Opting out of the process and into the Revolution isn't cut and dry

So I don’t know much about Russell Brand. I mean I know he was married once, had a substance problem, and is on cable a lot, but I don’t know what he does for a living. Honestly, I’m not to invested in finding out. I also know he’s pretty progressive. I do know that opting out of the current political process and into the revolution isn't easy, and it is much more complex than how Brand presents it.

However, Brand was interviewed about his part writing for a political magazine, New Statesman. The interview was conducted by BBC’s Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman. Paxman was a jerk. He was combative the whole time and opposed to anything Brand says.

Let’s go over the good, and there is quite a bit. Brand states he is calling for a socialist egalitarian revolution that is based on the redistribution of wealth, which includes immediately addressing the economic inequity and turns the word profit into a dirty word. Brand is direct in saying the current system of Democracy doesn’t work. It works to keep some of the same people in power and leave others according to Brand specifically the poor due to it being a hierarchical system. Brand says those involved in the current system aren’t trying to address any of the current problems of inequity, environmental issues, etc. instead they focus on placating the people.

Some of the other highlights? Brand discusses his substance abuse issues as they relate to the context of poverty. He says social conditions that promote corporations at the expense of the poor and ignores the underserved, which can result in substance abuse and a lot of other problems. Paxman couldn’t follow this thought at all. He immediately started accusing Brand of blaming his substance abuse on other people including the state, which isn’t what Brand was doing. Brand was acknowledging things don’t exist in a vacuum. Brand also states he has every intention of calling out the elites, which is kind of bad ass.  He also spoke a little to his background in poverty, which contributes to his anger and passion on this issue. Brand also says that the change enabled in the current system isn’t dramatic enough because it isn’t genuine change. He promotes genuine alternatives.

Paxman does this interesting thing where he demands Brand explain his ideal world order, which of course Brand can’t do. Brand mentions that he can’t simply construct a utopia, but a little latter Paxman defends those who currently are in power as maybe being too overwhelmed by the current problems of the world to do anything about it. I think this speaks to the issue. The media rushes to defend the politicians from the very question they demand dissenters answer.

So the bad. Brand doesn’t vote. Those of you who read this blog, you know my feelings about people who don’t vote. They may very well have some good points, but often they are completely unable to recognize how privilege comes into this discussion. Brand doesn’t vote because he’s at the point of exhaustion from dealing with the political class, which led to the development of an underclass. He refuses to participate in a broken system, where voting has been proven ineffective. He says voting makes no difference. I’ll be very brief. I argue voting makes hella difference when you have limited rights and those with power are targeting you. Brand’s argument comes from a place of safety and privilege, and unfortunately, we all can’t share that position in society, which leaves some of us at the mercy of the current political system. . So let me apply a few lens to this: sexual orientation, race, gender, and class

Just to begin this is obviously an international discussion. LGTBQ people have limited rights, and I’m not just talking about marriage. Personally, I think the right to marry coalition of the LGBTQ community high jacked the movement in hopes of generating support for the movement while not being threatening to the hetro community. They are being killed in Russia. They are being forced to serve prison sentences in prison with an assigned gender (correlating to sex at birth) instead of gender identity. They are being fired from and denied jobs and education. Just saying. Can these individuals opt out of a broken system? Sure, but I’m pretty sure things will get a lot worse for the LGBTQ community.

I think people of color may have some questions about opting out of voting after all several states are trying to prevent them from voting already. Guess, when people in power make that decision for you it is even better? A good rule of thumb is when the people with the power want to prevent you from doing something, it might be worth doing. That said, forget voting, sure it is waste by Brand’s (and many others) logic. However, we have some other issues: “stand your ground,” “stop and frisk,” mass imprisonment of black men, and “the school to prison pipeline.” That is just for Black people, think for a minute about Native Americans and rape for example. I think you have to engage in the system to stop these things. Racism is institutionalized, and thus you have to take on the institutions. Again, if people of color opt out, things will probably get worse for them. After all representatives are admitting to trying to keep people of color out of the political process, so I’m not sure we should make it easier for them.

And on to the women. Always the women. 300 anti-choice laws passed in the US in the last year. Blaming sexual assault survivors and actual attempts to overturn Title IX, Title fucking IX. Come at me bro. Women using stand your ground to defend themselves from violent partners are serving time for it. Obviously, some of these issues are going to overlap with previously mentioned issues. We are seeing an abundance of legislation that is targeting women. Opting out isn’t going to protect us from zealots. We have to participate, we have to choose the lesser of the evils because if we don’t we’ll have more women serving prison sentences for trying to commit suicide, which happened to kill a fetus at the same time or for refusing some medical treatment in her first/second trimester because THINK OF THE FETUS. Pretty sure, if women opt out it will just get worse, no I’m sure. Representatives actively talk about women’s place, and how to prevent women from having control over their medical decisions. This is a thing that is happening, and it is the intention, including the intention behind trying to push back the birth control mandate in Obamacare.

Now, onto class. Brand spoke to class a bit, and he makes good point. However, I’m not sure people who are destitute and completely dependent on the welfare system can afford to opt out with conservative attempts to destroy already gutted programs. And so on and so on.

What this really comes down to, is privilege. Brand has privilege, so he can afford to be idealistic and throw off the oppressive chains of the current political systems because he isn’t the kind of person they are targeting. Everyone else, we can’t afford to. I’m going to vote in the next presidential election, and I’m probably going to vote Dem (H-Rod or Biden), and I know I will vote Dem if I’m back living in Ohio. In Maryland, I might be able to get away with voting third party. These are the hands we’re dealt. It sucks, but it is a discussion about survival not what is right, and maybe that is wrong, but I’m more concerned about making sure my friends’ daughters won’t be blamed for sexual assault and will have access to birth control and comprehensive reproductive choice.  That their sons won’t be shot for wearing a hoodie.

Also, all this brings me to an interesting place if men like Brand, (white men who have sex with women and who possess affluence/influence, from the media or education) are the one’s calling for the revolution and a utopia. If the privileged are the ones who have the opportunity to participate; will the revolution result in anything different from what we already have? Don’t get me wrong, I think we should take to the streets, but I think we should continue participating in the political process while we’re at it. Fight on all fronts. But I’m concerned if the leaders look like the leaders we’ve always had maybe the revolution isn’t a revolution simply a changing of the guard. I’m shutting it down here, though I could write and write on the topic. Maybe I will, maybe this weekend I’ll write something on the theory behind successful revolutions.

Below is the clip of Brand and Paxman.

Voting for Hillary for President

Jessica Valenti wrote a piece for The Nation on why she will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the next presidential election, provided of course Hillary receives the nomination; 2016 is a long way away people. As many people know, I’m not a huge fan of Valenti. I prefer her articles over books, but I recognize her as an activist and scholar for the feminist movement, and she acts as a great entry point/author for white people and men who aren’t familiar with feminism.

However, this article is compelling, not because I think Hillary is great, because I have a lot of problems with her politics, and not because women should vote for other women just because they are women, but because I’m angry and frustrated and tired. At the end of the day, I and thousands of other women, people of color, and poor people are going to get screwed so let it be a woman this time. Maybe just maybe, women’s health (including reproductive health) won’t be front and center on the chopping block or used to play easy politics and worst case it remains there. That is where I am right now; women can’t lose any more ground unless we start moving toward an Atwood like dystopia straight up outlawing abortion and preventing women from having access to money and property…no one tell the Republicans; they'll think that is a great idea.

Valenti argues, “Next time around, though, I’m voting for a woman. Not because I believe that the female Democratic candidate (and I think we all have a good idea who that will be) is guaranteed to be the most feminist, but because I’m just too fed up to do anything else. I’ve made a full transition from youthful idealism to jaded orneriness, and my vote will be just as angry as I am.”

Preach. Valenti continues to talk about EMILY’s List and their new campaign aimed at putting a woman (a specific woman) in the White House. She notes that more women are running for office, winning, and that the US is ready for a woman president. EMILY’s List has some polling data that shows 86% of people believe the US is ready to elect a female president. Some of this might come from the frustration with the all-male show we’ve had in a lot of places not just the presidency. Valenti asserts, “women aren’t just ready to see more of their gender in power—they’re champing at the bit.”

I can’t say I agree or disagree with this comment. For me, power, the concept is less important, than the ability to do something anything that is different from the status quo at this point. Valenti argues that breaking through the political glass ceiling isn’t enough of a reason to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Women politicians aren’t inherently more friendly to women’s policy concerns see leader of crazy town Bachman as an example. Additionally, when putting gender first, white women usually take the lead, and when in politics this means wealthy white women.

But Valenti is tired and so am I. This is the part of the article where she lists her frustrations about campus rapists being “punished” by researchers and not prison, the sexual misconduct by the people in charge of sexual misconduct in the military, war over reproductive rights, the leading cause of death for pregnant women is their partner, President Obama is playing politics over Plan B because some people in this country are idiots.

None of these things are going to change just because a woman is at the helm, in fact I know that the president doesn’t have that much power, more so every year it feels, but they aren’t omnipotent. But Valenti is right, a woman president could act as a reminder that we have made some progress…not equal representation in Congress or on the Supreme Court, but some.

Valenti also posits that maybe a woman president will help feminists stop playing defense all the time. It obviously won’t end sexism, but the argument can be made that it will change the conversation. Of course, we’ll hear from the same people who think racism is over now that we’ve had a black president, but they can be ignored. I’m with Valenti on her point about politicians being disappointing, and if they are going to be disappointing then why not let a woman disappoint us? Equal representation in disappointment.

Valenti concludes by noting that after Hillary was appointed Secretary of State, a record number of countries appointed female ambassadors to the US. So there is something to be said for figureheads. Valenti finishes her article with this, “I don’t know that my course of action is the one I’d recommend for others—in many ways, it’s a marker of my dying idealism. But I do know that seeing a woman hold the nation’s highest office would bring me great joy, and that if there’s anything American women need right now, it’s a win.”

I know this isn’t going to sit well with a few people who read this blog; on the other hand some of you are going to love this. But first, while I’m not H-Rod’s biggest fan, I would remind everyone to check their privilege and note my cynicism. I’m just tired. I’m tired of “women’s issues” being over looked and undervalued because they disproportionally impact women when they should be considered human rights issues.  For example, take this article on RH Reality Check entitled, “Anti-Abortion Laws are Crimes Against Women.” No, they are crimes against humanity because women are people and human! Surprise. Now, yes, I’m arguing about language, but this is how we silence people we relegate them to a subgroup and ignore them or write them off. It is a tried and true practice. I’m tried of women being told to wait our turn while the world is moving forward on other important issues. Now, I’m all for solidarity, but why not advance progressive causes across the board or at least hold our ground while the Planned Parenthood faces defunding and anti-choice legislation is popping up all over the country, and by the way solidarity works both ways, and it is time the mens (gay, straight, bi, and trans) get on our team too. I read an article this week about men my age not being opposed to women in leadership roles, but also not advancing the cause because they believe this is a zero sum game. Fuck you buddy.

But in the end, I am tired, and I probably will vote for Hillary or the Green Party because of where I live and none of it matters anyway. But if I’m back in the Cleveland by 2016, you can bet on me voting for Hillary if nothing else out of exhaustion.

So about voting, can we get a Constitutional Guarantee on that?

John Nichols for Mother Jones had an article entitled, “Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote.” Nichols begins by reminding his readers as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did, there is not federal constitutional guarantee of the right to vote for president. The reform group FairVote also reminds us, “Because there is not vote to vote in the US Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Everyone, got that? Voting falls under states rights, which means they can restrict and suppress votes unless the feds or the courts do something about it. On Monday, two congressmen unveiled a proposal to guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution. Pocan of Wisconsin said, “The right to vote is too important to be left unprotected. At a time when there are far too many efforts to disenfranchise Americans, a voting rights amendment would positively affirm our founding principle that our country is at its strongest when everyone participates. As the world’s leading democracy, we must demand of ourselves what we demand of others—a guaranteed right to vote for all.”

Ellison argues that without a guarantee politicians will continue to propose and enact legislation that impedes voting rights. Noting voter identification laws, cumbersome registration requirements, and the reduction of early voting opportunities in the states, culminating in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act that is being considered by the US Supreme Court, Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucasus says, “Even though the right to vote is the most-mentioned right  the Constitution, legislatures across the country have been trying to deny the right to millions of Americans, including in my home state of Minnesota. It’s time we made it clear once and for all: every citizen in the United States has a fundamental right to vote.”

Pulled from Nichols article, the text would read:

“If approved by the Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would add to the founding document this declaration:

“SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

“SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

There isn’t anything scandalous about the language. We’ve tried right-to-vote amendments in the past, but usually they don’t get very far. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than 80 bills to restrict voting have been introduced in more than 30 states, and this has inspired activism and constitutional reform. Fingers-crossed something happens on this front as there are state by state attempts to prevent people from voting.

Shockingly people are pissed about voter suppression, and it may change politics

John Nicholas had an article in The Nation on the backlash against voter suppression and its impact on politics. I’m not particularly interested in rehashing the voter suppression. I wrote about what happened in Ohio with the early voting restrictions, the mass tossing of absentee ballots, and turning people away at the polls. We know these efforts are targeting voters of color specifically black voters.

There has been push back of course; civil rights groups, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and other organizations are working together. However, the strongest backlash is coming from voter registration and mobilization drives in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (you know the states that decide the presidential election).

Ohio State and resident badass Senator Nina Turner said, “Republicans thought that they could suppress the vote, but these efforts actually motivated people to get registered and cast a ballot. It’s no surprise that the communities targeted by these policies came out to the polls in a big way—they saw this not just as an affront to their rights, but as a call to action.”

Turner was spot on. William Frey and the Brookings Institute produced a new study for the Associated Press, and they found voter turnout was down overall from 2004 and 2008, but African-American turnout didn’t decline at the same rate as white turnout. If the headlines are right, black turnout might have surpassed white for the first time. Of course, Frey notes this can’t be confirmed until we have the census data which isn’t available yet. However, the data that is available gives us this: overall turnout dropped from 2008 to 2012, but black turnout held steady at 13%.

So why is this a big deal? African Americans only make up 12% of eligible voters, which means the actual number of African Americans voting outperformed their percentage of eligible voters. Turnout among Hispanic voters traditionally outperforms their number of eligible voters. Naturally, this had a strong impact on President Obama’s reelection because there was some concern about enthusiasm turnout, but President Obama still had strong support among African Americans and young people.

AP notes:

“Romney would have erased Obama’s nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey’s analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black turnout lower.

“More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.”

 Mom always said cheaters never prosper. I never believed her given the banking industry and professional sports (look at you Patriots), but hell maybe there was something to this.

We know Republicans are running to embrace people of color (usually in the “good minority” model), but with African American turnout like this it suggests that candidates are going to play less of a role than say, voting issues. This is hard to imagine if Republicans continue to be associated with voter suppression or actually continue to implement policies to suppress votes (Ohio). I’m ok with Republicans being associated as the party that wants to stop people from voting because it obviously helps us in the polls. I am however opposed to voter suppression. If Republicans want to fix this association then they need to push for voter inclusion (I have some ideas like stopping these stupid laws and letting felons who have served their time vote).

As we all learned from Rep. Paul Ryan (or were reminded in a condescending way), Republicans are trying to rely on a legacy of voter innovation and civil rights ignoring more recent developments. So this is like the kid who is a Harvard legacy that has shitty grades and then wonders why he didn’t get in.

Republicans need to rethink their voter policies or continue to lose elections.