EvaPaterson.com

Does this scenario seem familiar?  Devastation in New York City.  Two towering institutions are hit and collapse into rubble before our very eyes.  Bush and company are caught off guard. Our president has that startled deer in the headlights look (except he's not reading My Pet Goat). Administration officials come up with an ill-conceived plan that they expect the Congress to ratify without scrutiny.  Those with questions as to the wisdom of the plan have their patriotism questioned.  Vast powers are to be granted to government officials.

In the words of New York Times columnist and Princeton Economics professor Paul Krugman:

"...Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a 'clean' plan. 'Clean,' in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached - no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review 'by any court of law or any administrative agency,' and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

"I'm aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now."

As we have stated before, we at EJS embrace a holistic view of what we as progressives must do to create a better world.  It appears that this economic plan will not sail through in the dead of night as the Patriot Act did.  We are fully aware that our country is in deep trouble just as we were after the September 11 attacks.  We hope we have learned a lesson as a result of the excesses that occured as a result of panic and fear.  We urge our lawmakers to take a careful look at the proposals from the Bush administration.  Our friends at CREDO have an action plan.  Click on the link below for more information.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_blank_check

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Photo Credits (clockwise from top left): Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, flickr.com/respres, Reuters

Today has been a wild day.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 500 points.  An already jittery nation wonders how Wall Street's woes will affect Main Street.  I have been watching the melt down of the housing situation with ideological interest.  How does a progressive person view what we are seeing?  Is there a progressive analysis of the economic woes that are affecting us?  Woe and whoa!!!

One of the hallmarks of conservative ideology is a disdain for government regulation.  It is thought that government serves as dead weight to the brilliance of the market.  The Equal Justice Society was privileged to be part of a retreat that took place in the Santa Cruz mountains some years ago and learned that much of today's Right-wing ideology was formulated in Mt. Pèlerin, Switzerland, early in the 20th century.

Many of the ideas expressed by Barry Goldwater and then put into place in the Reagan administration first saw the light of day in the cold mountain air of the Alps.  A disdain for government and a rock solid faith in the brilliance of the market were but two of the ideals embraced by those in attendance. 

When Ronald Reagan took office, the deregulation of American life began in earnest.  The deregulation of the airline industry is a prime example.  The Bush administration saw the deregulation of the banking and financial industries.  Former Senator Phil Gramm was a major proponent of this new approach to business.

One consequence of the diminution of regulation was the subprime mortgage crisis.  No one was watching as this scam moved forward.  As an NPR reporter said this morning, "My six year old daughter knows you do not lend money to people who cannot pay you back."  How true yet there was no one from the government advising banks and other financial institutions that these loans were a bad idea.  Folks just kept making money and the government fiddled while the subprime mortgages lit the kindling that got this firestorm going.

Parenthetically, the anecdotal information I have seen indicates that the borrowers involved were disproportionately Black and Brown, poor or low income.  The current administration cares little for these Americans so they were allowed to attempt to pursue the American dream of home ownership-a dream that has become a nightmare for all of us.

The Equal Justice Society is committed to new ways of bringing about social change.  We believe we must get out of our issue area silos and look at the big picture.  Although our expertise is in the area of racial justice, we at EJS are concerned with the whole of American society including our economic situation.  Dr. King talked of the "beloved community."  His aide Bayard Rustin talked of the Grand Coalition.

We at EJS are working with colleagues on what we call the Grand Alliance.  We have worked on judicial nominations and are currently working to unite those working on statewide initiatives that will be on the California ballot this November.

Rather that having folks work in their silos on their individual efforts, we have brought together six different campaigns in an effort to help each other across the individual issues of marriage equality, immigrant rights, criminal justice, renewable energy, voting rights and reproductive rights.

After the elections, we will be convening a number of allies to move these efforts forward.  We believe the financial crisis provides an opening that will allow us to re-institute the idea of the wisdom of government regulation.  Americans do not like the idea that billions of our tax dollars will be spend bailing out institutions that made colossally bad decisions.  Van Jones, Tom Saenz, Amy Moy, Amy Everett, Luke Cole, Vincent Pan and others will meet to figure out how to move a common agenda forward.

The Chinese word crisis is composed of two characters-danger and opportunity.

Take care.

This November, the people of California will be asked to vote on a question of equality, fairness - and love. For the first time, California's gay and lesbian couples are able to celebrate their lives together on equal terms under state law by entering into the civil institution of marriage.

An initiative on the November ballot seeks to change the California Constitution and take from them that opportunity. Californians should say "no" to the proposed amendment and ensure that our Constitution continues to stand for our best hopes and our highest aspirations.

A constitution is the founding document of a community. It is the statement of principle that protects the ability of all people in that community to live their lives and pursue their dreams. The same constitution that protects the right of churches and religions to decide when to recognize marriage as a sacrament - and the right of every citizen to express their opinions about the issue - also protects the right of gay and lesbian people to be treated equally under state law. That is what the California Supreme Court said last month, and the court was right.

This epic battle has personal relevance for me. In 1970, I fell in love with Gary Paterson, who is white, at the height of the Black Power movement.

Our love antagonized both black and white people.

The Supreme Court had struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage just three years before in the landmark case, Loving vs. Virginia.

When we decided to marry, Gary's parents were so appalled that first we eloped to Hawaii and then settled in Oakland.

Gary did not speak to his parents for almost seven years. We had epithets yelled at us in public.

What gay men and lesbians are experiencing now as they seek to marry feels very familiar to me. The state has no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot love or marry. That is why this ballot initiative is misguided and cruel.

There are good people who continue to hold different beliefs about marriage for gay and lesbian couples. But amending our state Constitution is different. Writing a statement of inequality into the founding document of our state affects everyone's status in our community. It would say to some Californians that they are second-class citizens. We have gone down that road before, and we know where it leads.

That is why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama have both clearly stated their opposition to the proposed California constitutional amendment, even though they do not personally support marriage for gay and lesbian couples. they are opposed because a constitution is different. If a European-American Republican governor and an African-American Democratic presidential candidate can agree on that principle, then I believe the people of California can rally around it as well.

Committed, loving gay and lesbian couples will begin legally marrying next week. Do not take their marriages away from them in November.

We are stronger as a community when we come together to strengthen all of our relationships. Divided, we are weaker.

Our state Constitution has a long history of reflecting the best of California, and bringing out the best in its people, guided by principles of fairness and equality. By rejecting this amendment in November, we protect what is best about our Constitution by ensuring that marriage - and the rights and responsibilities it entails - remains available to all couples.

The San Francisco Chronicle published this opinion piece on Friday, June 13, 2008.

The California Supreme Court ruled today that two people in a committed and loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage.

We celebrate today’s decision as a historic triumph for fairness and opportunity in our society.  The Court has said that California is a place where everyone has the chance to realize his or her hopes and dreams.

When I think of this historic moment, I'm reminded of Mildred Loving, whose landmark 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia allowed two people of different races to marry.

She said last year on the 40th anniversary of the decision that she wasn't out to 'make a political statement or start a fight.' They were in love and they wanted to be married.

Mildred Loving was a woman of color and her husband-to-be Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep them from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

The Equal Justice Society is committed to realizing the Constitution's promise for all Americans – which includes LGBT couples receiving fully equal treatment under our state’s marriage laws.

We are proud to be one of many organizations that filed friend of the court briefs supporting the parties in these cases that sought equal status under the law. And we applaud the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, ACLU and Equality California for their incredible efforts in turning a vision of fairness and opportunity into reality.

As a racial justice organization, we joined their efforts not only because it was right, but also because EJS strongly believes in working with others to ensure that the rights of all are expanded, rather than diminished, in our society.

Guest Post By Lee Cokorinos

The issue of race has roared back into public discourse, like Freud’s return of the repressed. The feel good moment when even Ward Connerly sent a campaign check to Barack Obama and—in an echo of Freud’s famous “what do women want?”—the late William F. Buckley anxiously struggled to grasp “what is it, concretely, that he wants?” has passed.

It’s unlikely that Connerly would write that check today. But the race baiters and silent bigots will undoubtedly be writing more checks to Connerly now as he pushes forward with his crusade to outlaw affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

The right-wing media and think tank infrastructure—which some liberals and progressives, in a fit of overconfidence and hubris, have prematurely declared dead—has sprung into action in the wake of the controversies over Clinton finance committee member Geraldine Ferraro’s racially-charged remarks about Obama, and concerning his relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

There is a feeding frenzy in the conservative movement to take advantage of this new moment of racial ugliness. Like aging hawkers desperately competing to sell Confederate Flag T-shirts at a Lynryd Skynyrd revival, Human Events, National Review and the Murdoch media (from Fox News to the Weekly Standard) instantly filled their pages, websites and broadcasts to the bursting point with sedate but cutting analysis, raw white male anger, "friendly" advice and general bloviating about racial issues with Obama as the focus.

Human Events started the ball rolling in January when it released a 33-page exposé trashing Obama’s candidacy. This was followed by a heated exchange on March 1 between Rev. Wright and Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Since then, all of the leading lights of the anti-diversity industry have weighed in with abuse, advice and glee at the spectacle of a woman and an African American Democratic candidate beating each other up in the media.

Joining the fray have been ex-Meese Justice Department spokesperson Terry Eastland (who now works for Murdoch’s Weekly Standard); Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission; former Connerly legal sidekick Edward Blum (now at the American Enterprise Institute fighting for repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act); and Weekly Standard writer Stephen F. Hayes (who proudly and gratuitously fit into the biotag of his article denouncing Obama that he was “a consultant on the 1996 campaign for California’s Proposition 209”).

The level of analysis has been low. Clearly Buckley’s talent for giving intellectual flair to reactionary politics is sorely missed at National Review. For instance, Linda Chavez equated the dedication by Senator Obama’s church to being “a congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa” and to “the historical education of African people in [the] Diaspora” with “the promotion of a racist ideology.”

Is commitment to solidarity with the people of Africa, and supporting an understanding by African Americans of their own history now to be considered racist? If so, then it's fair to say that in its current racial fury the right-wing has blown clear past its hard-learned lessons of the mid-20th century and is now plumbing the history of the 19th century, when Black education was illegalized and American policy toward Africa consisted of the slave trade and gunboat diplomacy. 

Indeed the analysis in National Review has been so dimwitted that even Charles Murray—co-author of The Bell Curve and no slouch in the game of feeding racial tensions—was moved to blow off his colleagues’ shallow carping comments in National Review Online about Obama’s speech by calling it “just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America.” He was joined in his dissent by Abigail Thernstrom, another prominent intellectual capo in the anti-diversity industry.

Several strands have emerged out of this blizzard of conservative racial hucksterism. The Right’s first gambit was to try to get Obama to renounce his commitment to affirmative action (he opposed Proposal 2 in Michigan banning affirmative action).

“If he’s really intelligent,” writes Center for Equal Opportunity president Roger Clegg, then Obama would line up with the anti-diversity industry—i.e., him. Mickey Kaus, the conservative blogger, likewise suggests that Obama can “escape from the ghetto” and “shock hostile white voters into taking a second look at his candidacy” by finding “a Sister Souljah … not a person, but an idea” and renouncing his support for affirmative action.

Richard Kahlenberg, riding his class-based affirmative action hobby horse and pointing to Connerly’s initiatives as a litmus test of Obama’s bona fides, has also weighed in with the naïve and flaccid argument that Obama could win over the white working class by renouncing affirmative action that takes account of race.

It’s as if the right-wing, elite-funded anti-diversity industry, backed by billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, is suddenly going to rally to a program of class-leveling in education. As sociologist Peter Dreier points out, upper crust whites in the wealthy suburbs have tended to vote far more conservatively on race issues than working class whites, and this goes double for conservative plutocrats.

It’s also not too much of a stretch to say that after a generation’s worth of race-baiting—by politicians from both major parties, cable TV schlock pundits and the anti-diversity academics who provide intellectual cover for them—that it will take more than a little policy tweaking on affirmative action to end the divisive role of race in the white working class and bring about the kind of new consensus that Obama was talking about in his speech.

Far more promising, as Dreier points out, would be a broad and sustained campaign—transcending election cycles and including honest discussions of race—to build unity around economic inequality and collapsing working class standards of living. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Scaife and Murdoch to fund that kind of think tank or independent movement.

A second strand of abuse to come out of the right-wing firestorm against Obama was to accuse him, as the Wall Street Journal did, of playing the race card by “detecting racial overtones where none exist” and “crying wolf on race.” Considering the drumbeat of racializing demagoguery that this candidate has endured after trying to avoid the racialization of his campaign by the media and his opposition, this is a bit like robbing a person of his clothes at gunpoint then accusing him of being poorly dressed.

But the most important question is this: What will be the lasting impact of the mainstream and fringe racist attacks against Obama on the legal and political system? It’s clearly going to have an effect on the general election and the Democratic Party. Both the McCain and Clinton camps probably see the controversy over Obama’s former pastor as benefiting their campaigns.

This will spur and sustain the feeding frenzy, with potentially lasting damage to race relations. But it will also likely produce newfound financial support for the anti-diversity industry, as it strives to raise money by keeping race issues on the boil in a negative and divisive way. The right-wing’s attack on Obama and Connerly’s statewide campaigns are two sides of the same coin. As Connerly pushes forward with his crusade to outlaw affirmative action in five states it is vitally important that he be confronted and stopped, difficult as that will be.

Moreover, if people stay away from the polls in November as a result of the outcome of the Democratic nomination process, this will harm the fight against Connerly’s initiatives. If the right can drive the wedge between the feminist and civil rights movements even deeper, this may do lasting damage. Both have important stakes in the survival of affirmative action and policies to promote diversity, and if they come together the battle can be won, as was seen in the successful campaign to defeat Connerly’s Prop 54 initiative in California. The battlefield is being shaped beyond this election cycle.

Lee Cokorinos conducts political research on right-wing movements and organizations. He is the author of The Assault on Diversity: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice (Rowman & Littlefield), and Target San Diego: The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government, and can be reached at rightnotes@earthlink.net.