Western society, not just in the US, is racist and misogynist. There is no arguing that point, unless you are arguing from a willfully ignorant position. And it is detrimental to our society, and the power that comes from engagement, to disenfranchise large sections of our collective will. So, kudos for continuing to bring awareness to these issues.
There are a couple of verbal ticks in this interview, however, that concern me. The concern is that this is less an attempt to raise awareness and promote actual inclusion, and more of a clandestine Establishment Trojan horse, akin to the “#Resistance”, that seeks to shepherd otherwise well meaning people into the arms of yet more corporatists.
Hillary was the Cassandra and her supporters were the witches thrown into the water to see if we would float. AWP came out of that frustration with a desire to address those concerns and make sure we were prepared against those attacks in 2018 and 2020. The AWP wants to make sure women’s voices are empowered to participate in the political process.
This is concerning. And not just for the mixed metaphor. While there was certainly a healthy dose of misogyny bouncing around this election, when we sit down and really examine the candidates, the kind of misogyny that would be required to alone doom Clinton’s candidacy would have to be at the ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ level.
Donald Trump is a ridiculous figure. He was a ridiculous figure when he rode his golden escalator down to his announcement. He was ridiculous on the campaign trial. He is internationally ridiculed as our President. This isn’t a sudden epiphany. The vast majority of the American Public knew this.
Any Democratic candidate who couldn’t beat this clown by 20+ points did something to turn a big cross-section of the Party faithful and Independents off. You can’t just blame it on misogyny. It’s too pat. Too easy. And while it may feel good to play the victim of other people’s irrational hatred, reaching for the easy excuse of blaming a core defect in the voters risks failing to really examine all of the reasons people looked at this Hobson’s Choice of an election, and chose to not participate.
Because that’s the clear takeaway. It wasn’t that Trump flipped a lot of otherwise rational voters. It was that a lot of rational voters looked at the choice, and decided that neither candidate was worthy of their support.
And as this coalition is advertised as coming out of Clinton’s support group, this gives us a clue as to what the other verbal ticks really mean.
We will endorse candidates who support intersectional women’s issues such as reproductive rights, environmental justice, criminal justice reform, and more with practical plans to accomplish real goals.
It’s the last section of this quote that is the tell. This comes directly out of the failed Clinton campaign. Because if your real interest is in reproductive rights, environmental justice, criminal justice reform, and more, then you are planning on supporting real Progressive candidates.
But anything that was really progressive was considered ‘pie in the sky’ and ‘unrealistic’ in Hillary World, and as we know, from above, that this group comes directly from the Hillary campaign, we can extrapolate that we aren’t talking about any paradigm-shifting policy goals. “practical plans to accomplish those goals” is Establishment-speak for ‘don’t piss off the donors.’
We can’t discuss healthcare without considerations of reproductive rights and distrust of women’s pain. We can’t discuss criminal justice reform without examining how mothers are directly impacted… Fighting for single payer isn’t enough if we don’t ensure single payer guarantees reproductive rights. Fighting voter suppression isn’t enough if we don’t consider how voting is made difficult for people with disabilities. Fighting climate change isn’t enough if we don’t consider how solutions will impact people in poverty.
This is an interesting position to take, when one considers how such purity was viewed by Hillary’s online supporters. We’re saying that no achievement will be considered satisfactory unless it checks every box in their goals? The term “Purity Pony” comes to mind. What happened to the Clinton refrain of compromise?
Well, as we know from the Primary, ‘compromise’ actually means ‘knuckle under and support our compromised candidate’. Hillary’s supporters weren’t actually expecting to compromise on anything.
Let’s face it, Democrats are the only ones (besides 3 GOP senators) that actively tried to save health care, who protect reproductive rights, who advocate for gun sense laws, who pass EPA regulations and environmental protections, and who worked to end mandatory minimums and reform the criminal justice system.
Here, we will discount the efforts of every independent who has worked for healthcare reform every day for decades. Only Democrats. No one else. Any independent who advocates real healthcare reform is invisible. Only Democrats, many of whom voted against re-importation of cheaper Pharma, are the heroes.
Tribalism. We don’t support great ideas or bold initiatives, unless they have a (D) next to them, because our team must be the winners, regardless of what that “win” actually achieves.
We must empower women’s voices to participate in the political climate so we are not silenced.
Stop telling Hillary to shut up, regardless how much damage she is doing to the Party.
What should the Democratic Party be focused on as they head towards the 2018 elections?
We obviously think fighting voter suppression is the most important issue because without voter enfranchisement we can’t vote and win elections!
Voter suppression is an important issue. And when discussing voter disenfranchisement, we must remember what that means in Establishment terms. What we’re really saying is that we want to enable our voters to vote. We’re perfectly OK with disenfranchising voters that won’t vote for establishment Democrats. Don’t mistake this as some sort of principled position.
But the keystone issue that prevents all actual progressive policy achievement is Campaign Financing. The fact is, it largely doesn’t matter which party wins, if both are captured by special interest money. No real changes will be considered in taxation, in regulation, or in trade. No action on union empowerment will be considered. The War on Drugs will lumber along on the back of the weapons industry interest in selling militarized equipment to police. Our foreign policy will remain belligerent and combative. And of course, healthcare will still be a private, for-profit enterprise.
To end this, fundamental reform of our campaign finance laws is required. This group is not interested in that. To understand why, one needs only to review Hillary Clinton’s large donor list.