Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalWhy it's important to elect women.
Many are dismissive of the idea that the 'identity' of our next POTUS nominee or that of nominees for other offices is important. The whole gender-blind or color-blind approach is clearly compelling to a large number of people. The assumption is that advocating for our next POTUS nominee to be a woman or person of color, or both, is equivalent to saying, "Our nominee should be a woman just because." But that assumption is false. What follows are excerpts from articles on why that assumption is false, why the dismissiveness is wrong-headed. The articles focus on electing women, but some of the arguments made could also apply to electing persons of color. The Republican Party remains viable because of racism and sexism, so a reduction in both is paramount. Not to mention reducing oppression is simply the right thing to do, and benefits everyone. Without further ado, the aforementioned excerpts:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cohen-why-women-should-elect-women-20160406-story.html#
A large body of research has been devoted to answering a fundamental question: Do women substantively represent women more effectively than men do? In hundreds of studies examining large data sets of roll call votes, bill sponsorship, laws enacted and other measures the answer is clear. "Across time, office, and political parties," political scientist Beth Reingold writes in a comprehensive review, "women, more often than men, take the lead on women's issues, no matter how such issues are defined."
And then there's the danger that if women aren't at the table, they might be on the menu. In late 2009, the all-male Senate Democratic leadership team met privately to decide what would be included in the final Affordable Care Act. They eliminated a women's healthcare amendment that had passed overwhelmingly in committee, and that included coverage for such things as contraceptives and mammograms. The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), had to demand its reinstatement just as the caucus was about to vote on the final bill.
The U. S. has made tremendous advances on equal rights over the last 40 years, and yet we have a ways to go. Women are paid less than men in almost every job and at every level. Ours is the only advanced economy that doesn't guarantee paid leave for new mothers. On broad measures of gender equality, the United States ranks an unimpressive 28th in the world.
To achieve equal opportunity and full participation for women and girls in all areas of American life demands leadership, dedication and political will — and especially the will to expend political capital — at the top.
All the evidence tells us that our odds of making progress on gender equality will be much higher if the president is a woman.
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12266378/electing-women-congress-hillary-clinton
Sarah Anzia, the author of this study, argues that this might reflect something particular about the type of women who run for Congress. Multiple studies have found that women underestimate their qualifications for office compared to men. When you look at a comparable group of lawyers, business leaders, and others likely to run for office, the men are significantly more likely to say that they’d make a good politician.
"One of the common jokes in this field is that every day, there are a million men who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say 'I’d be a great congressman,'" says Heidi Hartmann, an economist who runs the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. "And there aren’t that many women who do that."
As such, Anzia hypothesizes that the women who do assess their qualifications positively are those who are actually overqualified for the job.
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/11/473792646/is-it-ok-to-vote-for-clinton-because-she-s-a-woman-an-8-year-old-weighs-in
"Inherently we believe that white people's issues are the mainstream issues or men's issues are the mainstream issues," said Renee Bracey Sherman, a feminist and reproductive rights activist (who says she has donated to both Sanders and Clinton). "Everything else is a 'sideline issue.'"
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Oklahoma
I just have to point out that there's a chance each of those states may soon have a Democratic governor.
It's not likely that all 5 will, and it would be devastating if we lose all 5 of those races. But it's pretty remarkable that they could each have a Democratic governor.
Edit: I regret that I hadn't included Arizona.
9-year-old boy commits suicide after being bullied.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-year-old-denver-boy-dies-by-suicide-after-being-bullied-at-school-mother-says/Why post this here? Because politicians and members of the media (along with everyone else, of course) have a role to play in reducing these tragedies. The ignorant bigots who dominate the Republican Party must be held to account. They gain and maintain power purely because they foster and exploit racism (including xenophobia), sexism and heterosexism/homophobia.
Jamel Myles deserved so, so, so much better.
Update on the transgender student who was threatened by parents.
https://www.care2.com/causes/bigoted-parents-bully-transgender-12-year-old-girl-out-of-school.htmlAs I said at the time, those "adults" who threatened Maddie should have been arrested.
See link above. This is not the first time in young Maddie's life that she's had to move due to bullying. Democrats need to be talking about this.
If we want to do long-term damage to the Republican Party...
Democrats must hammer home the message that the rise of Trump (and the enabling of Trump) or someone like him was the inevitable result of 50 years of Republican rhetoric and policy. With an immense amount of help from an irresponsible infotainment industry that chases ratings, promotes false equivalencies, denies responsibility for fact-checking, and often implies that every statement is an equally valid opinion (there are no facts, there are no lies; there are only opinions), all in the name of boosting profits and not upsetting advertisers. It's not enough for a few pundits on MSNBC or CNN to state the obvious.
When Trump is gone, I guarantee you that the dominant narrative will be that everything is hunky-dory, that Trump was merely a bump in the road. Unless Democrats preemptively establish a different, more honest narrative.
The Republican Party has fomented and exploited racism (including xenophobia), sexism, religious bigotry, jingoism and extreme selfishness for decades. The pre-Trump Republican Party is directly responsible for Trump. They need to own that, which the anti-Trump Republicans who appear on TV or who are retiring from Congress aren't doing--they're all pushing this idea that the pre-Trump Republican Party was just fine. When in reality they need to make drastic changes or close shop and let a new party fill the void.
If Democrats don't start hammering home that message (which, yes, involves taking the media to task via the media...something Republicans started doing decades ago to great success) and take control of the narrative, the post-Trump Republican Party and the media will claim all is well because we've returned to normalcy. As if that's acceptable. As if everything was just fine pre-Trump. As if the Republican Party hasn't long been built upon a foundation of bigotry, greed and lies. As if the Republican Party hasn't long been morally and ethically bankrupt. As if the Republican Party hasn't relied heavily upon race-based gerrymandering and voter suppression. As if the "liberal media" lie of the last 30+ years wasn't bullshit from day one.
It would be a mistake to think the Mueller investigation and removal of Trump and convictions for other Republicans will be enough to destroy the Republican Party as we know it. Memories and attention spans are short. Democrats must establish the dominant narrative, or Republicans will. And repetition is utilized for a reason. It works, and it's necessary. Make Republicans own the monster they've created. The monster isn't Trump but the environment that gave rise to the Republican Party of Trump.
Why are "Democratic Socialists" attempting to establish a whole new definition of socialism?
We've already had discussions on DU about what socialism is, and that's not my purpose here. It's indisputable that there is a long-standing, established definition--and it's not what is being advocated by Democratic Socialists. It doesn't seem, at least, like any of the prominent Democratic Socialists are advocating for actual socialism. Instead, Sanders (and I imagine other Democratic Socialists) advocate for Social Democracy (the Nordic Model).
What I can't understand, for the life of me, is why they've chosen to conflate Social Democracy and socialism (with the latter being extremely polarizing, and also widely misunderstood--by supposed adherents, as well as opponents). Why not just call yourself a Social Democrat? Social Democracy already exists, it is most definitely not socialism, and Sanders frequently praises the Nordic Model (understandably so).
So, why?!? Why identify as a Democratic Socialist? Why go to the trouble of trying to re-define socialism when it's absolutely unnecessary? This just seems to me to be an incredibly idiotic choice. If you want to promote (understandably) the Nordic Model, why shoot your cause in the foot?
I really don't get it.
It's amazing Democrats do as well as we do.
When I consider all of the barriers in our way (gerrymandering, voter suppression, the infotainment industry, Russia, and a system that lends itself to overrepresentation of rural America), it speaks volumes that Democrats have as much power as we have (and are likely to have next year).
Should we be rooting for Kobach?
Do we have any Kansas experts here?
Kelly has a better shot against Kobach than against Colyer, right?
How likely is it that Kelly becomes governor of Kansas?
***Edit: That last question (about Kelly's chances) is what I should have led with. In a Democratic-friendly year, is there any chance a Democrat gets elected governor of Kansas? More specifically, is Kelly capable of winning?
Junior admitted publicly over a year ago that the meeting...
...was called for the purpose of getting info about Clinton. So, why is it news that Senior repeated that admittance this morning?
If he were to admit that he knew about the meeting ahead of time or that he participated in the meeting, that would be news.
But admittance regarding the purpose of the meeting is old news. Are folks just hard up for excitement on a lazy Sunday?
I'm not saying this whole matter isn't a big deal. It is, of course. But I don't get the reaction to this morning's tweet.
So-called "feel-good" stories that "ought to make you throw up."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/2/1785447/-When-That-Feel-Good-Story-Really-Ought-To-Make-You-Throw-UpJessica Goldstein, writing for Think Progress, captures what is inherently insidious about all of these feel-good stories: they try to put a positive spin on something which ought to be treated with outrage if not out-and-out horror.
Stories like this keep popping up on Twitter like zits on a prepubescent forehead: The sunshiney announcement about the GoFundMe for the guy with leukemia who can’t pay for his own medical costs. (He is employed by an organization whose owner has a net worth of $5.2 billion.) The dad who works three jobs to support his family saving up to buy his 14-year-old daughter a dress for an eighth grade dance. The college student who ran 20 miles to work after his car broke down and whose boss rewarded him for this effort by giving him his own car.
A common thread running through many of these “inspirational” vignettes is the existence of a seemingly impossible social dysfunction solved by the miraculous ingenuity and sheer generosity of others. The focus is always on the unique "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" solution rather than the underlying institutional problems that allowed the situation to exist in the first place.
...more at the link.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
