thanks again (4.00 / 1)

on Muslim voting - I think if you understand the context of how people who are Arab, Muslim, immigrants, or many others were targeted violently and insistently by the Bush Administration, it makes it easier to understand why the Arab American vote has shifted dramatically away from Republicans.

As a note of caution, you might consider the case of Mujib Rahman, who is a Bangladeshi man who ran for NYC Council on the Republican ticket despite being a registered Democrat.  As you'll see in the discussion here, he doesn't fool many people and seems to be uberincompetent, but I'm presenting it just as an example of the types of opportunities that open up for the Sarah Palins and Bobby Jindals and many others of the world once the Republicans finally deal with the end of the politics that worked for 30 years.

However, the more relevant questions remains not "can the Republican party survive" but "can progressives have an influence and really move the much larger Democratic party?"  If party affiliation changes with the change in the voting bases of the parties, that doesn't inherently indicate an equal social change on all fronts (e.g. see Stupak amendment and women's rights in general).  Basically, it's good to disentangle party affiliation from people's actual politics to understand where the country is at.

Again, many thanks.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:00:07 AM CST

And more recently (4.00 / 1)

The public reaction of Republicans after the Ft. Hood violence - just reinforcing things in case anybody forgot.

But yes, this series speaks to the 'more Democrats' side of things, not the 'better Democrats' side.  That is a whole 'nother story.  

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:36:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the party labels confuse rather than clarifies the matter (4.00 / 1)

"But yes, this series speaks to the 'more Democrats' side of things, not the 'better Democrats' side.  That is a whole 'nother story.  "

This is the only element that matters. The fact is your argument suits the status quo just well because people do not ask whether, for example, both parties are captured by Neoliberalism or not.

In fact, you see quite a few uncritical thinker focused on partisan divides (of my team versus their team) in contradictory ways. They attack the GOP for the same policies that they support the Democrats. Admittedly with tweaks, but just that- tweaks.

Until, and unless your arguments, address the issue of the multiple scales (ideological, populism, identity, plutocratic, etc.) involved in politics, you are not going to be able to understand what will happen, if anything, to the GOP. Why this is the case is because we have a 2 party system inadequately reflecting a multiple party political reality underneath the 2 party system  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:54:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yes (0.00 / 0)

but you don't have to be mean about it :)  i think he realises that :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:26:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How am I being mean? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:32:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not being mean (0.00 / 0)

Being direct.  That's fine.   :)

Interesting points you're bringing up in your conversation with SpitBall.  I don't have data to address them, sadly.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:35:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

my bad (0.00 / 0)

i misread the tone.  sorry!

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:46:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mean? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see the meaness. I think it is a good thing to point out where one might be able to improve their analyses.

To my way of thinking, once the diarist admitted they are focused on "more Dems" rather than "better Dems", or even "better government", the weakness became apparent.

How will "more Dems" change the dynamics in DC? We have more Dems now, and STILL half-assed policy is the result.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:35:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're Going WAY Overboard (4.00 / 1)

Both parties have ALWAYS been dominated by elites.  And before the GOP existed, the Whigs--and before them the Federalists--were also dominated by elites.

This is very deep-seated problem with our system that is arguably worse now than any time since 1933--though at the same time ideological polarization in Congress is historically at or near its all-time high, which indicates another level at which the party divide remains quite significant.

Given that, elite domnance was worse than now at many points before 1933 In 1924 the Dems nominated a Wall Street lawyer--John Davis--for President. Davis argued 140 cases before the Supreme Court.  His last appearance was to argue against the NAACP-LDEF in Brown v. Board of Education.  And Grover Cleveland was arguably more conservative than that.  

We fought our way out of that sort of situation in the past, and we can do so again.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:02:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Questions (0.00 / 0)

a) What part of my comment is WAY overboard?

b) How does your statements relate to mine? Assume I am dumb, because I do not get the connection.

b) Taking your comment on its own merits without regard to its link to my comment, why do you assume history will repeat itself?

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:26:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In Reverese Order (0.00 / 0)

b) Taking your comment on its own merits without regard to its link to my comment, why do you assume history will repeat itself?

I don't assume that history will repeat itself (even though it almost invariably does, to some extent or other) so much as I'm saying that what was possible in the past is also possible today--and should be seen as a useful guide for present and future action.

a) What part of my comment is WAY overboard?

b) How does your statements relate to mine? Assume I am dumb, because I do not get the connection.

Your whole post is WAY overboard.  Everything you say has a germ of truth in it, but you line the parts up in a way that obscures contrary facts and tendencies.  Just because, for example, there are plenty of blind partisans who give Dems a pass for things they condemn Republicans for, this isn't the case for plenty of other folks.  The mere fact that the Dem coalition is growing means there are more potential better Democrats, and it's precisely this possibility that has been realized in the past.

In short, your stance of static dichotomization misconstrues the whole, even when you get at a good bit of the truth regarding all the parts.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:48:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well let's go deeper with what I mean (0.00 / 0)

a) I stated that the diarist needs to consider other factors when defining better Democrats over just more Democrats. Without fully integrating those other factors, we miss things that will prevent the party from growing like liberal groups giving cover to a President who advocates neoliberal policies because they think we are going to remain loyal.  

That's about it. I do not define the other factors that deeply other than briefly mentioning them in this manner.

b) I think it is a mistake to think history repeats. I assume it may repeat, but find that the danger of overusing history for how we won prior battles is that the other side learns from those battles too. I compare the black civil rights struggle to gay civil rights.
 

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:09:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that said, (0.00 / 0)

the "natural home" for the muslim community is assuredly not the Democrats either. The debate about the muslim vote is an old one in the muslim blogsphere and in part thanks to this magnificent post by dreamin' I've reopened it at City of Brass. In a nutshell, muslims arent going to stay with Democrats forever, because the Left is just as hostile in its own way (though the Right is dominant in its Islamophobia at present. That could change).  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:51:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There is a difference between (0.00 / 0)

not like a religion, and saying that religion (any religion) can not be the cornerstone of the political process. My issue with religious people as someone who is religious in my own way is there inability to see a moral code outside of faith. Faith is a private concept in a liberal democracy rather than a public one or else ultimately the democracy ceases to be.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:50:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"cornerstone of the political process" eh? (0.00 / 0)

is that what all religious people, including muslims, necessarily believe, in your estimation?

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:53:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well first you may want to try to be less defensive (4.00 / 1)

with your wording, which clearly indicates whatever I write will be glossed over by you as offensive.

And yes, cornerstone, as in the  underpinning. The concepts on which something stand.  The rational for our system  are concepts like equality for all as defined by the Constitution. Whenever religion gets involved, they want to claim there are some laws greater than that of the laws designed to govern us under our legal system.  "I must vote in accordance to my faith" equals I vote for inequality under the law as the law is understood to be applied.

Take marriage between  gays, as one example. Whether or not some religion believes like Christianity that gays should be equal under the law is irrelevant if we had a civic society geared toward equality rather than faith. This is true whether they are pro marriage or anti marriage equality. The issue is the underpinning for the civil society debate amongst its members must be the civil society aspect. We need a grounding in that as a separate idea from non civil society.   The answer must be found amongst citizens based on that civil system that we all share rather those that we do not.

Most people of faith have a problem making that separation.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:02:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

"Most people of faith have a problem making that separation."

i dont think you see the implication of the statement. Im not offended, but my defensiveness is justified. mantiss below is particularly egregious.

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:42:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I see much further than people think (0.00 / 0)

And, my comment, especially regarding marriage equality is absolutely correct as per the outcome of marriage bans in most American states. There is no  non-religious doctrine argument for this outcome. It certainly is not that they have a problem with change when it comes to increasing rights- at the time they ended marriage equality in Maine, they passed a law allowing for pot smoking. I am not against pot smoking. But clearly, religious doctrine carries the day over equality of law.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:17:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the general statement (4.00 / 1)

about what "most religious people have a problem" with is a point of fundamental disagreement i dont think we are going to resolve. In a strange way you seem to be arguing for supremacy of religion as the source of moral value, which I am sure neither you nor I actually believe.

the marriage issue is a more complex issue than that. Much of the opposition is "ick" derived than just religius sensibilities.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:57:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the ick comes from religion (4.00 / 1)

there are lot of things americans don't like that they don't feel they need to ban

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 15:50:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

there are non religious arguments for this outcome (0.00 / 0)

notably a patriarchal argument and a Burkean argument.

But I agree with you that the particular variant of American politicised religion has a strong role in this.  Of course, if anyone bothered to fight as hard for the right to organise as they do for DADT, then people would be receiving their mailings and e-mails from labour Unions rather than megachurches.  but now we have a lot of work to do to undo all that, and it's not going to happen through lobbying.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:54:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Natural Home? (4.00 / 1)

I'm utterly ignorant of the debate you refer to, but I'm curious about the way it's framed.

Why should a party need to be a "natural home"?  And what does that even mean?  The Democrats have always been a more diverse coalition, meaning that more groups have gravitated there for particular reasons, while compromising on others.  Which means, I would argue, that the proper question should not be in terms of a "natural home", but a viable and productive camping ground.

Finally, I'm puzzled by the claim that "the Left is just as hostile in its own way" as the Right.

Howso?  One doesn't have to pretend the Left is all sweetness and light to recognize a yawning chasm between the two.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:12:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not that the left is hostile to Islam as such.... (0.00 / 0)

It's just hostile to the tenets of Islam that hold that women should be subservient to men (and of course have no right to abortion), criticism of religion should be censored, and gay people have no right to exist, let alone marry.  To the extent that American Muslims reject or ignore these parts of their religion, they can get along fine with the Left; to the extent that they hold these beliefs, they are more naturally aligned with the Religious Right, who hate their guts yet have far more in common with them, ideologically speaking, than progressives do.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

---

by: mantis @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:06:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure if you thought this through, but . . . (4.00 / 1)

Calling the various reactionary beliefs you enumerated "tenets of Islam" concedes to Muslim fundamentalists that their view of Islam is correct.  While I don't know much about Islam, I'm quite certain that more progressive versions exist that reject all of the above views, just like there are reactionary and progressive versions of Christianity and Judaism.  Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews also consider such beliefs essential tenets of their religion and Christians or Jews who reject them as not "true" believers.

If I were a progressive Muslim reading your post, I'd be going nuts, because you're telling me I need to reject "parts of my religion" that I don't consider parts of my religion.  In fact, if you actually believe that these are genuine parts of Islam, then you are hostile to Islam as such.

---

by: dedelste @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:33:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

well said. -nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:34:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this is a perfect example (0.00 / 0)

of what i mean.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:34:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you do realise you're posing 'the Left' and 'American Muslims' as mutually exclusive groups (4.00 / 1)

just wanted to point that out, since I know people who are at least as far to the left than many of the people who write on this site (and much more so in some cases) and are American Muslims.  Presumably, they might be helpful in informing the debate on this issue? ;)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:51:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the reply by mantiss below (4.00 / 2)

pretty much makes my case for me.

The idea of a "natural home" or a "camping ground" or even "default alliance" - however you want to phrase it is all the same general thing. The demograhic data in this diary show a striking shift of the muslim vote over time, in direct response to policy - mostly foreign. Thats something that can change, and if the GOP and Dems are equally bad/good on foreign policy, then one of teh factors that will swing such a volatile swing vote will indeed be who is perceived as more/less hostile to muslims' practice of their faith.

When a muslim woman is told condescendingly, that her choice to wear hijab is actually a violation of human rights, then we have a fundamental problem. When a progressive liberal at open left responds to my comment with the essential argument that Islam is misogynistic by its basic nature, then we have a fundamental problem. When muslims who are pro-choice are treated as if they are going against their faith to do si, then we have a fundamental problem.

The graph in the "western asia" post in this series - which i reproduced in my post at City of brass - is not set in stone. it could swing back just as dramatically.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:40:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, Let's Just Break This Down A Bit (4.00 / 1)

First off, my response to mantiss would have been pretty much along the lines of dedelste (though I know enough about Islam to know that mantiss is confusing religion and culture, and that, for example, the Koran is more pro-woman than the Bible, and that Islam once had a flourishing critical tradition at a time when Christianity had none).  And since you agreed with dedelste, I guess I agree with you there against you here.  I'm not trying to mock you--just stress that the understanding you have is a natural line of reasoning for thoughtful folks on the left.

There are always a fair share of less thoughtful (and less informed) folks in any group, but especially on the left, the more thoughtful types tend to be more indicative of the whole, particularly in terms of where thinking is headed in the future.  And the examples you give:

When a muslim woman is told condescendingly, that her choice to wear hijab is actually a violation of human rights, then we have a fundamental problem. When a progressive liberal at open left responds to my comment with the essential argument that Islam is misogynistic by its basic nature, then we have a fundamental problem. When muslims who are pro-choice are treated as if they are going against their faith to do si, then we have a fundamental problem.

are all pretty much examples of less thoughtful (not to mention less informed) attitudes that are much more likely to diminish over time, than to grow.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:31:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

to be clear, (0.00 / 0)

I wasnt accusing you of agreeing with mantiss. I'm actually familiar with your work but even without that context its clear from this thread where you stand.

Id love to believe the examples I give are dying out but the experience of Europe shows quite the opposite - socities that are well to the left of ours, but theres a direct correlation with increased secularism and hostility to religion (and obviously so).

Granted the US and Europe have differing attitudes towards freedom of religion. There will always be space in the American mainstream for religious diversity, even conservative religious expression. But in terms of the left, the hostility will only grow.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:02:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe, But (0.00 / 0)

One factor in Europe is the history of state religions.  Since the US lacks that, we may well not follow the same trajectory.  In the short run we seem not to be going that way, and there's reason to think the long run will be the same.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 19:54:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's not enough to say it will diminish over time and it's less than thoughtful (0.00 / 0)

it's racist, and should be identified as such.  it's not a reason to tar and feather someone, but it is an issue that needs to be worked out, as it affects everyone, and assistance provided to everyone involved, including the person or people who are being racist.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:05:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am going to go out a limb by saying that no one gives (0.00 / 0)

a crap if a Muslim woman wears a hijab, but they do care that the laws of the U.S. specifically ensures that women are equal under the law. We are discussing government issues here, and you seem to want to inject cultural practices as if they are the same debate. If you want to debate some liberal about what they believe women should do in their homes outside of the law, that's your beef, but it is not the beef of parties to have to agree with that doctrine as a matter of what the laws should look like. Under the law, you have a right to wear the hajib, but what you don't get the right to do is to a) abuse women if there is an issue of that being forced on women or b) deny the right to vote or etc. These are extreme examples I am giving, and do not speak to any real examples. The point here of making the examples is to illustrate the concerns of politics and creating regulations and laws. Versus what you seem to want to discuss- which is how liberals make you feel about your cultural choices. This is the problem I have with religion in a nutshell: You live in a free society. You are free to do what you want, but so are others. Your claim to not being allowed to do what you want is that others make you feel uncomfortable about it. but, that's the core of a free society. that there will be people who disagree with you. The trick is to create a rule that allows each person to do in a cultural since what they want so long as it does not harm (as in real harm not just how it makes you feel) others.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:34:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I thought we were debating political strategy and support here (4.00 / 1)

Not laws or public policy.  I agree with you completely about the laws.  How liberals make observant Muslims (who may be quite liberal) feel about their cultural choices will certainly affect how they feel about voting for and associating with liberals, which I think was azizhp's (who quite clearly is a lefty him/herself) point.

---

by: dedelste @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:24:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Politics is for the purpose of creating laws and policies, not cultural acceptance (0.00 / 0)

The later is a byproduct rather than the goal.  If observant Muslims expect emotional support that probably expecting too much. Let me be clear, I find most of the leadership of too many gay groups to be not my cup of tea because they are not accepting of diversity. However, that does not mean that I do not see the political value of what they are pushing in seeking to change laws and policies.  The same fight impacts low income and people of color LGBT communities despite  the fact we are invisible.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:39:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you have no idea (0.00 / 0)

how condescending you are being. Rest assured I dont give a damn whether you provide me "emotional support" or not. I intend to practice my faith regardless. But you are blind to your own prejudices. And thats fine with me, but dont think you can blindly rely on political support from a group you have essentially characterized as WATB.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:04:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I started this by saying you would find some way to be offended (0.00 / 0)

There is nothing condescending about pointing out that your cultural beef with some liberals has nothing to do with whether the policies of the society say you can or cannot practice your faith.

Unless, Democrats are seeking to deny your legal ability to practice your faith, I do not see your argument in a political sense. There are arguments to be made about equal treatment under the law. But, you are not making those as far as I can tell. Instead, you are arguing what some Christian conservatives argue "well I am harmed because you do not accept my practices." That's not harm in a political sense because what policy could be changed that would prevent that harm without harming others in the process?

You can , of course, make such a claim, but, to me, it rings false to claim it is a political argument. What would change regarding your rights politically even you won the argument between the two of us?

You say that it is not about cultural acceptance. It is about politics, but that makes no sense because you add this is not about policy or laws. That seems to indicate a contradiction. There is also nothing wrong with wanting emotional acceptance. It is just not the thing you can expect from a political outcome.

For me as a gay person, politics is about the policy and laws of this country.  I know many gay people who are seeking acceptance through their arguments about policy too, but one is not the same as the other. After the laws change, there still may not be acceptance. That's a separate battle that has little to do with politics.

I think the best we can hope for from politics is to understand what it does, and seek that, rather than expect political actions (like the organizing of political parties) to be the cure for a lack of cultural acceptance.

I am not sure how that point is condescending to you unless you think emotional acceptance is a bad thing outside of claims that it is the same as political.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:26:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

there are other ways to approach it as well (0.00 / 0)

particualrly since what you're describing is the result of social and economic structure (e.g. HRC having more money and influence than my friends).  if that's a given, then alternative strategies need to be worked out as well for the rest of us - both to hold our alleged representatives in whatever group accountable to a social democratic rather than multicultural technocratic agenda and to provide a space for empowerment for the segments of the communities that are invisible - particularly in intersections.  otherwise, what's the point?  i might as well just go home and cry or leave off in politics altogether.

on an aside, i think you don't appreciate exactly how much change actually happens through culture - laws and policies are statements - cultural and social change is on a microlevel and in aggregate can have far more dramatic effects.  if you want examples, just look at governments like in india or in britain, where a lot of great thigns are in law, but the social backing is not there.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:10:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the other changes are byproducts (0.00 / 0)

i am not saying they don't happen. just that the other posters seems to imply they are the point of policy.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 11:23:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well that's certainly one argument (0.00 / 0)

but it's not the only one that's possible.  on a microlevel, conversations, what you end up reading, and many other features of the ways in which people interact with each other and what communities are a part of can have a profound effect, and those can add up.  so i disagree that they can be reduced to a simple byproduct - even when they are produced by structural causes, they can take on a life of their own (e.g. a self-perpetuating dynamic of violence).

they're also far more accessible methods and can be more equal than depending on people who are in a position to pass laws to do so in a beneficent manner.  so they hold the possibility of changing the ways in which laws and policies are made, not just the specific laws and policies.

i do agree, to a large extent, that laws and policies are important, but they work best at a meta level, where they allow cultural and social change to happen (e.g. by changing the way ownership of media is regulated, by making it less or more difficult to organise workers, by making it less or more difficult for religious institutions to access public funding, etc.).  on a basic level, it matters whether for law and policy whether a large part of the electorate is getting their information from corporate media and churches rather than from labor unions and a public media.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 21:29:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They are byproducts because there is nothing (0.00 / 0)

 in the law and policy that you really can do about cultural acceptance other than hope it happens. And, if you will notice, his one example illustrates the point perfectly. What political issue is going to be solved by a politician through what he describes? None. This is an inappropriate expectation of what politics can do. That it can solve all cultural issues. That's setting it up for failure with an impossible standard.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 21:47:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's not true actually (0.00 / 0)

for example, in britain, all public institutions, including schools, have a legal obligation to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, and disability discrimination.  In some cases, they have specific obligations to develop a plan to create a policy to address discrimination and report on it.

That doesn't mean they implement it effectively, but it does give you a platform on which to argue that they should because they're legally obligated.

Similarly, if you support the right to organise and Union mobilisation (compare voting patterns for Union members vs. non Union members) that can help change the atittudes of the electorate which in turn can produce cultural and social change on a local level as well as make politicians less afraid because the electorate is ahead of them or at least as acceptable.

So the idea is not that one precedes theo ther, but to create feedback loops that influence cultural and social change which in turn affect law and p0olicy which in turn affect cultural and social realities.

The election of a black president is a great example of a nonlegal non policy measure that can potentially have dramatic effects.  So is the inclusion of Jackie Robinson in baseball, witnessing what happened to Britney Spears as a way of undersatnding how destructive the corporate entertainment industry is, etc.  Simply organising workers on a social level creates a basis for electing better officials (both through practical steps like having more people for turnout and more exposure for people to the ideas I expressed above), in getting social institutions with progressive values moer clout, and in reducing the reluctance to adopt pro-working class policies (both good and bad).

The reason I say all these things is that if the law and policy are too far ahead of cultural and social change, they are largely ineffectual (e.g. in India, the courts have granted the 'right to food' but that serves mainly as an aspiration that has to be filled out by social, cultural, legal, policy, and economic change - especially in terms of redistribution and the ways in which the mechanisms of politics work).

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:36:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

when they discuss discrimination (0.00 / 0)

they don't mean what the other posters means. He means that people are saying they don't like women wearing religious garments. the law can not address their dislike. it can merely say they have the right to wear it. Discrimination as a concept is not about cultural concepts. it is about what people can and can not do to each other. it does not control thought.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 08:08:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the law MUST address their dislike (0.00 / 0)

almost by definition - because it has been posed as an issue in society and therefore an answer has been either created by or demanded from various governments and agencies.

and in fact, the law does address it, one way or another.  one solution is to say - you are free to dislike it, but we will do nothing about it because of x,y,z reasons.  That is the one you are advocating.  another solution is to say, we will only do something about it in very particular circumstances based on the principles above (e.g. security, id, etc.) and these are applied frequently.

but if the law and more specifically policy don't address the issue and help people understand each others' standpoints (social cohesion) then it is failing.  One can make the argument that it is bound to fail because of what the law represents, but this is a very simplistic way of looking at it - it probably IS bound to fail if your goal is to find a solution.  but if your goal is to mitigate harm or find the least bad solution out there are little cracks here and there in administrative structures and processes that have to be dealt with in remediating contrasting views.  This is, for example, the rational that I would use in defending affirmative action in federal contracting.

So I think it is both incorrect to believe that the government can ever NOT have an effect on social issues or cultural issues (it does, even in the choice of deliberately or inadvertently not doing so - either of which might actually be the best possible solution!) or that one can't explore what the possible options are before coming to a determination in specific circumstances.

With the hijab, I think generally several Western governments (e.g. UK or France at points) are acting in bad faith most of the time and reinforcing a lot of divisiveness and stereotypes.  Similarly with some of the means that have been proposed for regulating Muslim family law in India are largely pitting one patriarchy against another, with Muslim women used as a political football.  Same for the pro-women arguments to promote the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:14:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the law address the action that their dislike causes (0.00 / 0)

not the dislike. Cultural likes and dislikes are in that way a byproduct, not the underlying point. I did no say that the goverment has no effect on culture. I said that's not the point. We are running circles in part because of your characterization of my thesis.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:58:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i'm not understanding (0.00 / 0)

the law address the action that their dislike causes not the dislike. Cultural likes and dislikes are in that way a byproduct, not the underlying point. I did no say that the goverment has no effect on culture.

These three sentences don't make sense to me when taken together.  Are you saying: the government has an effect on culture by addressing actions produced by people's (to an extent culturallly produced) beliefs.  But these beliefs are a byproduct of government action (and other influences), and this byproduct does not influence the actions that government takes.  is that your argument?  if so, it seems fairly narrow in scope.

In any case, I'm more interested at this point in what you DO think drives policy and legal formation. :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 19:59:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my only point (0.00 / 0)

and I am not sure how else to make it is that the other poster was focused on whether liberals like religious garments on women or not. I can personally hate the garment,a nd legally protect a right to wear it. Those are not hte same thing, but the other person conflates them.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 21:25:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah but my question is whether you can really and truly do that in real life (0.00 / 0)

amidst the myriad rules regulations, etc. - you can adopt that as a guiding principle, but does the world really work that way?  is the system of government in the united states ("one nation under god") really not inflected by the cultural values of the elite and perhaps more broadly the people?

i.e. it's a nice idea, and maybe it's useful as an aspiration, but it strikes me as willfully dishonest in its failure to account for human frailties and the need to work with them.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 23:05:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my only point (0.00 / 0)

and I am not sure how else to make it is that the other poster was focused on whether liberals like religious garments on women or not. I can personally hate the garment,a nd legally protect a right to wear it. Those are not hte same thing, but the other person conflates them.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 21:25:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the other changes are byproducts (0.00 / 0)

i am not saying they don't happen. just that the other posters seems to imply they are the point of policy.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 11:23:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Arab Muslims in 2000 (0.00 / 0)

I have a strong suspicion that the lack of Arab Muslim support for the D ticket in 2000 was directly attributable to Lieberman as VP. There weren't enough clothespins to hold their noses tight enough to vote for a Jew, let alone a conservative, pro-Israel Jew.

---

by: corax @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:13:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that would only explain (0.00 / 0)

Arab muslim support. Of course the Arab community is multi-religious, including a large ocntingent of Copts and Lebanese Christians. And there rae muslims who arent Arab like the Asians. All of which was covered i teh diary.

its tempting to always assume muslim = arab and vice versa but its not only wrong, its harmful.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:06:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not to mention (0.00 / 0)

the obvious fallacy of assuming anti-semitism even within the Arab muslim sub-group is strong enough to have an effect. Youre positing a Bradley Effect of sorts - okay, its possible, but do you have data?

if we were to state without any basis that most Jews are islamophobes, you woudl presumably (and rightly) take issue.  

---

by: azizhp @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:07:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Poll says (4.00 / 1)

Only about half of Arab Muslims said Lieberman was a factor in their decision, according to the poll of Arab Americans in 2000.  About 70% of those who said he was a factor generally said it was his views, not his religion, that influenced them.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:27:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you have a strong, overgeneralising, unsubstantiated suspicion that casts aspersions on an entire group of people? (0.00 / 0)

awesome.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:55:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the new old bums (4.00 / 1)

I don't think the Republicans are scared at all. Why should they be? In November of 2010 the recession [for Mainstreet] will still be galloping into the future. The voters will blame it on the Democrats. They will elect the Republicans because....who else is there?

When the left in America finally gets around to walking the talk and actually organizes an opposition to "the system" [you know, like they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s?] then both Democrats and Republicans attached at the hip to Wall Street will start in a more progressive direction.

Until that happens though it's the same old "throw the old new bums out", "bring the new old bums back in."  

---

by: george walton @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:25:38 AM CST

Long term (4.00 / 2)

The demographic trends are long-term.  Let me repeat that a Republican resurgence in 2010 and 2012 would still be consistent with long term trends.  Right now we're at a point where either party can win based on turnout and moderate changes in voting preferences.  20 years from now, that would no longer be the case, as long as Republicans continue to base their politics on white Christian voters.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:39:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Even in 20 years the US will very likely have a two party system (4.00 / 1)

so even if the the demographics change, their will still be a party that nominally includes those you identify as the current base of the GOP.

Because of the two party tyranny - something you've not considered here - folks in the US are pressured to identify with one or the other, even if the party they choose does not exactly match every last aspect of their own personal political philosophy.

As long as we keep forcing politically active citizens to filter their votes through the mainstream parties (M$Ps) those two will ALWAYS fight over votes in the "middle" and assume the more radical (left of right) will either vote for the "lesser of evils" or "waste" their vote on alternatives and abstaining.

If you want substantive change in the system, "destroying" one or the other M$Ps is a half-measure. Change the two party tyranny.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:10:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Additional point to your post (4.00 / 2)

What also happens is that this allows the two parties to distort the will of the American public. I believe this country has shift naturally left of center in the last decade, and, especially after Bush, but because the only two viable parties for national office are a) center right and b) far right, that means there can be no left of center choice if both parties remain on their current trajectory. The only way that this dynamic changes is if you focus on the quality of the candidates in the parties  - more leaning in both parties on economic issues. If you dig beneath the surfaces, there is a lot of economic consistency there amongst voters, but it is buried under party labels.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:25:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's where the "tyranny" comes into it (0.00 / 0)

You are correct:

What also happens is that this allows the two parties to distort the will of the American public.

The word "distort" is somewhat mild, however. Considering the influence of money and corporate perks in the system, I might use the word "subvert".


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:36:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think that's where (0.00 / 0)

one gets into whether the American people have some role in the feedback loop. I believe they do. I will not completely absolve them of their role in the process by saying they are just victims to the machinery of DC.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:43:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

It is not an either/or situation.

Citizens have a role and I expect my fellow citizens to put a good faith effort into our political system. But that does not mean that the corporations and other power-brokers don't work to subvert the influence of the populace.

That's why certain politicians and M$Ps maintain the view among the populace that the government is an enemy, or so controlled by "special interests" that our small voices are simply lost. Instilling that perspective makes folks far less likely to try and influence or participate in politics (I don't mean just voting every major election). Let's face it, that mentality exists on both ends of the spectrum, it ain't just the teabaggers and libertarians.

So, yeah, I expect my fellow citizens to accept responsibility for their own government but I also realize that we have been indoctrinated to believe that we are too impotent to do much more than write checks and cast votes for M$P candidates. So I cut my fellow citizens some slack (not alot, but some).

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:24:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Voters vs. members (0.00 / 0)

Much of what you say about the voting public is also true about the membership of Congress.

In the most striking area, 44 members of Congress (House and Senate) are Jewish.  With the switch of Arlen Specter, one (Eric Cantor) is Republican.  Democrats dominate non-Christian members with 2 Muslims, 2 Buddhists, 3 Unitarians and one "not affiliated".  That's a total of 50 to 1.

Catholic legislators are primarily Democrats and are the largest group by far.  Greek Orthodox (4 Dems, 2 Rs) and Serbian Orthodox (1 Dem) are primarily Democrats.  Mormons (10 R, 3 D) are primarily Republican although the 3 Ds include Harry Reid.

Which really does mean that the traditional and evangelical Christians have to swing Republican, particularly if minorities are excluded.

All data is from congress.org, btw.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:24:40 AM CST

Ok... (0.00 / 0)

... so who's the Serbian Orthodox member?  That'll be my trivia of the day.

Do you know anyplace that has stats for state legislators?  

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:30:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) (0.00 / 0)

Her maiden name was Luburic.

---

by: dedelste @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:52:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No state stats (0.00 / 0)

That I'm aware of.  The lists on congress.org include congressional delegates who have to be excluded from the total.  Otherwise, they are really cool.

Did you know Charlie Rangel is Catholic?  Surprised me.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:09:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Unitarians "Non-Christian"??? (4.00 / 1)

While you can be an atheist and a Unitarian (as I was growing up), it's still historically a Christian denomination, and is probably best considered as liminally Christian.

You'd have to look at each Unitarian member individually to determine whether they were "Christian" or not, and that would start to get downright Inquisitional.

In fact, it's the Right that has long insisted that Unitarians aren't Christians.  To my own mind, they're a whole lot more Christian than 90% of all others who claim the label.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:20:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Look at the seven principles of Unitarianism.  Belief in Christ as God or a three part (trinitarian) God is not up there.  That might fit into early Christianity but doesn't make the cut.  It is Christian-light.  Belief in a non-divine Christ, for example, would include Muslims.

The UUs are wholly admirable.  They believe in principles descended from Jewish, Christian, and humanitarian beliefs.  That is close but no cigar in my book.

Btw, one of the three "Unitarians" is Pete Stark who really is an atheist.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:06:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yup (0.00 / 0)

Pete Stark should be counted as "non-Christian". The other two need to be looked at individually as well.

There are plenty of Unitarians who are Christian, and indeed my mother pulled back significantly from participation in her congregation (which had been a fellowship without a pastor for most of the decades she belonged) when they got an overtly Christian minister who was not as inclusive as might be desired.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 14:53:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i don't think it's right to define another person's faith for them (0.00 / 0)

whether unitarian, hindu, muslim, christian, or whatever.  just let people have a voice in their own lives.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 20:12:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Minorities (4.00 / 1)

Be careful here.  Non-European peoples, women, gays are not always progressive, particularly on the economic and fiscal issues that are coming to fore.  They seem too willing to make deals with capitalists.  What is required is a mix of all the groups.

---

by: jim s @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:50:01 AM CST

no group of people is always progressive (0.00 / 0)

being progressive (or rather, believing in social justice) is adopting and living a set of ideas - being anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-imperialist, etc.  

The difference between the several billion people you listed and the remainder of the population, is that they are targets of anti-progressive policy and law and as a result, some people mistakenly assume every member of the group will therefore be 'progressive' both with regard to their 'own issue' as well as more broadly.  This is a tremendous mistake.  

However, that is a separate question from whether or not their experiences as a member of that group make them more or less likely to be sympathetic to progressive views on their 'own issue' and separately more broadly.  

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 20:10:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]