Sterling, Castile, Dallas, BLM

I've gone back and forth over the last few days on whether or not to write anything about the killing of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and the officers in Dallas. I've addressed Black Lives Matter before (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 if you're interested) and I still feel the same way: the movement is righteous and we need to continue to assert that black people matter. I don't have anything very eloquent to say, but I decided I'd jot down a few random thoughts, especially since my audience is largely white. And lately there seem to be a lot of Confused and Angry White People. 

The Dallas shooting was horrific and tragic. I am heartbroken for the officers (and protesters) who were shot and for their families. I have no reason to believe they weren't good people. 

If you think less of Black Lives Matter after the Dallas shooting, you're wrong. The movement has spoken against the violence, they did not sanction or plan it, and they value all life. And even if those things weren't true... 

Black lives would still matter. No matter what happened or happens, regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about tactics, you should still know and understand and state that "black lives matter." Because for the past 300 years and even today, the law does not value or protect black lives. The first step in rectifying this problem is to acknowledge it and address it. 

It is possible to grieve for the officers and still argue that we need to radically change how policing is done in this country. 

It is possible to dislike, to hate violence but to understand how it happens. I personally wouldn't want to engage in violent actions* (unless it's in self defense or to actively defend someone else), but I also don't know what it is like to be a target of state violence. I can choose to not be violent and also not denounce an entire movement because there are some folks who think violence is the best tactic. 

Pick a method of resistance that suits your strengths and find out how you can help the larger movement.

You can understand how a person(people) is angry without wanting to justify violence born of that anger. Part of being a semi-intelligent adult with complex emotions is understanding something even when you don't particularly like it. It is entirely possible (maybe necessary?) to wish those officers were alive and that the shooting in Dallas never happened but to also understand the rage behind it. Shooting unsuspecting police officers cannot be justified in my mind. But the rage? The rage is justifiable. 

If you are sad about Dallas but didn't mourn over the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, check your priorities. 

If you think the use of war tactics and materials are necessary after the slaughtering of those officers, but didn't think protesting was necessary after the slaughtering of the 565th and 566th people killed by police this year, check your priorities.

If you were outraged at the killings of Cecil the Lion and Harambe the Gorilla but not at the killings of black men by people who were sworn to protect them, just unfriend/unfollow me. Find Jesus. (So, like, half the people I went to hs with.)

I'm angry at the killing of those police officers. I'm angry that black people continue to be unjustly targeted and killed by police. Get it through your head that you can be both. 

Get it through your head that racism is real. 

Get it through your head that not all cops are good. 

Get it through your head that change is hard but necessary. 

Stop saying "all lives matter." It's defensive, it's detracting, and it's bad logic. If I say "cheeseburgers are great" it in no way means "hamburgers are awful." A hamburger can be perfectly lovely with the right condiments.

And, the most important thing: listen to black people. LISTEN TO BLACK PEOPLE. Stop denying statistics and stop denying their very experience.    

(Also: It is not okay to kill suspects with robot bombs.)

I've been praying for Alton and Philando, and for Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarripa, Michael Krol, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Smith, and everyone else affected. But we need to do more than pray. If you're white and you've been silent so far, I'd urge you to get involved. I believe there will be a day when things like this no longer happen. 

*I don't support violence against people. Property, however? Fuck property. People>property. At this point I am all for breaking windows. Before you think I'm a loon, I'll ask you your thoughts on the men behind the Boston Tea Party. If you see them as heroes, then don't tell black people or white allies not to cause chaos. If ruining property is the way to make the state care about people, then that's what'll happen. Don't blame the protesters, blame the state which continues to undervalue human life. They/we are trying to make changes via peaceful protesting. If that doesn't work, then overboard with the tea, as it were.  

Charlotte 

Steinem and Albright on Young Women for Bernie: White Feminism in America

Many people, young women especially, are upset with Gloria Steinem. Rightfully so.

In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem was asked why younger women favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. She responded, "When you're young you're thinking, 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.' "

To which I say:

Steinem is not the first white feminist icon to shame young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Madeleine Albright has chimed in as well, suggesting that young women are misguided. Steinem and Albright are part of a growing group of older women invoking the idea of completion, of victory, of an end to the feminist revolution. As Alan Rappeport notes in the New York Times, Clinton herself has started "reminding voters that her election would signal the end of a long road for women." 

If you listen carefully, you can hear the echos of people in the days following Michael Brown's death: We have a black president, racism is over! 

Rather than flocking to Clinton, young women are rooting for Sanders not because we want to "find boys," but because we're not foolish or privileged enough to believe that a woman in the white house will finally mean equality. 

The problem is an old one: mainstream feminism in America is, like all things, whitewashed. In fact, it's not just "colorblind," but impervious to class struggle as well. It's easy to think that a woman in the white house would be the End. The end to a long and difficult struggle, the end to women being deemed less than. I wish it were the case. But's it's not. A black president didn't end racism in America and a female one won't end sexism and misogyny. 

I support Sanders for a multitude of reasons. And I believe that his policies will help more kinds of women. If capitalism falls, I have no doubt that we'll see every other racist and sexist institution in this country start to crumble.

Capitalism is a massive evil that thrives off of human suffering. When a country's economic system is focused entirely on making as much profit as possible, the following things are necessary:

a low minimum wage
few regulations (workplace and environmental)
a strong, large military
militarized police

All of those things lead to these things:

mass poverty
poor schools
dangerous workplaces
environmental disasters
environmental degradation
war
dead teenagers
high prison population
unfair imprisonment

...and much more. One of the questions I ask myself when deciding who to vote for (or whether or not I should vote) is, "What does this person's policies mean for women?" It's not my only concern, but it's a big one. To be honest, Bernie Sanders isn't radical enough. But he's a vocal critic of capitalism. And an end to capitalism would have an incredible impact on the lives of women everywhere:

More choice when it comes to education and work (because right now, a lot of us have to really wonder if it's worth it to get in debt knowing we might spend months or years out of work - less college debt would make that choice easier)

Ability to work (higher wages mean better ability to afford daycare)

Ability to stay at home (higher wages mean a family can survive on one income)

Better healthcare

Less violence (violence against women is a problem in every class and race, but I can't help but wonder if less dire economic struggle will lead to less violent crime in areas that are currently riddled with it)

Less grieving -

Women lose their kids every day under capitalism. Capitalism doesn't see war as a last resort, it sees it as a way to make money via weapons manufacturing and exploitation of weaker countries. If we no longer see through the lens of capitalism, I think we'll see less war. For women that means a. less dead or injured female soldiers and b. less grieving mothers and wives. I am not a pacifist; I believe war is necessary in some cases. However, America starts wars left and right for economic reasons and every time we do that we make more mothers of dead children. We make more widows. Sanders isn't going to magically end all wars, but a challenge to capitalism might strike a blow to the military industrial complex and I am all for that.

War isn't the only way capitalism robs mothers of their children. Our police force has been militarized and our prisons are made to create profit. Both of these issues are problems for all of us, but especially for people of color. I've listened to black women say they're scared to have children. They're scared to have children that will be shot by police. They're scared to have children that will be shipped off to jail for smoking pot - the same offense that leaves many white children with probation. When we cease to have a system that operates with the primary purpose of making money, maybe some of the problems with our justice system will end. I don't imagine for an instant that the election of Bernie Sanders - or even a complete end to capitalism - will make racism disappear. But I do think radical economic changes would eliminate some of the more egregious symptoms of racism in our country. Maybe there will be less dead black boys. If there's even the tiniest hope of that, then you're damn straight I'm going to vote for the person I think can make it happen.

Of course, there are a million more ways that all women can benefit from the changes Bernie Sanders hopes to make. These are just the ones that weigh most heavily on my heart.

And in case you don't ask yourself how a candidate's policies will help women, there are other reasons to vote for Sanders too:

he's better on the environment
his foreign policy (or what it could be if he articulated it better) is more in line with my beliefs
he's better on immigration
he's better on racial issues

My point is that there are a thousand valid reasons any young woman might be supporting Bernie Sanders. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are betraying the very people they've claimed to fight for all these years. No, we won't go to hell for not supporting Hillary Clinton. No, we're not voting for Bernie Sanders in the hope to find our husbands. To suggest that young women are naive or that we're making decisions haphazardly is ageist and hypocritical. Bill Maher was right - if he had suggested women are voting for Sanders simply because "that's where the boys are," there'd be hell to pay. I wonder if it's almost worse, though, that women who are known the world over as feminist icons have made these comments. Don't patronize me, Gloria Steinem. I'm not supporting Sanders to impress my man crush; I'm supporting Bernie Sanders because he is, by far, the best candidate for the job.
__
Charlotte

Being a Catholic and a Progressive

is FUN.

I'm by no means an expert on Catholicism, and I've only recently jumped back into it.  What I write here is what I believe to be true based on everything I've read and researched, but if you're a better Catholic than I and you see that I've gotten something wrong (or right!) feel free to let me know!   

In all honesty, I think being Catholic is really compatible with being progressive.  Many of my positions on social and political issues are heavily influenced by my faith and my belief in the authority of the Church.  There are two issues that make it difficult, but more on that in a minute.  First I want to talk real quick about why it makes sense.  

The Role of Money/Economics

Every true progressive I know adheres to a sort of Keynesian economics, at least.  They believe the government ought to invest in people.  Many progressives - including myself - would go so far as to support a sort of socialism.  This sounds ridiculous in this context because historically, religion has been attacked by socialists.  Of course I don't support that.  Everyone should be free to worship, and I think religion plays an invaluable role in society.  I do believe, however, that people should be paid fairly for the work they do.  That workers should have more control over what they produce.  Do I think people should have private property? Yep!  Should people with specific training and education be paid higher wages?  Yep.  But...   

Can someone make billions of dollars a year and remain morally intact?  

Probably not.  In order to make that much money, someone else is suffering.  A worker isn't being paid fairly, a child is in a sweatshop, a woman is working for thirty cents less than a man per hour.

Progressives - true progressives - resist this economic model.   

Look:   

"Money has to serve, not rule." 

"We don't want this globalized economic system which does us so much harm. Men and women have to be at the center (of an economic system) as God wants, not money."

-Papa Francisco 

Jesus called Saint Peter the rock upon which the Church would be built.  Pope Francis is a successor to Saint Peter.  As Catholics, we believe the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.  

The Vicar of Christ is telling us that people, not money, should be the center of our economic system. 

Best believe I'm gonna fight for that.  

(The argument that people matter more than money makes sense outside of faith, too, but that's another post.)

So we have a couple of options (I'm generalizing): 

1. Fiscal conservatism, which says poor people should be taxed the same as rich people (or more, for that matter) and that the government has no place spending money on social services; or 

2. Progressivism, which says the government should tax on a scale and that money should be invested into social services.  

(I want to add real quick - you cannot be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  Many people claim these titles together, but they are contradictory.)

For a hot minute let's keep in mind Pope Francis' words, but also look at the Corporal Works of Mercy: 

To feed the hungry.

To give drink to the thirsty.

To clothe the naked.

To shelter the homeless.

To visit the sick.

To visit the imprisoned.

To bury the dead.

In government and politics, it might look like this: 

Supporting food stamps. 

Supporting food stamps.

Supporting EBT cash/public assistance.

Supporting section 8/public housing. 

Supporting medicaid/medicare.

Supporting prison reform. 

Supporting veteran affairs. 

And so on.  Or, better yet, it might look like *a fight for a living wage, so that no one needs social services.*  

Either way, as a Catholic (and as a person with a moral compass that doesn't point straight to hell), I won't campaign or vote for politicians that threaten to cut social programs or who don't support better wages.  Historically, austerity has never worked, and I believe the path to a society where people are fed and clothed involves a fair tax system, a high minimum wage, and support for social services.  

All progressive stances.

Work - Unions, Hours, Leave, etc

Every single person is unique and has dignity and worth.

Employers should treat them as such.

When conservatives argue for keeping the minimum wage low, or for minimizing the power of unions, for stripping collective bargaining rights, or for less vacation time, for longer hours, etc, they are arguing against a culture of life and of goodness.  People can't thrive when their entire lives are spent at work.  They can't share their gifts with the world.  They can't offer themselves to others.  They can't spend time with their families.  I think God meant for us to do those things, and I keep that in mind when I vote, I keep it in mind when I sign petitions calling for higher wages, I keep it in mind when I decide which rallies to attend.

In all honesty, when it comes to the economy and to workers, democratic politicians, for the most part, are only a little better than republican politicians.  Bernie Sanders is an exception, but President Obama is a capitalist.  Hillary Clinton is a capitalist.  Joe Biden is a capitalist.  I think their policies are fairer and more aligned with my faith than the policies of republicans, but they're not great.  That said, I think most ordinary people (the non-politicians) who consider themselves progressives have ideals that match Catholic values.

But money isn't the only thing.
__________________________

For God so loved America, that He gave His only begotten Son..

Oh wait, that's not how it goes.

Here it is: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son"

Immigration.

Countries are a thing, and I love America and apple pie and rooting for our soccer team but God made the world and I'm pretty sure He loves all of its humans equally, so let's go ahead and treat immigrants, illegal or not, like they're our own (because, uh, they are).

The Catholic Church is pro-life in every sense of the word, and that means that every single person on earth is important and has value and dignity, and the conservative view on immigration is quite the opposite of that.

Now, progressives aren't all terrific on the issue, either.  But as a whole, they're better than conservatives on immigration.  I feel confident that many Catholic priests would advise against calling children of immigrants "anchor babies."  Also I doubt they'd be supportive of detaining entire families.  Catholics have been some of the leaders in the fight to create more just, humane immigration policies.

As far as I can tell, if you're Catholic, you can't think that Americans are the best/most important people in the world.

source

__________________________

The Environment

There's been talk about this a lot lately thanks to Pope Francis' Laudato Si.

Again, the Pope (THE POPE) is telling us that we cannot remain apathetic to environmental degradation, that we cannot continue the habits of consumerism that we currently do, and that the changes brought by humans will adversely affect the poor.  Conservatives on a national scale aren't even in agreement that climate change and global warming are real.  To me, living my faith (and taking care to follow Pope Francis' lead) means acknowledging this serious problem, and working to fix it.  And voting for politicians who will take action.

Laudato Si is not just about science and global warming.  It's about rampant consumerism and the destruction of God's creation.  When I look to see which side of the spectrum will take more care to conserve and preserve earth's wonders, it's the left.  Are they doing it because they feel called to by God?  Maybe some of them, but no, not all of them.  But whether for secular or nonsecular reasons, the motives are right and the goals are admirable.  It happens to align with my faith.
__________________________

Education Policy 

I wrote a post with my thoughts on education here, if you want to check it out.  But basically (and probably due to the fact that schooling has been so badly corrupted by the drive for profits), I think most politicians have got poor education policies.  One of the main reasons I prefer *most* progressives on education is that they tend to offer less support to charter schools.  I just can't get behind charters, man.  I think that the teachers who work at them are good people, the students are great, the parents are terrific... but the concept?  No.  I'm not all about using public funding on privately-run schools that have little oversight.

But, staying on topic with how Catholicism influences my stance on education...

I think God gave us intellect and curiosity for a reason.  I think we are meant to explore everything around us, that we are meant to learn about art and music and great literature.  I firmly believe God purposely gives everyone different talents and interests.

Which means I think we should spend much more money on education, that public schools should be in beautiful buildings that inspire teachers and students alike, and that love for learning should be the goal rather than good test scores.  I believe that teaching for standardized tests means educators can't spend enough time on books, on helping students pursue their passions, on instilling curiosity instead of great memorization skills.

There aren't many politicians on the national scale calling for these things, but this kind of education system would require more money and a separation from corporations like Pearson - two things that most progressives support.
__________________________

Black Lives Matter/Policing in America

In general, it seems pretty clear that most conservatives are hesitant to support the Black Lives Matter movement.  Many of them, in fact, feel the urge to silence black people by shouting, "all lives matter!"  Not okay, man.  Similar to the capitalism/education problems, national liberal politicians are not much better.  They may not show outright opposition, but many of them fall into the category of conveniently colorblind.  (Which might be why Black Lives Matter hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president?  Makes sense.)

I do, think, however, that most progressives have better policies when it comes to the police.

Why does this matter to me as a Catholic?

I'm pro-life.  Police keep killing black people.  Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Dontay Ivy, Michael Brown, and too many more.  These men, women, and children are just the first to pop into my head.  It's easy for most people to just spit out numbers, be horrified for a minute, and move on.  (I sometimes do this.)  But really - each of those people were made in the image of God.  Each was a brand new person who has never existed on Earth before and will never exist here again.  There literally is no one like them.  They were priceless and their lives were priceless and they were murdered by police.

So I try and vote for the politician who wants to do something about it.
__________________________

And if those were the straight-forward, Catholic-very-compatible-with-progressive positions, here are the NOT so easy issues to deal with: 

Gay marriage 

I think this might make me a not-great Catholic, but I find it really, really difficult to accept the Church's position on this.  ("But, you said you accept the Church's authority?!"  Yes.  So imagine how crappy this dilemma feels.)

I've heard all of the reasoning behind it, and it still feels wrong.  And it's like.. sometimes you rely on the Holy Spirit to help you out and give you the grace to understand... and, well, it's like I feel the opposite.  No part of me begins to feel right about banning gay marriage.  I know the Church's position and I want to always follow Church teaching, but........ ah, it just doesn't seem right.  

(Also, I 100% support the idea of government not making laws based just on religion, so I'm not comfortable voting for politicians who are against gay marriage.) 

And while I find it hard to accept the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage... 

__________________________  

I find it harder to accept the democratic position on abortion.  Don't get me wrong, I find the republican dialogue on the issue horrific.  The women-shaming, welfare-cutting positions are wrong and probably don't help to actually stop abortions from occurring.  

But I'm also kind of flummoxed that so many people support abortion.  (Though I understand why many women feel like they need them.) 

I think there's a real inconsistency on the left (many of my friends were furious about the killing of Cecil the Lion - but are fine with "ending a pregnancy" which is literally ending a human life).  Progressives are "pro-life" in so many other ways: acknowledging the moral worth of immigrants and POC, supporting labor policies that make it possible for people and families to thrive, wanting to save the earth.  Of course, many people don't believe a fetus is a human yet.  But I'm not going to throw science in the face of conservatives when we're talking about global warming and then completely ignore it when we talk about abortion.  A fetus is a human.  It is one of the earliest stages of development in a human, yes, but it's still a human.  Sure, it's how I feel as a Catholic, but it's also just science.  The dna is already there, the sex is already determined - it is already a unique human.  (Do I feel like a little bit of an asshole for writing this?  Yes - I don't want to make any of my friends who have gotten abortions feel bad.  But I think they know I love them and don't think poorly of them - I just think that we're getting this topic wrong and it's an important discussion to have.) 

I think this topic deserves its own post in light of recent events, so maybe that's something I'll hash out later this week or next.  But for now I'll say it's the one progressive stance that gives me pause.  

__________________________  

When it comes to deciding how to vote, it seems pretty clear to me.  I vote for the people I believe will fight for the right values - the dignity of every person and every worker, the preservation of the earth, the right of immigrants to build a life here, the right of black people to live.  I take gay marriage and abortion into consideration, of course.  Usually the candidate who shares my position on the economy and the environment also shares my position on gay marriage.  Almost always, we disagree on abortion.  But when I vote, my hope is that there will be less women seeking abortion (because of better wages, better maternity leave policies, better hours, etc.).  I don't like the democratic position on abortion, but I do like voting for the people who don't want to take food stamps away from the poor families (including their babies, planned or unplanned).  I do like voting for the people who want to keep everyone fed and clothed.  And in the meantime I guess the best thing to do about abortion is to keep having the conversation.  

Overall, I feel pretty comfortable being a Catholic and a progressive.

***I just realized I forgot to include war.  I think war should be a last resort, not something we idolize.  Which means I won't be supporting anyone like Mike Huckabee, who in the GOP debate said the point of the military is "to kill people and break things."

Yeah, nope.

__

Charlotte 

Vote for Howie Hawkins

That's right, I said it.  In this post I wrote the other day, I mentioned that I wasn't sure if I was going to vote for Howie or not.  I agree with almost everything he stands for, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to throw my support behind the green party.  Well, this election, I do.  They're the only party that is truly listening to the stories of working people.  

Howie supports a $15 minimum wage.  That is monumental, and it is essential.  I make $8.50 at my job right now, and I bring home a little over $600 a month.  I'm on the verge of homelessness and every night I pray that my car hasn't been repossessed and will still be outside the next morning.  I lost my full time job a few months ago, I've had health problems that required surgery, and surviving is nearly impossible.  You know what a small, incremental change means when we talk about minimum wage?  It means not enough.  

The minimum wage went up to $8.00 last year and I'm still struggling.  If it went up to $15, I'd be able to pay my bills again.  I wouldn't get ten calls from debt collectors every day.  I'd be able to put $20 from each paycheck into a savings account.  

That's what Howie Hawkins supports.  

Another thing?  His education policies are by far the best of all three candidates.  He wants quality, free education for everyone k-12 an higher ed.  He wants parents and teachers to shape children's learning by opting out of corporate-backed common core and high stakes testing.  Howie supports free tuition at public colleges and universities.  I have $40,000 in debt from school, and no one should have that burden.  

If you take a look at his platform,  you'll see that his policies are reflections of what the public needs.  Better schools, living wages, clean water, affordable housing, better public transportation.  

It comes down to this: Howie's agenda is one of radical change. 

The WFP and its allies are telling us to vote for Cuomo on the WFP line to maintain the party's power.  "If Cuomo receives WFP votes, he'll know the people really want change."  (I'll repeat what I said in that other post: the only message Andrew Cuomo will receive if he gets a ton of WFP votes is that his strategy of bullying and manipulation works.)  The argument is that this will give the party leverage to work with Cuomo and pressure him into making positive changes in NY.  

I'll tell you what.  I do not need the possibility of small, incremental change that comes with a solid showing of WFP Cuomo votes.  I need radical change, and I need it yesterday.  

If you feel like you are willing to gamble on this, then maybe you should vote Cuomo (but probably not).  But if you know that NY needs a better living wage, a better education system, and better tax policies, then you should absolutely vote for Howie Hawkins.  His platform is the only platform that will help us all, and quite frankly he is the only trustworthy candidate.  If you are sick of the old strategy of "voting for the lesser of two evils," dump the republican and the democrat, and vote for Howie Hawkins.  You'll be glad you did.  

__

Charlotte

The Pragmatism and Privilege Arguments - NY Election 2014

*I do want to mention that the author of the letter I reference here, and so many other people who are encouraging folks to vote for Cuomo on the WFP line, are, to the best of my knowledge, good people, smart people, and people who really want to help everyone and make a better world.  I understand that, despite the fact that I come off as... slightly angry in this post.  

Andrew Cuomo is, quite frankly, a bad person.  He is not just a bad politician.  He's a liar, a player, and overly ambitious.  He's shown us that he cares about himself more than he cares about any random stranger on the street.  

And yet, "progressives" are encouraging us to vote for him.  

Are you kidding?  

They're not.  And I get it.  I get wanting to believe that what the Working Families Party did was good.  It would be wonderful if the democratic party and WFP were good and could be reformed.  But they can't.  No party that sells out working people is a party worth voting for.  

But a lot of people say that voting WFP (for Cuomo) is the best way to send a strong message and to get real results in fights that matter.  (Fights like the one for publicly financed elections, a minimum wage raise, the decriminalization of marijuana and so much more.)  This open letter is a perfect example of the effort people are giving to get Cuomo elected on the WFP line.  

Go read it.  It's pretty bad.  

Real quick summary of most people's arguments:  He's going to win, he might as well get as many WFP votes as possible, because it'll send him a message that we're expecting him to follow through on his promises.  

Talk about defeat.  Let me just make this clear.  The only message Andrew Cuomo will receive if he gets a ton of WFP votes is that his strategy of bullying and manipulation works.  We will have told him that he can threaten us into obedience.  

My friends, that is NOT a message I want to send.   

I want to address a few of the problems with that letter. 

1. "Then the unexpected happened. Governor Cuomo caved. At the last minute, he pledged to push through Fair Elections. And that wasn't all. He agreed to a minimum wage increase with indexing. He agreed to pass the full, 10-point women's equality agenda. He agreed to push through the NYS DREAM Act. He agreed to marijuana decriminalization. He even agreed, remarkably, to help flip the state senate and push for a reunification of the IDC and the Dems -- making it easier to advance a progressive legislative agenda in 2015."  

Problem:  This is not unexpected.  A democratic candidate for a democratic state was threatened with a challenger, so he.... agreed to agree to align with his own party?  Wow, how monumental.  He didn't even give a strong statement in support of the positions.  he just said he would support them.  He could have tattooed the platform on his body and it still wouldn't be enough because agreeing to your own party's ideals is the fucking baseline for running on that line.  Cuomo did the bare minimum, let's throw him a spot on our line.  

2. "There were those of us (like myself) who didn't think his promises were enough. Who argued passionately for Zephyr. Who were heartbroken and bitterly resentful when the WFP state committee voted -- in an admittedly transparent and beautifully democratic process -- to endorse Cuomo. It was, I believed at the time, a violation of our principles and everything we stood for as a party and as a movement."

Problem:  The process underwent when the WFP decided to run Cuomo was the exact opposite of transparent and beautifully democratic.  The vast majority of WFP voters wanted the party to run its own candidate.  But it caved to threats from the governor and from unions (obviously not the rank and file members).  I mean I guess that's beautifully democratic in a sense that that's how democracy works in America.  But then, America doesn't have true democracy. 

3. "Despite feeling somewhat vindicated by Zephyr's performance in the primary, I gradually came to understand that my position was a position of privilege. You see, I am blessed not to have to work for minimum wage. I don't have to struggle to make ends meet, to put food on the table. I don't have to worry about whether or not I will be able to afford college. If I am caught smoking marijuana, the color of my skin means I won't spend very much (if any) time behind bars. And so I began to realize that the endorsement I so resented wasn't at all the "selling out" of the party we helped to build. It was, instead, an emotionally challenging decision reached after many hours of difficult deliberation by a bunch of kind, caring, strategic individuals attempting to use their little bit of influence over the governor to make life better, in tangible ways, for millions of struggling New Yorkers." 

Problem: I've heard the privilege argument from so many people.  They say that real New Yorkers need change now, and being idealistic and hoping for something that can't happen and protesting doesn't get us anywhere near real change.  If Cuomo will agree to support (so, at best, not go against) a fight for a $10 minimum wage, that's where we need to throw our support.  Because it's not fair to ask for more when they're not the ones whose lives are at stake.  

Well, my livelihood is at stake.  I don't always know where my next meal is coming from.  I lost my job a few months ago, and my life has become a constant struggle.  When I got food stamps a couple of months ago, I nearly cried from relief.  So fuck the argument that it's a privileged position to want more for NY.  I honestly need to know if anyone bothered to ask low income people how they felt before making this claim.  It is infuriating when people making a living wage do this act (wth good intentions, to be fair) to actually hinder real change.  

I make about $600 a month.  These bullshit political strategies to maintain power and maybe - maybe - get tiny changes or to get words of support from a governor who loves rhetoric but not action is not helping me.  Want to know a privileged position?  One that says dump your ideals and real problems and do what will keep the WFP alive.  This argument feels to me more like "stand up for the poor people, they need us!" than "listen to and then stand up with the poor people, we all need each other!"  And that is a very dangerous thing.  

I think, if people truly examined their own privilege (me included, because I may be living in poverty, but, like the author of the letter, I'm not black.  I'm not LGBTQ.  I have privilege too.), they'd see that the single best way to change this state is to vote your conscience (which may mean not voting at all this time around) and more importantly, standing up, arms linked together, and demanding more.  If we want to be realistic, this election isn't going to change things.  Mass demonstrations are.  Strikes are.  People doing things together, not strategized BS elections, are the real change makers.

4. "You can throw your vote away on a protest vote for Howie Hawkins and the Green Party. Or, you can vote on the Working Families Party ballot line to hold Governor Cuomo accountable to his promises to raise wages, pass Fair Elections, and make New York State work for all of us."

Problem:  I can't believe I have to even say this, but there is no such thing as "throwing your vote away."  How incredibly cynical and undemocratic.  

And a protest vote?  Howie Hawkins' platform is almost identical to my own.  He is the bravest and boldest candidate in this election.  A Cuomo win will not produce tangible results (not good ones.  I'm sure there will be tangible results as in more kids starving and things like that.), but a Hawkins win certainly would.  

5. "As much as we all hate to hold our noses when we vote, and as tempting as it might be to vote green, this is a time when we need to be pragmatic more than idealistic." 

Problem:  Ah, the argument that is made every single election.  We always choose the less of two evils, and we always get screwed over.  After so many years of that, I need to ask, why in the world do you still believe this lie?  Pragmatism has done nothing for me.  We need to be more idealistic and more creative in our ways of fighting oppression.  The claim that voting for Cuomo will achieve anything good is just absurd. 

Honestly, I'm hoping that very few people vote on the WFP line.  I'd like to see it go away, as it's nothing more than a puppet for the democratic party.  This election, I'll either be voting for Hawkins or for no one.  

If you want change, and you want things like a living wage, then you'll mix pragmatism and idealism and realize that voting for Cuomo isn't an acceptable thing to do and that voting for the lesser of two evils is not our only option.  We can put our bodies on the line, invoke the spirit of revolutionaries before us, and get back to the grassroots.  It is the only thing that has truly brought about positive change in this country.   

_

Charlotte