illegitimate war?

7. Why are Democrats letting Rush Limbaugh get away with his “Operation Chaos”?

8. Why is it assumed that Obama supporters are kool aid-sipping, weak-kneed, ridiculously idealistic, and irrational while Clinton and McCain supporters are the opposite? Read this about my encounter with a “rational” Clinton supporter. Would it be fair for me to make similar assumptions about Clinton supporters based upon a few statements or one bad interaction?

9. I cannot take credit for this question, but why do people assume that Clinton has no educated (white or black) supporters?

10. Why is it assumed that black Americans are voting for Senator Obama only because he is black? What would happened if I –as a black American – accused all white Americans of supporting Senators Clinton and McCain only because they were white?

11. Does the Islamic/Muslim/ “Middle Eastern” vote count in the United States?

12. Will we talk more about the Latino/a vote this summer?

13. What will the candidates do to ensure the voices of the disabled are heard?

14. How is the United States so “democratic” when we dismiss Senators Mike Gravel, Kucinich and Edwards?

15. Why do Americans think Ron Paul is a better alternative? Is it me, or does it sound like Paul wants to take the United States back to the 19^th century?

16. How long will it take for Americans to realize that things are changing politically, economically, spiritually, and socially on a GLOBAL scale? With this being the case it is even possible that the Clintons could really return the US to the 1990s?

17. How could the Clintons claim to be the candidate of the “working class” when President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA?

18. Does anyone remember what happened on November 30 and December 1, 1999? Why is not a framework of globalization based upon fair trade an issue in the campaign?

19. Are the candidates afraid to develop a “green” New Deal for the 21^st century?

20. Why did someone ask Senator John Edwards to speak out against the OJ verdictwww.?

21. Why are we surprised that Myanmar turned down aid from the United States? Does anyone remember when the US turned down aid from a variety of nations after Hurricane Katrina?

22. Who will Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain have to denounce and reject next?

23. Why do we praise the “founding fathers,” President John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan for their unbridled optimism, their ability to inspire Americans, and their aspirations for developing a different style of politics while criticizing Senator Obama for wanting to do the same?

24. Why are we acting like the “old” style of cut-throat politics is the solution to contemporary problems?

25. Since when did kids become political props? Will they be allowed to vote?

26. Why will it feel like I am being bought off by the government when I cash my stimulus check?

27. How did the cost of gas quadruple in the last ten years?

28. Why are we not questioning the stagnation of wages in light of the increases in energy, food, health care, etc.?

29. Why are people unhappy with their government but support candidates who will not do much to change the “politics-as-usual” attitude?

30. Is it a valid question to ask whether or not a President Hillary Clinton would affect the income disparity between men and women? Would it actually alleviate the impact of sexism on our society?

31. Where are the leaders who are not just interested in telling us how great we are, but how we could also improve ourselves? Why do we need our “leaders” to tell us how “hard working” and “great” we are?

32. Why do we think a new president is going to help us? Can we not develop progressive organizations that will help us help ourselves?

33. Why am I no longer mad when I hear people say they will not vote because they do not feel they are being represented, or that a particular individual will be corrupted when they enter the system?

34. Why have we not really considered fundamentally changing our electoral system?

35. Why?

-

-Austin C. McCoy

As many already know, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was gunned down forty years ago yesterday. I was disappointed that I did not coordinate my schedule correctly in order to take a road trip to Memphis to participate in the march. However, I felt compelled to reflect on the significance of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

While much of the media has focused on a few of his speeches and remarks—his “I Have a Dream,” “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top,” and now his views on the Vietnam War and poverty—I want to reflect on his last Sunday sermon, “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” in order to draw parallels between his historical moment and ours.

Dr. King delivered “Remaining Awake” just five days before he was assassinated on April 4 at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. In the sermon, Dr. King warned of the sleep masses who “…find themselves living amid a great period of social change and yet they fail to develop new attitudes, the new mental responses—that the new situation demands.” From there he outlined three global revolutions—weaponry, technology, and human rights. These revolutions in weaponry and technology were significant in King’s thinking because they threatened to intensify existing domestic and global conflicts. He also argued against the persistence of a racism that remained behind closed doors, denied, “subtle and sometimes not so subtle…” Dr. King also called for a global, interdependent strategy to address poverty.

While it would be unfair to argue that King’s circumstances in 1968 match the concerns of different individuals today, I think we too could think of particular revolutions that at least have the potential to adversely affect us. Although we enjoy some of the fruits of technological and political progress, various aspects of globalization have wreaked havoc here and elsewhere. People are losing jobs domestically, nations in Africa are still struggling amid unnecessary debts, and individuals from many backgrounds are being exploited in sweatshop style factories around the world. Our revolutions in weaponry have done little to eliminate death and ensure safety. More than 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq while more than 29,000 have been wounded. It’s also been estimated that over 150,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion. While some conservatives and neoliberals triumphantly claimed revolution in 1995, we all are aware of the 47 million people without health insurance. We are still running the “race to incarcerate” as the justice system has incarcerated over 2 million people. According to the Sentencing Project, one in eight black males are in jail on any given day. While about 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness a year, in New Orleans, one in twenty-five residents are currently homeless. Murder rates in large cities like Philadelphia have been ridiculous over the past year. While it may appear to be less threatening, we are consuming at a rate eleven times more than the Chinese. And hopefully, many of us are aware of the specter of global warming and climate change by now. Yes, all of these problems developed for vastly different reasons, but it is very likely that we all, no matter the color, would have to answer to Dr. King if he were still alive.

So what to do? How do we reclaim the dream?

The best way to honor Dr. King’s, as well as that generation’s, legacy may be to shift our inquiry. Ironically, we may need to quit asking him. Instead of asking what he would do, we should ask what we plan to do. Instead of stepping right into the customs, tactics, ideologies, and institutions, I would argue that we begin the quest for new forms. These forms can and should come from everywhere—history, experience, action, and mind work. They could also be ideas that were once thought to be divergent. Can we collapse binaries and resolve contradictions long enough to purposefully act? One would think it would be okay if our goal is not naked and unrestrained power. We need new languages. We need new conversations about race that resists descending into arguments to be won or lost. We need new means of organizing and challenging the status quos that are in sync with today’s revolutions of information technology and industry (or lack thereof). Essentially, for all of the action that is required, a lot of mind work also needs to be done. We need understandable conceptions of difference—race, class, gender, sex, disability, etc. We need to develop accessible definitions for the struggles that we face locally and ruminate on how to define and attack overarching problems (“How do we define and address ‘globalization’ anyway?”). Thinking and acting locally and regionally may help us to expand our horizons to attract and include an array of groups nationally and globally. Before the infamous “Nipple Gate,” Janet Jackson—with the assistance of Public Enemy front man, Chuck D—emphatically declared that we needed a “new agenda.” We need to develop a new human rights agenda that accounts for an array of experiences in all of their complexities. We will do ourselves a disservice if we tell people to forget about who they are and come together because we are all simply human. On one hand, that is too easy. On the other, there may be too much at stake for one to do so. We cannot take for granted that identity (-ies) and humanity are both constructed, neither just exists in a vacuum. Maybe the strident beliefs and expressions of monolithic identities are the result of taking our collective selves for granted. I know I have been guilty.

I would caution one to hold their breath if they believe this call for a more complicated vision of human rights means shedding whatever identities to which they claim. I am not proclaiming to give up my definition of myself as a black American. Generations before me struggled for the right to determine themselves, both as a group and as individuals. To recognize this historical fact is to honor them and to attempt to make real the idea of a diverse America. This does not mean that all (black or otherwise) Americans should think or act as I do, because they too are also exercising the same right I am. What this is a call for is new ways of building working coalitions with different individuals from different groups in different contexts. Yes, we all have to be willing to compromise some aspects of ourselves, but it should not be in spite of ourselves; it should be for the sake of positive societal transformation.

We need to ask tough questions. Yes, black and white people are important, but what about Native Americans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Iraqis, Afghanis, etc? Shouldn’t we be expanding the platform to include as many groups as possible whenever possible? Why are we comfortable with the convention of zero-sum power? Is it too much to ask that everyone could have a chance marry who they want? Why isn’t the media talking about the virtual invisibility of Muslims in our political process? Why do people throw around the words “Jew” and “gay” as if they are funny? How come when someone believes something is wrong with the youth, it seems that all of hip hop culture is to blame? As problematic as some artists are(because not all of them are perfect), there many of them (that often go unheard) who have a lot of poignant things to say, even if it comes out in a rough manner. If elected President, will Hillary Clinton only make 77 cents to a dollar that President Bush makes? Probably not, but how can a woman run for President of the United States while the disparity remains? It will take a great amount of individuals from different backgrounds in a variety of locations to join with those who are already attempting to resolve these questions.

There are a plethora of issues that affect people locally, regionally, nationally, and globally: sexism, violence, bigotry and indifference, poverty, war, mass incarceration, globalization, etc that need addressing now. There are also different reasons why these problems exist and play out. Again, the question remains, what to do, and more importantly, how? One place to start, as Dr. King often asserted, is our values. He often advocated for a revolution of values. The human element should be elevated above the profit motive. We should seek consensus building to solve problems instead of engaging in ideological warfare. Is it truly impossible to recognize both the individuality and interdependence of human experience? Even in the height of the Cold War, Dr. King called for a “socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.” This call, if actually answered, could be the most transformative. What if we began to question the values undergirding existing institutions? This is not to say that this does not occur. Government officials do it every time they encounter a plan or department they dislike. A corporate leader does it every time she or he does not get a desired outcome in a business venture. Should we even wait to experience a loss before we do so? We should not. We will have to build new infrastructures that allow for continuous evaluation of existing institutions, the ability to discard the ones we do not like, and the room to build new ones. While doing so, we will also have to reconsider the dominant leadership and organizational models which, depending upon the circumstances, tend to be hierarchical and dogmatic comprised of a few people. Why continue to have the “best” democracy money can buy when we may be able build one using the best of our human resources?

We can no longer afford to engage in a politics of indifference, antagonism, and alienation nor a fearful and narrow nationalism if we hope to be successful. War and individual acts of violence will not solve any of our problems. How much more money and “stuff” do we need? Only a positive thrust for a true, more participatory democracy that accounts for the diverse experiences of all people can push us beyond the cusp of human progress that eludes us. Granted, getting to the “mountain top” and into the “Promised Land” will not be easy, especially if there are plenty of people who believe they are already there or that neither exists. However, we cannot be afraid to tell the cynics, the comfortable, or the hostile that we do not need them to get there. We cannot wait. Like Dr. King wrote in “Remaining Awake,” time is not neutral and it can either be used “constructively or destructively.” We cannot afford to destructively waste our time. So, if others want to remain asleep, that’s fine. We should be able to find a way. But, we cannot afford to wait for them to wake up. Besides, I don’t see how a sleeping population can stop anyone alert and hungry for change from declaring their own independence. While I hate to say this, we can leave them behind and graciously leave the door open for them to follow once they awaken from their slumber.

Dr. King’s last sermons ironically remind me of a hip hop song performed by a hip hop group you may not have ever heard before due to personal tastes or public perception, the People Under the Stairs: “I feel like the revolution’s already here. It’s just a matter of whether you can hear or don’t hear, some choose the latter…”

We can no longer afford to make the choice to remain asleep or tune out the music. We may be sleeping through a revolution and I’m not talking about a Presidential campaign.

© 2008 Austin C. McCoy. All Rights Reserved.

I will post my response within the next couple of days. Meanwhile here is a complete video and transcript courtesy of his campaign website. It was big.

Barack Obama : A More Perfect Union

–Jessica Winck

I’m annoyed with the media’s new fixation on Kristen, the woman whose services New York Governor Eliot Spitzer used and got caught paying for. It’s hard to call this fixation “coverage.” Nothing new has happened except the discovery of her MySpace page, a pretty static piece of information: it hasn’t been altered since she was identified as a prostitute, and we should doubt that it was constructed with the expectation of being identified at some point with a very public name.

The presentation of the information found on her MySpace page is interesting in itself. On CNN, a headline related to the scandal reads, “Spitzer’s escort: ‘I love who I am.’” Why write the headline as if this is Kristen’s response to the attention and judgment she has received because of the scandal, and not a quote pulled from her MySpace page? (We do not even know if her statement is directly in reference to being a prostitute.) Read after the scandal, her statement reveals what we already believe to be true about Kristen: she is a defiant slut, acting in that bold, shameless way that is the only way we ever see prostitutes act. Read before the scandal, the statement reveals a confident woman who has a reason to love herself and who, despite any failings or personal disappointments, does not have unreasonable judgment against herself–unlike many if not most women her age. And the media cannot have that.

The appearance of defiance and shamelessness is extended (if not hinged on) the pictures she posted on her MySpace page. The two most commonly shown as “Kristen” on news sites include her in a bikini, leaning forward with her elbows on her knees. She wears sunglasses and appears to be on a boat. Easily this picture satisfies assumptions viewers have about her as a prostitute: she shamelessly shows her skin out in the open, and her sunglasses, convenient happenstance for media, might act to show her secretive intentions.
The other photo that most often appears on news sites shows a Kristen in profile, holding her fingers in a peace sign. Black nails, brown hair on her bare shoulder and down her back, a provocative look we do that, in our self-aware ways, shows we know someone is looking. Compared to the pictures NOT chosen to represent “Kristen,” these two photos are definitely the sexiest of the bunch. In other photos, Kristen puts her head down on a table in a mock sleeping pose, another looks like a senior picture (black and white dramatic close-up), another of her looking goofy with her hair in her face, and another one with even more peace signs.

No more crazy than the pictures we take of ourselves with camera phones, change dramatically to black and white or sepia, and use for online representation. Look what happens when this woman experiences increased public attention: people view these couple photos chosen by a slut-shaming media and believe all the pieces are coming together–the realization of their assumptions in “reality.”

But can it get any more ridiculous than the assumption that Kristen will capitalize off the scandal? MSNBC headlines read, “Fame of call girl in Spitzer case grows. Vote: Should Ashley A. Dupre grab her 15 minutes?”

Gratitude and many thanks for the new audience? How do we know, and why are we voting on it? Given that she has said nothing to media except the self-conscious, “I just don’t want to be thought of as a monster,” and that the media has lifted her whole MySpace page for use in their news pieces in order to gauge the potential reaction “this woman” (as we know her on MySpace) has to the scandal to which she is central, we need to withdraw our judgment along with our fanatical interest in “The Woman Behind Spitzer’s Fall.”

With at least eight other known events where Spitzer paid for sex, why fixate on Kristen? Why duplicate her MySpace page over and over, combing it for revealing details? And why call her HIS (”Eliot Spitzer’s Kristen”) as if, once her one-time services are paid for, she belongs to him forever and can only be seen as having been HAD by him?

My concern is that the attention on Kristen gives Spitzer way too much respect. Do we imagine that Kristen recognized the Senator and felt privileged to be at his service? Do we imagine that anyone “like her” would have to jump at this chance to cheaply promote herself (the singer and artist) within the confines provided to her by a media that loves to bash “sluts”?

People who knew Spitzer or knew of him have been bemoaning his “fall” day and night all over the news. To be tied to a prostitute forever! Sure, it’s not good for your reputation. Spitzer is done. He mourns “what might have been.”
Kristen, a twenty-two year old artist, still has her whole life ahead of her. After watching the focus on Kristen growing sharper and sharper, it’s hard to feel badly for Spitzer anymore–not that I can’t see the damage done to his career, not that I can’t imagine what must be going on inside his home with his family. But he can’t do much to reconcile all this, and he probably won’t ever save his political identity.

Kristen, on the other hand, might have had her future career and public image ruined because of this negative attention. It might just be too bad that she, rather, will always be tied to him.

Steve King, Republican Congressman: Al-Qaida Will Be “Dancing In The Streets” If “Hussein” Obama Wins - Politics on The Huffington Post

Is it me or is King the one reading too much into his middle name?…

On Friday, February 29, 2008, I attended a rally for Senator Hillary Clinton where former President Clinton was the guest speaker. As usual, he was impressive. He outlined Senator Clinton’s positions on health care, education, the war, and her fundamental political philosophy of change and experience. Former President Clinton’s engaging personality and sense of humor also came to the fore when he sought to distinguish his wife’s platform from that of Senators Obama and McCain. However, with all of this said, I walked out of Malabar Middle School and drove out of my hometown of Mansfield with a nasty taste in my mouth.

One would think that one could participate in the political process without harassment from those with whom one may disagree. Is that not what American democracy is supposed to be about? Well, if one had to gauge the prospects of our democratic republic by the treatment I received from a couple of Senator Clinton’s supporters, then I would conclude that it is in dire straits. Yes, I am a critical supporter of Senator Obama (My reasons are forthcoming in another piece.). But, I am not anti-Hillary Clinton. I do not believe in a system of zero-sum politics that say I have to dislike another person because I support someone else. I actually have the utmost respect for the Clinton family, and some people could even point to moments when I have emphatically defended them. And as much as I critically support Senator Obama, I support participatory democracy MORE. I support critical participation over blind faith. I believe it is always important to seek to understand alternative points of view. This is why I accepted my friend’s invitation to attend the rally. Yes, I just happened to be wearing my old and disintegrating Obama for Illinois t-shirt, sticker, and pin, but I was not trying to stir the jug by any means. Yet, despite my intentions, a couple of people thought otherwise. After returning from a restroom break and a brief chat with the local superintendent, one of the volunteers for Sen. Clinton’s campaign tried to block my reentry. Even after trying to let her know that I had entered once before, she insisted that I could not reenter unless I filled out another form soliciting assistance for Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Luckily, one of the volunteers that I worked with during the Kerry campaign intervened and confirmed my prior entrance.

After President Clinton’s talk I sought to visit with some acquaintances. While I was speaking to one of my friends, who happens to be a local reporter, an older woman stopped and glared at me after she noticed my pin. Out of nowhere she asked in a rude tone, “What are you doing here? What are you doing here?” After I asked her what she meant, she pointed to my pin and pretty much expressed that my presence was unwelcome. Once I reminded her that we practice a democratic form of government where I could exercise my right to free speech and disagreement, she began questioning me about Senator Obama’s middle name. I replied that Hussein was a Muslim name. Then I tried to explain that people were trying to emphasize his middle name in order to scare them away from supporting him. I also said that she should not be concerned with that, she should be concerned with “racists”—which was a bad choice of words on my part—who seek to capitalize on other’s intolerance and fears. After saying this, she denounced me as being “racist” and a “confused” voter. And her denouncement came after she told me that she “did not want a Muslim in the White House.” But, I’m racist?

I was astounded and irritated to say the least. I could not believe she would make this accusation, especially since I was trying to explain the situation. I could not believe that in a country that professes to be democratic and ready for “change” that some individuals would take it upon themselves to exert what little privilege they had to make a point. I thought this was the reason why black and white individuals marched during the 1960s? What else is a shame is that it is very possible that her parents and grandparents could have had a terrible time trying to exercise their own electoral rights because they were people of color. Who would have thought that is what the legacy of fighting, marching, and dying for freedom rights in the 20th century would be?

When I originally sat down to write this, I planned on penning an unfavorable piece on Richland County’s Ohio for Hillary Campaign, however, it would not be fair to my friends who support Senator Clinton, nor to the majority of volunteers who may have thought something, but were mature enough not to express anything. As I wrote earlier, I am not a blind supporter of anything or anyone. I do feel, however, that individual and group participation in the political process is paramount. While today reminded me not to take the free democratic process for granted, it also reminded me how much we need to fix the political process. No one should blindly follow any candidate. Not one! Granted, people fought, marched, sacrificed, and died for one to vote any which way they choose. However, we should take stock in the moment and seek to understand the policies of each and every candidate. We should stay away from zero-sum politics which states that if we support someone, or a set of policies, we automatically disregard others. Sometimes the most radical thing to do is to work together in spite of disagreements. Sometimes the most radical tactic is to listen instead of trying to impose one’s (perceived) political will. While many may approach politics as if it were a contact sport where we seek to tear down opponents, we should instead approach politics as if we were building an elaborate house. All people who want to participate are welcome. All skill-sets should be encouraged. Each person can help set the foundation, build the exterior, interior, as well as laying the roof. Only then will a majority of people feel like stakeholders in the process.

Of course people will dismiss my plea for positive political participation over cynical engagement (which people of every campaign are guilty) as probably more utopian than Senator Obama’s call to transcend differences. This is not a call for political softness either. There is always space for “strength,” fearlessness, courage, and ideological self-defense. But we should not ever make room for narrow-mindedness and disrespect in our political discourse. And if any member of any campaign wants to take this personal, then do so. Maybe then we will have dialogue about our approach. It is fine if this is seen as an idealistic plea. Because I am sure that there are people, not just in this country, but the world, who seek to build a 21^st century version of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s conception of the “World House.” In 1967, Dr. King warned that if people of different races, religions, classes, gender and sexual identities, and beliefs did not learn to live together, they would “perish together as fools.” This vision of political participation and global human evolution is as important now as ever before. This moment in time is larger than a “maverick,” “change-agent,” or an “embodiment of change.” It is not about the outcome. The ways in which we participate will ultimately determine how we are judged. If we do not seek innovations in how we participate and relate to one another, then it does not matter who wins the Presidency—Senator Clinton, McCain, or Obama—we will only remain a shaky edifice that could eventually implode, leaving other nations and groups of people to suffocate in the rubble. Could we be so selfish?