Democratic (Party) Direction

Sotomayor is pretty classically "tough on crime" fwiw, whatever else her politics may be.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:41 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

It depends what vector we are talking about re "tough on crime"? For example, with the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ (who go after cross burners, voter intimidation, hate crimes etc.), one would hope they would be "tough on crime."

I used the example of Justice Sotomayor is context-specific to illustrate that it takes gallons of privilege to declare that path after path for empowerment (law school, prosecution) should be closed off to marginalized people, especially when they have been paths to power for others. Sotomayor is a jurist, not a politician, but progressive in her context.

I do like these new Democratic Gen Z candidates though: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/06/1109193929/the-first-gen-z-candidates-are-running-for-congress-and-running-against-compromi

I was the one who said ‘no prosecutors,’ IIRC - I’m not sure why that being a traditional “path to power” for a group of people I despise means I should give a pass on it to Harris or anyone else?

An ideal for a political party could, theoretically, be to functionally eradicate marginalisation through socialised equity, rather than celebrating individuals who advance into the structures of wildly imbalanced power.

Oh that is fine, milo doesn't have to give "a pass" to Harris or anyone else. But you must admit it would be humorous to suggest everyone - especially women - should go through life with a set of milo-shaped priorities. This "group of people you despise" - milo, could you be more specific? Maybe men are threatened by smart women and prosecutors, I don't know. I am threatened by men, because they can kill me with their bare hands. So maybe I despise prosecutors less than milo, because, yeah, the threat of consequences for people who mean me criminal harm feels like it could be beneficial.

At the time, I think I was reacting to a tendency to single out women for scrutiny and criticism where the same is not being done to similarly-situated men. Patterns in which "individuals" you choose to focus on and criticize just happen to be women is a thing that women online are very attuned to noticing, even if men are not.

And the way people sometimes word things online ("I don't see why" "I'm not sure why" "I just can't understand" "It makes no sense that") seems to demand a justification of why the world shouldn't align along with that particular person's perspective, and maybe this way of positing questions seems to come from men more than women? Just a personal theory.

As for "socializing equity" versus "celebrating individuals who advance into the structures of wildly imbalanced power" I would again be interested in the specifics of exactly who you mean and what you propose. To reduce things to ideals in response to concrete problems in American that are being discussed can come off as a little "let them eat cake" so let's hear the details.

This "group of people you despise" - milo, could you be more specific? Maybe men are threatened by smart women and prosecutors, I don't know.

I quoted it in large part, I believe. The "others" for whom the job of putting people in cages has been a "path to power." I don't think the world needs more Bill Clintons and John Kerrys (or Sheldon Whitehouses or Richard Blumenthals).

You say you're "reacting to a tendency to single out women" but as the person who said "no prosecutors" I didn't carve out an exception to that statement for white male prosecutors or the leadership of this godforsaken nation up to this point.

Oh I guess your reference to Larry Krasner threw me off, since he is a "progressive prosecutor" and is a white man.

Maybe you better bash Krasner a little, just so I'm not confused. ;)

I mean, the sentence that follows that up is "elect progressive prosecutors and leave them there IMO." If it is necessary to have ostensibly leftist or progressive or reformist or whatever people playing a lead role in the carceral state, that's where their political career should end, in part so they can actually do the job of reforming rather than simply using it as a stepping stone as the others referred to have done before. (To be clear, I'm not aware of any of the recent spate of 'progressive prosecutors' doing so - there's no fervor for Larry Krasner to run for Governor. He has to survive an attempted impeachment currently, I believe.)

Jobs that involve locking people up should not be a stepping stone to amassing greater power.

There are term limits to some of these jobs, such as California Attorney General. It's hard to know what you want people to do after serving 2 full terms - I guess they could go into private law practice and make tons of money or find another way to work on reform. National-level prison/sentencing reform could come from somewhere. Just wondering if your proposed disqualification would make it more likely to happen than not. If local or state-level prosecutors are not elected to national-level positions, I wonder who would better have the track record and experience to reform the federal carceral system or Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

This 2020 article (sorry for paywall) mentioned a few other progressive prosecutors.

Various reforms aimed at providing alternatives to prison, reducing harshness and inequality, and charging and prosecuting less have also been implemented by a slate of progressive prosecutors, notably Eric Gonzalez, in Brooklyn; Kim Foxx, in Chicago; Kim Gardner, in St. Louis; Aramis Ayala, in Orlando; and Rachael Rollins, in Boston. The latter four are following Harris as some of the first Black women to serve as top prosecutors in major American cities.

Not sure what has happened to these people since the article was written. Would be interesting to follow them.

And I'm not sure if you are saying if you do despise Krasner for also having the job of putting people in cages, or just that he's not worth despising or criticizing online, as he seems to have no national political aspirations at the moment.

I didn't say anything positive or negative about Krasner upthread - I pointed to him as a potential point of hypocrisy for some people who changed their twitter bios to COPmala in 2019, given his DSA endorsement and the like but also that that support hasn't translated into calls for him to take higher office.

I don't really care about him as a person or politician - I don't live within 2000 miles of Philadelphia. His record sounds mostly fine for a prosecutor, I'm sure he's pursued things I don't approve of but he probably* hasn't taken an active role in hiding exculpatory evidence like his predecessors (and so many others). He should remain the DA for as long as he's allowed and leave legislating to other people (preferably the teachers, labor organizers and public defenders who would replace our troops/prosecutors/landlords as mentioned earlier).

State and local prosecutors are elected to national positions all the time - if they were a key to improving things I'd think we'd see that. Even if we want to think 'this time it's different' because of a change in the makeup (ideological or otherwise) of the prosecutors moving up, you're going to need a lot more progressive prosecutors before they can displace more than a couple of the lousy former prosecutors we've already got in Congress. So even from a purely strategic perspective, they can do more good on the local DA stage if it turns out they're the ideal prosecutor as actual public servant.

Maybe we'll miss out on a couple of good ones who could have wound up in the Senate but we have 320 million bodies, there are people to pick up the slack. I don't believe we particularly need people of any special profession to reform the remaining crack/powder disparity or figure out that having 50% of federal prisoners be in the pen for drugs is destructive and monstrous - but if lawyers are helpful on that point, there are thousands of public defenders/defense attorneys out there too. (I'm not Team No Lawyers from above, I trust JDs way more than say, MDs in general. Just not prosecutors.)

*never say never, though

What I'm saying is an absolutely sweeping, broad and unrealistic desire - but like the question of who should lead the Democratic Party, if we restrict things to realistic options (people who want the job and can conceivably take it) there aren't any good answers.

Katie Porter got brought up - she'd be a fine whatever job we think defines the leader of the party (President, Speaker, some other amorphous position outside of that but which is the Face of the Democrats) and I'd say she'd want the position... but she's no more realistic than Ruth Wilson Gilmore. The party wouldn't even slightly nudge the rules on her committee assignments this time around! The centrists would rather lose for 50 years than have a Katie Porter or AOC as the leader of the party.

I am wondering why in your mind people have to be all one thing or all the other thing. Because, in reality, lawyers often have experience doing both defense work and prosecution work.

Rachael Rollins has taken a higher office since that New Yorker article was written in 2020. In 2020 she was Suffolk County D.A. Now she is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. She was bitterly opposed in the confirmation and it was Harris who cast the tie-breaking vote. For some reason the U.S. Marshals refused to give Rollins a security detail even though she had multiple death threats.

In her past, Rollins was an NLRB field attorney. I would think this would appeal to you, but it would require some allowance that people can be more than one thing.

Maybe it comes down to are we picking fantasy sports teams or are we working with what we have. To me, prison issues are important, but it is not my one single issue. To then extend the prison issue to say that anyone who contributes in any way to upholding that system for any part of their career (even though they did not create it, and even if they try to reform it), while also paying off student loans or supporting their families or whatever -- while they are systematically denied equal support, protection and opportunities and also given proportionately much more criticism and scrutiny than men doing the exact same things - it just feels like a lot to ask women to do, to atone for what are largely the sins of white men. And actually defense attorneys do a lot in that system as well.

It's not that I think Rollins or Harris should get a pass for doing the same job as Clinton or that they shouldn't be asked questions or held to account. I think maybe we need to redefine "merit" and at least consider that some forms of representation at the national level of government can be forms of justice as well, when women of color have for so long been excluded.

the last two politicians I gave money to are Nina Turner and Ilhan Omar.

I support candidates that say and ostensibly believe things that I agree with.

Ilhan Omar seems really good. Will Nina Turner run again?

I am just wondering how perfect Democratic politicians have to be. For example, do people criticize Tammy Duckworth for being an Iraq veteran, even though she unseated a Republican?

not sure about Nina’s future. it’s possible her drop from early polling leads is that as the campaign wore on she simply didn’t connect with the people in that district. or it might be another example of Dem establishment’s (and some pretty cool aligned outside groups’) laser focus on kneecapping progressives will forever outweigh their ability to stop

stop the GOP even when they control the executive legislature*

I don’t think “perfection” is necessary. I’m just dem soc and I want to support people who agree with me.

if I lived in Duckworth’s state obviously I’m going to vote for her in the general. Depending on who would be running against her in the primary I may very well support her there, too.

I’m going to vote for Stacey Abrams in November. I will likely end up doing some volunteering as well, same as 2018.

stop the GOP even when they control the executive branch AND legislature*


gah I hate typing on an iPhone

it just feels like a lot to ask women to do, to atone for what are largely the sins of white men

Almost everyone I've referred to is a man. The vast majority of the troops/ghouls/prosecutors/cops I'm talking about displacing are men. Men have traditionally gotten a free pass but the people who gave them that pass also don't care that Harris (or Klobuchar or anyone else) was a prosecutor. They haven't suddenly become police or prison abolitionists. I'm asking prosecutors to atone for the sins of prosecutors, which is a position you have to seek out to start with.

And the atonement I'm asking for, if they believe they're breaking down the corrupt system from the inside, is to stay there and keep doing that.

Maybe in 40 years a wave of progressive prosecutors and AGs will have entrenched themselves across the country and killed cash bail and misdemeanor jail time and we can look at the position in a different light - but that's not what we've got. We've got prosecutorial misconduct, free passes for killer cops unless there's the threat of sustained civil unrest, people being locked up for petty theft and drugs. It's a job whose central duty is putting people in jail playing a leading role in a system that does that far too often and to largely marginalized people.

"Even if they try to reform it" - perhaps, but we don't really have examples of people seeking high office who've done that to look at for guidance. Harris had a mixed record as a DA and a downright lousy one as AG. Had she taken a more progressive stance as AG, she probably wouldn't have become Senator and then Vice President.

If Rollins or Krasner or John Creuzot or etc. do run for Senate, then they can get a spotlight on how much reform they actually sought - but I continue to not really see why we need them.

do people criticize Tammy Duckworth for being an Iraq veteran, even though she unseated a Republican?

Your point returns me to an earlier moment in this thread about paths to power and wealth for women and minorities.

Another path to class stability for many people is joining the military.

Another is becoming a corrections officer.

Afaic, these people don’t get passes, no matter their race, gender, or anything else— and the same goes for prosecutors.

While the law is a field I have problems with, given how it is constructed, I have many lawyer friends and most of them are women. They’re wonderful. But none of them are prosecutors, because I’d sooner spit on a prosecutor than associate with one.

if you’re talking platitudes

^ps pardon my barely intelligible posts itt. meaning the generic you here, obv not *you* felicity.

Somehow I have never ever ever heard centrist dems say “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” in reference to supporting candidates that are further left than they would like.

And the atonement I'm asking for, if they believe they're breaking down the corrupt system from the inside, is to stay there and keep doing that.

I guess it depends how you define system. And if "staying there" in a role is literally impossible because of term limits, what should they do when they have termed out?

man alive, I wonder whether centering yourself as the "everyman" isn't further underscoring some of my points about perspective.

All of these are good perspectives though. Thank you for the discussion.

Table, your feelings are totally understandable, knowing a bit more where you're coming from!

I think it's important to acknowledge the systems in place that might make people feel like they don't have options other than to, let's say, join the military or become a CO. Those systems ARE real, but if we take the concept of free will at all seriously, so is choice. Plenty of people who live in rural areas where the only major industry is a prison move away or find other realms of employment, and plenty of talented, impoverished people don't join the military because fuck the military. The same can be said for cops, too— cops make tons of money, especially given how little training or schooling is required, but a lot of people don't become cops because they don't want to be cops.

This mostly ties into the conversation because I really do think that there might be good progressive prosecutors, but I can count the ones I know of on two hands. Many of the prosecutors I've had either personal or indirect experience with have been "lower than a snake's asshole," which is how George Carlin describes prosecutors, fwiw. Power-hungry bullies, in other words. Wish our system didn't reward these types of people, but oh well.

there was a major recession when a bunch of my high school friends signed up for the military; not only were they getting laid off every couple of months but their recruiters told 'em it would be a breeze and that they probably wouldn't even see any action

it all turned out to be a lie, of course. I can count on a single finger the number of them that came back from deployment okay. But I don't blame 'em for getting talked into it. I nearly enlisted myself.

I don't blame them, but I also think it's pretty evident that there are other choices available other than joining the military— it's that systems in place, as they are, make it seem like there aren't.

their recruiters told 'em it would be a breeze and that they probably wouldn't even see any action

when there's no war, the recruiters use that line. when there's a war the line changes to how evil the enemy is and how necessary to be part of the great war against evil.

Interesting. I guess I have only ever lived in blue states.

I guess I find this intensely rigid "one strike you're out" policy a bit weird as applied to female politicians who pass through a prosecutorial role work, at a time when women's basic human rights are under such direct and concrete attack.

It is like people may not understand that disparate impact matters as well as disparate intent? Just feels a little overly controlling over women. Like, I feel people should be allowed to change and do better.

Oh and definitely military service is a whole other thing.

Oh and I still am interested in milo's answer to what to do after term limits time out.

I am totally used to being in literally impossible positions, being told repeatedly what I shouldn't do, as many women are, like literally given no options, but somehow at the same time work magically needs to get done. Maybe everyone can relate to this, not just women.

Faulting someone for using a job as a stepping stone when they literally have to vacate the position because of term limits feels a little weird.

Oh and I still am interested in milo's answer to what to do after term limits time out.

I don't know what the answer is supposed to be, because I do not see any situation where there's a loss to humanity because the California AG was term limited and didn't then move on to Governor or Senator. Go back to private practice, spend a life doing penance, whatever. If the CA AG office has at that point become such a positive force in society, go back to work there at a lower level - no term limits for civil service jobs.

I don't think we'll agree on this, felicity, but *I* just feel that representation has a problem wherein the signifier can easily be cleaved from the signified— so that female prosecutor who is Black can certainly represent the interests of Black women, but I've so rarely seen this in practice, and have often seen *the opposite* occur. In a sense, this is related to certain anarchist critiques of identity politics— that of course certain groups are more oppressed in a patriarchal, white supremacist society, and those oppressive forces must be counteracted and those who suffer should be lifted up, but that does not mean that members of oppressed groups can't act badly, *or against the interests of their oppressed brothers and sisters*.

When I was on my table ranting moments a few days ago and was talking about epistemic virtue, this was what I was referencing— I don't think that people can be granted virtue or be seen as having special knowledge *because* of their oppressed status, partly because this just seems like common sense to me, but also because it is wildly tokenizing and infantilizing.

(I should also note that I talk about this stuff a LOT with my husband, who is not white, and am constantly learning and rethinking my own attitudes and biases, conscious or unconscious).

A lot of the political positions espoused in this thread are very thoroughly covered by the old phrase "Easy for you to say."

I want to get personal for a moment.

I was born and raised in Queens. I’ve organized here my entire life.

But one of my opponents (who ran for Congress in another state) is acting like I’m not from here.

She has *twice* sarcastically said to my face, “Welcome to Astoria.”

— Kristen Gonzalez (@Gonzalez4NY) July 8, 2022

Things popping off in NY-59. (Opponent she's talking about is Nomiki Konst)

Yeah a lot of women im America are gonna die from illegal back alley abortions in the near future.

xp

I don't think that people can be granted virtue or be seen as having special knowledge *because* of their oppressed status

I can agree that you might not see this. Since it doesn't matter to you, then why put so much energy into opposing the idea, if you happen not to be in those oppressed categories?

I guess it comes back to the idea of redefining "merit."

xxpost and this chode

Donate to the real progressive candidate who is actually from New York and actually lives in Astoria!!

Vote, volunteer and donate to @NomikiKonst!

Join me in supporting Nomiki Konst via @actblue https://t.co/ChuTFZzmRG

— Josh Fox (@joshfoxfilm) July 6, 2022

Oh thank GOD

Reducing the deficit is one of the main ways we can ease inflationary pressures.

And Joe Biden is on track for the largest deficit cut in history this year: over $1.7 TRILLION. pic.twitter.com/Cbq7qWVNAD

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) July 5, 2022

Way to take credit for not getting your spending packages passed

By rejecting his budget Congress didn't give Biden a choice, so he may as well claim it as a victory. It's how the game is played.

The end of the child tax credit increased child poverty by like a third in one month… but hey, trimmed the deficit.

This might just be a dumb post, but I'm not sure I'm following the thread of the Harris convo. Has Harris's past work as a prosecutor hindered her in some way? As a woman of color she has of course had to overcome structural, systemic barriers to her political ambitions (and throughout her life), but have the possibly overly stringent attitudes of leftists regarding prosecutors impacted her as well? I keep stumbling on how the more abstract or personal points being made here are still brought back to the specific example of the current Vice President of the United States—which is an odd role to be sure but indisputably an immensely powerful one—and I feel like I'm missing something, possibly something obvious?

If the point is simply that those stringent attitudes are inequitably applied to marginalized people who manage to achieve political power, that makes sense and is def something to be alert to—is the concern that holding these rigid attitudes will mean fewer women/WOC in politics?

Seems like when any single political issue becomes very important to someone (whether it is representation, the carceral state, or class warfare), the rest of their political opinions become more fungible/incoherent.

That's ok though - I think consistency is overrated, and hypocrisy is universal.

Speaking of incoherent... Ignore me.

rob you are otm

I don't post much here anymore but I have this belief that online discourse is part of the real world, with which I get the sense that people might not agree maybe. As if the topics here are all theoretical and it doesnt matter if women are listened to, because it is not the real world.

I think the point about Harris here was the thread feeling a tad mansplainy just after the earth-shattering Dobbs decision came out.

American women are in an existential death battle for basic rights at the moment. It just felt like a weird time to be getting Ted talks on the prison issue and sentencing guidelines, and weird rules for what women choose to do professionally. So I felt like clapping back a bit, sue me.

Everyone will say, I am not being that guy, but at times the thread has felt a little rude and dismissive to women and I was curious how far some of these positions would go. It is kind of funny - at times I have felt like saying, hey guys. good luck finding the real oppressors(!)

Anyway, if it's not specifically about Harris it is something else specific where it is good for people to engage with facts on the ground. It felt like a good point of entry. Sorry, I do think anyone with the free time to post to ILX so much is probably quite privileged, but it is good when people are able to listen and have some back and forth.

I have this belief that online discourse is part of the real world, with which I get the sense that people might not agree maybe. As if the topics here are all theoretical and it doesnt matter if women are listened to, because it is not the real world.

I think the point about Harris here was the thread feeling a tad mansplainy just after the earth-shattering Dobbs decision came out.

American women are in an existential death battle for basic rights at the moment. It just felt like a weird time to be getting Ted talks on the prison issue and sentencing guidelines, and weird rules for what women choose to do professionally. So I felt like clapping back a bit, sue me.

Everyone will say, I am not being that guy, but at times the thread has felt a little rude and dismissive to women and I was curious how far some of these positions would go. It is kind of funny - at times I have felt like saying, hey guys. good luck finding the real oppressors(!)

Anyway, if it's not specifically about Harris it is something else specific where it is good for people to engage with facts on the ground. It felt like a good point of entry. Sorry, I do think anyone with the free time to post to ILX so much is probably quite privileged,

Agree with all of the above.

Thank you felicity, I appreciate your responding! I am undeniably a privileged person and additionally a US citizen who emigrated to Canada 8 years ago, so I also appreciate the reminder that these discussions are never truly abstract. And good point about the significance of timing too.

I'd also add that the thread prompted me to read more about Harris's prosecutorial career, which I hadn't done before and was more interesting/complicated than I'd realized, so point very much taken about facts on the ground.

_ I don't think that people can be granted virtue or be seen as having special knowledge *because* of their oppressed status _

I can agree that you might not see this. Since it doesn't matter to you, then why put so much energy into opposing the idea, if you happen not to be in those oppressed categories?

I guess it comes back to the idea of redefining "merit."

I’ll also say, if it makes a difference, that I’m definitely a privileged person in many ways, but am currently underemployed while waiting for the school year to start, so that might explain some of my posting tendencies

Way to take credit for not getting your spending packages passed

― F'kin Magnetometers, how do they work? (President Keyes), Friday, July 8, 2022 1:47 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

lol how many Republicans took credit for the ones that did (which they voted against)