Day 281- Of and For

Dear Mr. President,

I understand why people are upset over recent revelations about Lou Dobbs' shameless hypocrisy. I think that the real shame of the matter is not that undocumented workers were hired by Dobbs' contractors, but that this man who claims to represent the everyday populism of the working class owns horses and an estate large enough to require that many workers for upkeep. The right is notoriously good at pretending to be representative of so-called average America, while hailing from backgrounds of unfathomable wealth and privilege. And while Democrats are often equally wealthy, it seems like they're also more likely to be criticized as "elitist" while they work for policies that are more beneficial to the poor and middle class. I suppose both sides are hypocritical to varying degrees. A system like ours that requires a certain amount of wealth (and, let's face it, a certain shamelessness about asking for money from the rich) while the public increasingly requires our officials to be of the people they represent is basically a recipe for lies and hypocrisy.

Electing those with similar experiences and life history to our own may feel good, but it doesn't guarantee true representation of our interests. The fact that really any poor people vote Republican proves that we often don't vote in our own best interests, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible for governing ourselves. It's our right to vote for candidates we like instead of candidates who will promote policies that are the most beneficial to us; it makes our whole screwed up system kind of beautiful, actually. The problem Democrats have is that, for too long, they have allowed the right to set the terms of the discussion- to make it about faux populism and personality, to force themselves to drink whiskey shots and talk about guns in Pennsylvania (I'm lookin' at you, Hillary) or stage back-yard photo ops to counter the damning perception that a candidate might like arugula. The conversation needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on how of the people they are, Democrats should be doing a better job showing how for the people they are. I'm a liberal because I believe in liberal ideas and I think liberal policies are the best for our society- not because liberals look, act, or live like the same way I do. Instead of wasting time trying to convince me how similar we are, personally, I'd rather hear what a politician honestly believes and what they honestly plan to do in office. Actual straight talk- not the affected, folksy patronizing McCain variety- requires a frankness that has nothing to do with using too many big words or how much a person's haircut costs.

A politician who speaks honestly and bravely will do more good and, I would imagine, ultimately feel better about their campaign, win or lose on election day. I suspect that it will also, ultimately, make them more likable. I still believe that this is the fundamental change that people hoped for when they voted for you in 2008, regardless of their personal ideology. All politicians, all political pundits, even those of us tiny people out here in the blogosphere who just comment on things in quiet anonymity, all of us are Lou Dobbs. We're hypocrites who can never hope to live up to the grandiose ambitions of our best selves. Accepting our own hypocrisy and refusing to run from it or hide behind a more forgivingly crafted identity is the only way we can move forward, the only way we can elect representatives who will actually work in the best interest of all Americans.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

PS this is the second time I've defended Lou Dobbs and I really don't feel great about that.

Day 249-Third party

Dear Mr. President,

In Arizona, a Republican candidate has taken to recruiting homeless men to run as Green Party candidates in hopes they will attract votes away from the Democrats they run against. This seems to be pretty low, even for the GOP. I'm generally in favor of third-party candidates, but not when it requires the exploitation of vulnerable populations. If these homeless men really wanted to run for office as members of the Green Party then I have no cause for objection to this and neither does any one else. Somehow I doubt that the anti-tax candidate for State Senate who calles himself "Grandpa" and thinks we should have more God in the public school system is really emblematic of the Green Party platform.

I think what bothers me the most about this is that it plays on the ignorance of voters who see "Green Party" and look no further at a candidate's qualifications or policy positions. That this ploy might be successful undermines my faith in the voters (even in the State of Arizona,) and makes me even less hopeful for a unified and politically capable alternative to Democrats on the left. (I confess, I've long hoped that a viable third party might emerge, if only to make my conscience a little lighter on election day.)

Instead we get candidates like Goodspaceguy, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. I know that as the standard-bearer of the Democratic party, you have no obligation to worry about or cultivate a serious third party alternative, especially one that would take away voters on the left. But it is in your interest to protect yourself and other Democrats from a damaging third-party challenge, and the day will come when more serious candidates than Perot or even Goodpaceguy will emerge. Unifying the liberal base of the Democratic party can only be done by allowing us to be represented in the party's mainstream. Until that happens, tricks like the one in Arizona will continue to be effective. Not because the left is stupid and uninformed, but because we are so tired of voting for the cowardly centrists who lay claim to our loyalty on the mere basis of being the lesser of two evils. Real progressive candidates with serious credentials and gravitas will make their way onto the ballot one way or another, Mr. President; Democrats need to decide now if, when that day comes, they'll be the ones running them, or if they'll be stuck running against them.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 223- The Professional Left

Dear Mr. President,

A number of people are upset with Robert Gibbs for his comments about the "professional left." I'll admit, when I first read Mr. Gibbs' remarks, I was hurt. It seems like a cheap shot to call out the segment of the political spectrum responsible for Mr. Gibbs' employment, especially when the promises made by your campaign to the left have been so ostentatiously delayed, compromised or outright broken. Several members of your senior staff, including Rahm Emanuel, have made remarks disparaging progressive voters. The left is crazy. The left is unreasonable. The left uses drugs. Due respect, sir, but without the left you never would have been elected. Without our energy, our hope, our lofty expectations, John McCain would be President and Robert Gibbs would have a gig as a talking head on MSNBC.

I don't understand what your administration hopes to gain by dismissing those who aren't willing to lower our expectations of you just because this job is difficult. Yes, the economy is in trouble. Yes, wars can't simply be walked away from. Yes, the health care reform battle was long and bloody. But without those of us willing to call for more progress, better government, and more social justice, you're never going to accomplish the goals that I know you have for your own Presidency. And your senior staff mocks us? I'm not saying you ought to bow to every whim of the ideological left, but you could at least treat us with the respect any public servant owes his constituents. It's easy to earn points looking centrist by betraying your friends and allies, but it won't win you elections and it won't give you a Presidency you can look back on with pride.

We've never been the most popular kids in class, Mr. President, but none of the cheerleaders are going to date you just for making fun of us. Show the political courage, or at least the common decency to be as respectful of those on the left as you are of your opponents on the right. We're not a joke, and it would be a true shame for you to realize that on the loosing side of election day. I think you should ask Mr. Gibbs to apologize, Mr. President, and I think your entire administration ought to do a better job remember who its friends are.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 205- Face the (Netroots) Nation

“What I’m asking you is to keep making your voices heard, to keep holding me accountable. To keep up the fight.”


Dear Mr. President,

I don't think I count as an official member of the Netroots Nation, and I wasn't in Vegas for the convention, but, since I'm a blogger and I write you every day, I'm going to go ahead and tell myself that I'm part of your intended audience, anyway. I liked your video address, the promises you've renewed to repeal DADT and to close Guantanamo Bay. I hope that, this year, these are promise you can keep. I think the only aspect of this video that strikes me as disingenuous is the get-out-the-midterm-vote request, especially given the way so many centrist Democratic incumbents were given the support of the White House over their more progressive challengers during the primaries. Does it strike you as just a bit distasteful to ignore all of the progressive voices demanding better representation in congress and then ask those same progressives to show up on election day cheering for the lesser of two evils?

This being said, I think the New York Times' analysis of the speech as a "Pep Rally for an Uneasy Democratic Team" perhaps reads a bit too much into the fact that you used clips from Rachel Maddow's show to tout the administration's accomplishments. I think you know that the Netroots movement still has a tremendous number of loyal Obama supporters, even, (and maybe especially) those most vocal about our disappointment with the amount of compromise we've been asked to accept. However, as you so eloquently remind us in your speech, change comes from the bottom up. We've organized, raised money, marched, written and voted. We're asking for change. We're creating change. I think your administration could do a better job empowering and engaging the blogging community. The White House blog is great, but it could be developed into a more relevant forum for honest dialogue with the public. A press room without the press, or the spin, where questions are answered and discussion fostered. A blog that not only allows actual comments, but involves members of the communication department in responding to the discussions.

As inspiring as your address was, I hope the convention you were addressing, and the larger progressive blogging community, has not failed to inspire you, as well. The dogged pursuit of a wiser and more just government, a freer society, and a healthier planet is largely responsible for your election, and the Netroots Nation is only beginning to realize its potential. Now is the time to find the courage to keep your promises to us, Mr. President, not only because it is politically expedient, but because you know it is the right thing for this country and for future generations of Americans.

I guess what I mean is, please don't forget that we're asking you to keep up the fight, as well.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Hey all- speaking of the Midterms, here are some must-see midterm political ads. In case they've escaped your notice:










And, if you're in the giving mood, ActBlue

Day 132- The myth of mainstream

Dear Mr. President,

In today's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker contends that, due to her education and New York City origins, "Elena Kagan is miles away from mainstream America." While her argument, which is based on some pretty impressively weak logic, is artfully refuted by Ed Kilgore at fivethirtyeight, I'd like to discuss why it is acceptable for Ms. Parker to so casually assert the claim that some of us are somehow more American than others. Imagine, for a moment, if she based this claim not on geography, but on race, gender, age, or religion; would the Washington Post still put its name above that? I am so tired of the conservative contention that there is a "real" America and a "liberal" America, and that living in or coming from a certain type of place makes a person more or less representative of quintessential America.

I grew up in a small town, with farms and small businesses and enough Christian republicans with barely a GED in their ancestry to satisfy even Ms. Parker's definition of a "real" American town. I don't think the people I grew up with can be described as any one thing, (other than, maybe, as Arlingtonians,) and certainly not as qualified (or unqualified) for the Supreme Court. Now, however, I live in a city full of vegetarian atheist lesbians who have PHDs and disdain Wal-mart; again, nothing except our geographic location is true for all of us, and, no matter what Ms. Parker (or Ms. Palin) may think, living in a city didn't change the seal on my passport, or my devotion to this country.

This stirs such an emotional response from me because I had a stepmother who constantly told me that my "book smarts" were inferior to the "street smarts" she and her family possessed. That I, as a young teenager, could be more intelligent than her, but I would never have more common sense. I have not finished college, largely because I have had to work a full-time job for the entirety of it, but, were I to go back to my stepmother's house, I would still be classified, in her mind, as numbering among the out-of-touch, academic, elite. Like Kagan, I am somehow less authentically American. I am so angry that my intelligence, which may not be anything better than slightly above average but is still my greatest strength, makes me lesser, in the eyes of this woman and those who think like her. I got a 5 on the AP calculus and English tests; I got a 1490 SATs and I was a National Merit Scholar. I've also flipped burgers, cut pizzas, waited tables, ran cash registers, and, god knows, made lattes. I've lived in rural and urban areas, in suburban cookie-cutter houses, and in tiny, turn-of-the-century apartment buildings. None of this says much about the type of person that I am, or my qualification as an "ordinary" American. I'm an American, so is Elena Kagan, and if my experience is an American experience, so is hers.

The nine men and women who wield the ultimate power of the Judicial branch with lifetime appointments should not be "ordinary." These should be the brightest, most engaged and creative and, yes, educated, individuals we can find. An understanding of how the law affects ordinary Americans (a classification that I think you intended to indicate Americans without direct power in any of the three branches of government, and not their hometown,) does not mean that one has to be average. I can't say much about what I do or do not want a Supreme Court Justice to be; they can come from any state, any religion, any race, any social class. The one thing I know for sure is that I don't want average minds on the Supreme Court. This is not to say that one must be an Ivy league scholar, either, only that I think the strengths and advantages that make a person extraordinary ought to be valued, not disdained.

It is long past time to end the social acceptability of such disdain for education and intelligence, the belief that one's patriotism or empathy is tied, somehow, to what part of the country they come from. Elena Kagan must be evaluated on her merit's as a potential Justice, not on her place of birth.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey