Now that’s a lot of acronyms.
I’m clearly terrible at maintaining this blog. Apologies.
Really excited about quite a few projects that are launching in the near future– in the meantime, thought I’d post a little of what I’ve been up to. More to come…
Joined the incredibly inspiring David Cho and Kevin Sanchez on NPR’s Kojo Nnamdi Show.
If you’ll allow me to be honest, I would admit that for the last year or so I’ve been distracted- frustrated- maybe even a little lazy. I’ve been trying to work within the constraints of a given assignment, of a given role- I’ve been failing to live up to the ideals that I used to write about, I’ve been failing to write, period. It’s not that I wasn’t trying- it’s that whenever I did try the words were always uninspired or forced or less than honest.
A week ago today I had a chance to confront a distraction-and in doing so found clarity.
I’m not sure if that’s what brought me back here- writing, perhaps more honestly than I should be, but I’m back here… and it feels good.
I’m currently working on two big projects–I can’t say I’ll be writing here more, but at the very least I’ll be checking in and my silence here will no longer be indicative of my silence at large.
I’m back.
Yesterday, I got in a debate with a friend of mine about, among other things, 2010. History is cyclical, he claimed. The party in charge always loses seats in the year after a Presidential election. He cited examples, and while I heard him, I also heard a similar claim made two years ago. The claim that a black man could never be President. I spent some time this past week looking at 2010 races, crunching numbers, reading the interpretations of strategists and experts. Yet while I hear them, I also feel a certain sense of defiance. After all, the very existence of the Obama Presidency should speak to our ability to break outside of what history suggests is possible.
His victory represents the greatest affirmation of my generation’s electoral potential. The young people of Iowa set an example, of what we could achieve, the power to confront and defy the expectations of history.
Why should 2010 be any different? My friend rolled his eyes (as he often does when I say something to this effect) and insisted that this explanation could be used in any argument “If you’re going to go there…” He’s right, but that doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t go there.
I do think that this argument is instinctive and explains why assurances and explanations of why we need to compromise on legislation have backfired with, specifically, elements of the Obama grassroots. Why compromise when the basis of what we once we did was the belief that we didn’t have to. The belief that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and consequently are more powerful than the expectations of history.
I think that the way to reconcile this tension, is to pivot to 2010 now. The strategy behind the Obama campaign, was to expand the electorate in states that were initially un-winnable. So why wouldn’t Progressives pivot to expanding Congress now? Not to punish those who didn’t vote according to our ideals, but to ensure that there are options, more variations to get to 60. One of the most effective features of the campaign were the constant updates from Plouffe. Videos, emails, all focused on providing the grassroots with insight into the big picture. Right now that’s not being articulated- and it should be. Not just in a legislative sense but in an electoral one too. We’re compromising on health care now, we’re going to expand our ability to get to 60 next fall and try again next year.
Give people something to invest in, a long term strategy. The election is no longer the end goal, and I adamantly disagree with those who suggest that Obama supporters were just in it for his election. He made sure to articulate how that couldn’t be the case ie: “I know you didn’t do this for me.” I don’t think those kind of statements were simply an exercise in humility, but rather the framework from which he could then go back and remind supporters of their obligations post-election. I think it’s time to pull that card now.
Ps. Happy New Years.
Two new pieces on marriage equality.
My first field report for Campus Progress.
Then a follow up opinion piece on Huffpost.
To Summarize:
“No” is not a sufficient explanation for denying millions of New Yorkers a right that I am free to take for granted. “No” is not how this country intended for us to begin — let alone end — a debate on equality. “No” warrants the question why. When that explanation is based in not fact, but freedom, than we must ask why the same freedom that enables a State Senator to say “no” in Albany prohibits a same-sex couple from saying “I do” in Brooklyn.
Yesterday’s elections.
What is there to say? I think Dem losses resulted from a variety of factors. Weak candidates, fatigue, in some cases, a miscalculation of how to leverage the Obama brand. They ran as candidates, when given economic anxiety the emphasis should have been on communities, on engaging folks on the local level. I don’t think the wins and losses amount to much, what’s learned from them is more important.
What does hurt, is the passage of Proposition 1 in Maine, effectively putting an end to a brief, but profound, reign of tolerance where all were treated equally under the law.
Andrew Sullivan notes why the strategy was effective. It ain’t pretty.
“They have honed it to an art - their prime argument now is that although adults can handle gay equality, children cannot.”
From my view, what children really can’t handle is a society that perpetuates the notion that are differences are not only something to be feared but something to be legislated. Andrew’s right, this is how they won, and it’s the most offensive part of the gay marriage debate. The Right has co-opted a rationale that emphasizes “future generations” and “protecting our children” when those very same kids are the ones most tolerant about this issue. If you talk to kids in highschool and college, they will be the first to insist that who one loves shouldn’t matter.
Somehow, this undeniable dynamic, has been lost. Instead, youth and innocence are used as ammunition. I’m pissed, and hurt, but I’m also inspired. They can’t keep talking for us, they can’t keep using youth as a justification for ignorance.
We don’t need to be protected from gay marriage, young kids don’t need to be protected from gay marriage– they need to be taught that in this country, we hold some things to be self-evident. Without question. Happiness, liberty, life- the ability to simply pursue those things, requires protection. The kids will be alright when gay marriage passes. In the interim, I ask those who are opposed to think about the kind of example their setting, the message they’re sending, suggesting otherwise.
Two new posts up on Derrion Albert, and what I hope his tragic end inspires us to do.
First, here on Huffpost, a reminder of why Derrion should effect us all.
The second, is a follow up posted on Global Grind . Much of what I’m talking about really does rely on my own generation.
Brace yourselves-we’re really not done yet.
The lion may now rest, but our work lives on through what he did, and what he called on us all to do.
No, the dream will never die.
Just posted a new piece on Global Grind.
“So no, Gay is not the black, but we are in a time. While we face different challenges as individuals and communities, we also reside in a moment where our President is pleading with us to come together to recognize that while our differences are pervasive they are not perverted… prejudice has no place in the United States of America. President Obama revisited this notion while addressing the NAACP last Thursday.”
Full piece here.
Also- blogging will likely be slower until September 15th (NYC Democratic Primary) but I will try to take some time out in the next week to tackle health care policy. The debate surrounding Health Care reform is extremely important and I think we should all try to understand the parameters of the debate, and more importantly we should all chime in.
