It's Kamala!

[hollodero]

(08-14-2020, 02:55 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Not on you what Ingraham does; I have been arguing why I would like to see charges of identity over merit disappear from public debates over candidates. Picking candidates is not like picking the best left tackle for your offensive line in pro-football. Diversity in party representation is important because of the way rewards, opportunities and POWER have been skewed away from women and minorities in the past.  Since the late 80s and early 90s, groups and organizations which formerly defended or tolerated segregation enlisted MLK's "content of character" remarks when they realized the roll back of segregation would be permanent. "How can anyone disagree with the best person for the best job?"--when that puts at the head of line so many who have had better opportunities and access to education, and keeps that cycle running. It's also a way a making the history and politics of each specific choice disappear in the abstraction "the best qualified person" as a standard no one can argue against--in the abstract. So it's these meritless and selective defenses of meritocracy that I would like to see disappear from public discussion.

2. You still appear to have missed the essence of my point--Black women have been doing the party's WORK for it, in the trenches at the local level, for decades now--the canvasing and registering and phoning and renting facilities for meetings and printing handouts etc etc etc. And mostly in states where and during times when this was dangerous work. At this point I don't see gay or Latina groups stepping forward with the same credentials. So it's not primarily about gay or Latina or Asian "ratios."

The Republican analogy here would be to Evangelicals and grass roots organizations like Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, who have performed similar work for the Republican party, sending teams into individual neighborhoods knocking on doors, seeding disinformation about the ERA, and otherwise creating the basis of issue-recognition and identification that the party could then mobilize from the state and national level. Picks like Palin and Pence aren't just about covering some new bases, but about rewarding labor--and insuring it will continue.

We should be past the "why a black VP" and this point and begin dissecting Harris' record as a prosecutor, to find out if there is anything really objectionable about it. I am just beginning the process and so far have found nothing. The most serious objections, perhaps, still need to be brought forward.

I don't agree that argueing for the best person is a sign of a meritless and selective defense of meritocracy. I get that the argument got misused, but that doesn't make it inherently moot or discriminatory or anything.

On the other hand, Puff Diddy and all the other self-declared Black leaders threatened Biden when he dared to talk to Gretchen Whitmer. They claimed that if he didn't choose a black woman as VP, he'd be a "devil", one of those devils black people are sick of voting for. This is just irrational, promotes identity politics, I know this word is frowned upon, but it is. At least I get why many might perceive it that way, or why people might say that the democrats are overly focused on one specific demographic that, after all, 84% of people do not belong to that also vote and that also have grievances and desires.

I also did not miss the point that black women did a lot of groundwork for the democratic party. I'd hope they did it because they saw promise in Democratic politics, or to promote certain politics and policies, and not to ensure one of their own gender and race a VP post. For that's what it's about, isn't it? One can argue that a black woman is particularly suited to implement good policies for black women, but that is far from a given and other qualifications - like competence, the right ideas, or understanding of the law and politics etc - are far more decisive, also not every black woman is automatically a blessing for all black people. One wouldn't support Ann Coulter on the grounds that she's a woman and women were historically marginalized. This is no shot against Kamala, again, it's a shot against the principle. I gave my reasons why I think so, I don't feel like rephrasing all the points already made. 

(Even more so as this is a real microscopic issue compared to all the abhorrent stuff that is going on right now regarding election sabotage, coronavirus, unrest and whatnot, hardly worth an ongoing exhaustive exchange. I'm optimistic Kamala Harris is a good pick, that gets the job done, first and foremost the job of being electable and defeating the actual "devil".)

-- Just for objections against Kamala, she once threatened parents with jail time if their children truanted. She talked about it laughing. That imho is a bit extreme. I also found it embarrassing when she decided to spend her precious debate time to attack Warren over not supporting banning Trump from twitter. Makes me question her approach to things a bit.