27 February 2006 - 3:34pm
Why I'm not voting Democrat - Second Wave Feminist Perspective
Equality under the law surely is an American value. Who, if they had the facts, would support a law that results in subjugation? Perhaps the oppressor might vote for such a law, but not those who are disadvantaged by the law. Yet, in the United States, women have not yet had the political will to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Its language is simple.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
It outlaws sexism.
And yet, the amendment is still not part of the United States Constitution.
Women are governed by a set of laws that have evolved over time, which stem from issues around human reproduction. The sexual organ difference between men and women has led to two sets of laws and rights.
The megablogs, such as Daily Kos, Boomantribune, and mydd, are advancing an argument that the issue of women's reproductive rights is not important, and that if a Democrat wants to restrict a woman's rights, that is okay since women's reproductive rights are not as important as electing a certain slate of candidates.
If I chose to support another candidate, who supports women's reproductive rights, but who is not of the "correct" slate of candidates, I risk being accused of being a traitor and deserter of the cause. But what cause, pray tell?
Why would I care about a candidate who doesn't care about me? It's as simple as that and the machinations of megablogs like Daily Kos, Boomantribune, and mydd, come off as flummery - I am urged to vote against my own interests because it is in my interests. Huh?
The Democrats, of late, have abandoned women's rights as an issue as the Democrats swing ever rightward. I ask myself, why should I join this made race to nowhere, whose only promise is oblivion? Either way, the Democrats will lose. The megblogs tell us there will be few Democrats in power; fewer Democratic bodies in Congress. But that's one price I am not going to pay, no matter how many elections it might win, for in the end, the Democrats will have struck a bargain to win an election, only to find out that they have sold their souls.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
You're right, Matsu. The Kosnikis would have people believe that there is nothing more important than winning - even if it means jettisoning every single principle for which the party ever stood. It's long past time to jettison the democrat party. Heck, if it were up to the munchkins at dailykos, women would still be waiting for the vote.
Two words: Hyde Ammendment. Passed under a Democratic president with a Democratic House and Democratic Senate. Everything has gone downhill from there.
I think that the biggest problem with the democrats is that they are so terrified of political fall out the only best interests the have in mind are their own. There is a massive lack of concern for many, many people in this country, and I think a great cause if this is because groups that have women and minorities best interests in mind are labelled "Special Interest Groups", giving the impression that woman having the right to her own body and equal treatment under the law is a radical thought. My long term goal is a united third party system which represents the people in this country that are currently nothing but pawns in the political games of republicans and democrats alike. Nice peice, by the way.
While I don't think that Kos can legitimately demand that NARAL and Planned Parenthood abandon their support of Chafee and Lieberman, he does have one good point:
I agree with him on this point. Today, protest marghes are markedly less effective political tools than they were a generation ago. Grassroots and grasstops advocacy are probably more effective uses of organizational resources.
That said, Kos is falling into another trap if he's going to continue to flog the effort to toss out Chafee, who's essentially a pro-choice RINO. I recall that not long ago, the Democrats targeted Md. Rep. Connie Morella, another RINO, and poured a lot of money into the race in her district. That year, the Democrats lost seats in the House. But, by God, they got rid of Morella!!
--|PW|--
I don't see how anyone can make any blanket declarations on what is or isn't effective. It's more than what gets media attention, it's what gets the participants motivated, what gets the politicians to pay attention, and what gets out the vote, and all that is harder to measure.
I'm sure that any race that ends up as Kos wanted he will claim as his victory. He already did that in Colorado. Never mind that 99% of the voters never heard of him or his website.
As to your second point, I think you fall into the trap of believing that Kos is in favor of women's equality in any measure. His affection for anti-choice, forced pregancy candidates seems pretty clear by now. Women are not part of the "important shit."
Now if you'll excuse me, I am a woman activist so I have to get to making the sandwiches and potato salad for the Democrats' meeting tonight.
(How did we get on the topic of marches, anyway?)
Send some over for the Defenders of the Patriarchy meeting, will you?
Ah, our old argument rares its ugly head again. The day you and I agree on this, I'm afraid, is the day that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney don pink tutus and dance Swan Lake together.
Yeah, media attention is important, but don't forget that substance and tone of the protests matter, too. I've observed some of today's marches, both in person and via the media, and I find myself unimpressed. On both the right and the left, protests seem less like efforts to effct political change and more like pep rallies or political spectacle. Attention-grabbing perhaps, but I question whether such efforts are effective at changing policy.
At my insistence, of course. I control the horizontal. I control the vertical. And I'm working on the diagonal.
--|PW|--
-- The value of the march was in the networking & visits to legislators.
-- Morella's loss was primarily due to gerrymandering.
Marches have not been very effective, but then of late, there haven't been any - not the kind we saw during the Antiwar Movement and Civil Rights. The world tends to be rather virtual, these days. A march was a "happening," a slang term for a thing worth going to. Scott McKenzie's one hit captured it.
A whole generation with a new explanation. It is hard to picture the energy and mobilization of the time. The documentary film "Woodstock" captures some of that.
If you ever see the documentary "The Whole World is Watching," and what the Walker Commission called a "police riot," you'll have seen a demonstration.
And its funny - for a generation "on drugs," they seemed more aware than those who now sit, just saying "no."
Until the leadership gives us something to march for, I'll join my fellows and sit it out.
(sorry. Couldn't resist.)
Actions that seem one way on the ground can be altered in impact by the media, or even made to disappear. That was surely the case in earlier times, but as media consolidation has gotten more powerful, the control by the elite of any mass attempt at message delivery has become more and more pronounced.
Not even just marches are affected here. For years, various Unions and international groups like PSASC/CBLOC worked to make Taco Bell raise their food prices a smidge so that tomato packers could make a slightly more humane wage. In labor circles and in the labor press, it was a hot issue. It took years, and eventually Taco Bell gave in. The workers got their modest raise, and the corporation is still raking in the dough.
Was anyone who doesn't have regular access to the labor press or certain Lefty strongholds informed of this ? I doubt it.
Matsu:
I'm not sure what state/district you're in, but I'm curious. If you don't plan to vote for Democrats, for whom do you intend to vote? I note that most Republicans don't share your views and that voting for a third party (Libertarian, Green, Communist, American Barking Spider Resurgence) will probably not be effective.
--|PW|--
...is the majority of Americans -- and plurality of registered voters -- who don't vote.
And when the parties offer up the underwhelming candidates and smarmy excuses for policy and platform, is it any wonder?
Hello Pennywit!
I'm voting Blue!
Don't go down that path, Matsu. Next thing you know, you're getting tossed off the bridge of death.
Still, I'm curious about whom you'd choose. Say you were voting in this past year's VA governor election. I voted for Potts, myself ...
--|PW|--
Years ago, a conservative co-worker told me about living in Texas. He said he was a "Registered Democrat." I was quite surprised, as he was very pro-Nixon.
He explained that back when he lived in Texas, it was a forgone conclusion that the "real" election was the Primary and these were closed primaries. That is, a voter could only participate in the primary of his registered party - no cross-overs.
If he wanted to vote, the primary was the election.
Thus, knowing everyone, at bottom, is a Republican, I will not vote Democrat, "just 'cause."
Saying I am not voting Democrat is saying I am looking past the persiflage.
I still believe that a third party is possible ... a Blue Party ... but as I wrote in the essay above, The New American Ideology - Ronald Reagan's "New Deal" which I moved into the position of a post, rather than a reply to you, you will see where I am going with this.
The post is the "real" response to your question, above - though presented humorously by you, it's a good question that needs answering.
Hey Matsu........check out EMILY's List, the largest PAC in the country. Members support only pro-choice women candidates and have been extremely successful in getting them elected during the last two decades. As it happens, all of these women have been Democrats.