Letters to the Editor
Ricardo Malocchio
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 2
-
How Ms. Walsh proves her hypothesis: "[M]any of the letters about my post helped prove the point that sexism is more pervasive, and far less conscious, than racism is in the Democratic primary this year."
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue has not gone unmentioned, but vehement arguments among progressives regarding who's getting shafted most on the "racism vs. sexism" scale of injustice is generally considered counter-productive at best and fodder for the other side at worst. As in: "my friends, cast a mirthful gaze upon those identity politics shills and fellow-travelers who are now tearing each other apart arguing who among them is most oppressed... just like they'll tear this country apart if you give them a chance". Divide and conquer? We're perfectly capable of that all on our own (alright everybody... spread out and surrender).
If only Ms. Walsh's point had been that we Obama supporters should acknowledge that sexism has played some role in Senator Clinton's lack of support among certain voters. Who wouldn't acknowledge that? Even absent the anecdotal support of certain letters to the editor?
Or that "genial sexism" is alive and well in certain quarters, for example the giggling adolescent excrescence of morning drivetime radio? Or the haughty anti-"feminazi" rhetoric and associated photo-blogging of Rush Limbaugh? Or some half-wit's half-witted question at a McCain rally? Yes, yes, yes. Acknowledged on all counts.
But, no, that is not Ms. Walsh's point. Again: "[M]any of the letters about my post helped prove the point that sexism is more pervasive, and far less conscious, than racism is in the Democratic primary this year."
Oh. Really? Do we really have to argue this? Is there some greater point to be made or progress to be achieved if one side can prove that either sexism or racism has had the most pervasive pernicious effect in the Democratic primary? Would it allow Hillary supporters to somehow feel better if they can attribute her loss to sexism? Or, conversely, if Obama supporters could attribute an Obama loss to racism?
Here's what this line of nonthinking leads to: as an Obama supporter, I might suggest that it bears mentioning that he also has faced certain concomitant barriers. That he's been the target of insinuations and smears of a racial and religious nature. That viral emails have spread patent falsehoods as well as a number of 'unflattering' photos that play to both overt and tacit racial and religious fears and prejudices.
I might point out that none of the anecdotes Ms. Walsh provides concern Democratic primary voters or Obama campaign operatives. Rather, morning drive-time radio stunts, Rush Limbaugh's trademarked BS, and some moronic McCain rally attendee.
I might point to the findings of the Pew Research Center's in-depth polling of the *actual attitudes of Democratic primary voters*, finding the following with respect to the racial views of Hillary Clinton's most reliable voting block:
"[C]certain social beliefs and attitudes among older, white, working-class Democratic voters are associated with [Obama's] lower levels of support among this group ... who are much more likely to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far ... to disapprove of interracial dating ... and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. Less educated and older white Democrats, who have not backed Obama in most primary elections, hold these values more commonly than do other Democrats." http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=407
I might make the point that apparently what sexism taketh away, racism giveth back.
We could go there. There's a reason why we don't. Come to your senses, Ms. Walsh. This is far, far beneath you.
-
So who among you will be leading the charge to abolish proportional representation in the Democratic primaries before the next election cycle? And who among you will be working hard to abolish caucuses?
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I doubt that more than a very few of you actually care about this except to the extent that your candidate is perceived as being disadvantaged by one or the other in this particular election cycle.
I bring you back to 2000, when Democrats were up-in-arms about the electoral college. After the Supremes crowned their king, what exactly happened to all those voices calling for abolishing the electoral college in favor of a nation-wide popular vote?
They disappeared right off the radar. I'd wager it's simply because the actual concern wasn't some abstract beef with the electoral college. Rather, it was because we wanted Gore in the White House, and here was a metric that could have put him there. End of story.
So, does anyone consider it a good bet that before the next presidential election cycle Democrats will abolish proportional representation in favor of winner-take-all primaries ? Or that even a substantial minority of states will move to abolish caucuses in favor of popular-vote primaries? And who among you are going to devote yourselves to these causes?
-
Kudos to Glenn for his reportage and advocacy on behalf of the American people, the 4th amendment, basic decency and privacy interests...
[Read the article: Have Republicans given up on FISA and telecom amnesty?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Far too early to take any victory laps, but I confess to having had very little hope that we'd ever get to this point. Certainly, much of the credit goes to Salon's finest contributor, Glenn Greenwald.