[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders



    
I must be the only one that thinks obama and hillary are white men!  I stand with Nancy Fraser and see the foolishness behind identity politics.  It imputes an alternative practical consciousness on so-called identities that is not supported by empirical evidence.  Frantz Fanon's "black skin white mask" should be a prerequisite for all intro to psychology classes.  


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> 
Date: 4/24/2016  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture,	Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders 


Hello,

Well! I see we have a lively talk here going on the election, but I thought one of the most frightening aspects to be concerned about was trump. Vera and Helena had asked what can we do about that. We have to look at the fact as Michael has pointed out, that we are a racist and misogynist society. Thinking about this thread, I also believe that we are a slave-oriented society because of the neoliberal forces that have taken over so many aspects of American society. But it's worldwide, it's not just in the US. 

To address David HK's post, I don't think it is about measure of wealth anymore. For people as wealthy as we see today, the next progression is a desire for power. Think trump. Think Citizens United. This is why having so much concentrated wealth is dangerous to democratic society. It should be illegal to have such enormous wealth. Greed should be against the law in the same way murder is. That would never make it to legislation, though. 

So I say slave-oriented society, not to be inflammatory on this list, but to say that capitalism produces that kind of social fabric. Marx seems to have believed that the creation of such abysmal conditions would cause a revolution, but it seems that when a frog is inured to boiling in water it doesn't jump out. People who become used to constraints upon freedom get used to that. On the other hand there are other dynamics at play, so I remain hopeful. I don't think history is teleological, but circular, contiguous, and ripple-like. 

It would be great to see a democratic government that moves away from a two-party system, but I don't think presidential elections is the time to try to make that happen. I think it should happen legislatively, though I'm not sure how. The game is rigged to try to run a parliamentary-like election by voting for little parties. That's how we got W for president and landed in two wars and stoked the fires of fear and terror. What might be more effective is the creation of factions inside the two-system to break the parties up from the inside. However, I'm not a political scientist, in case any one is curious. 

I agree with Michael that we can't make progress in the US until we face our demons. You can't be for freedom and democracy unless you are for freedom and democracy for everyone. That has been the American problem all along from its inception.

As far as Bernie goes, I do think it is a pity that he can't advocate for the poor without making anti-women statements that his opponent is unqualified. Hillary has done a lot for women and children and for a long long time. So that was an absolutely wrong thing to say, especially to women voters, which is 50% of voters? I don't know what on earth Bernie has done to help the poor. Nor do I know what he's done for women. But he sure likes the Pope, who is against reproductive rights and women clergy. Furthermore, I see how black americans are voting with their feet and many of them are not in the Sanders camp. I wonder why that is. They must not feel it with him, and that is his own doing, no one else's. Given that he's for guns, do you think that might be a factor? Hmm... 

I've yet to hear Bernie to say what he has done (historically, not stump speeches) for the poor or for women or for minorities. I'd really like to know, and I'm surprised that he's been so quiet on these topics. Or maybe I'm just not listening well enough.

Still... I'm glad he's campaigning because he has brought a lot of people to the political discussion who haven't felt a part of it. But then trump is bringing in a lot of people too, and those are actually the kind of people I'd rather not be part of the process. Not many people here have sounded out much on trump. I suspect we are completely in shock that this could even be happening. But it is. 

To Helena's last post, I agree with her that we can't be just talking about voting for candidates, but must consider how our communities are doing and what we are doing to make them more vibrant, verdant, and safe. How to connect and make the personal political for you? No matter who wins, the work still needs to be done from the bottom for those who are most vulnerable.

Kind regards,

Annalisa