From the diaries--Chris

The following statement has been cross-posted at the blogs of the undersigned. If you would like to add your name to the list, please leave a comment at culturekitchen. (Liza Sabater)

####

To members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate:

We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women's basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.

We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.

We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many, not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.

This is a followup to requests for comments I posted at c u l t u r e k i t c h e n and Daily Kos; regarding a conference call with NARAL that I was part of and that I noted at, c u l t u r e k i t c h e n: Liveblogging NARAL

I still believe it was luck that had me participate in this conference call, and I really take it as an honor that I could have a very interesting discussion with :

Vicky Saporta, President of the National Abortion Federation
www.prochoice.org

Alice Cohan, Political Director of the Feminist Majority Foundation
www.feminist.org

Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL
www.naral.org

and about 10 other progressive women bloggers of the Blog Sheroes Network, including :

Alas, A Blog
BitchPhD
Feministing
Rox Populi
The Goddess

The request for a phone call took me by surprise. I have been grumbling around the internets about how the feminist movement is disconnected with the feminist bloggers and netroots who are basically campaigning on its own without much support from them (but for an ad or two); and much in the same way the Democratic party was treating national bloggers before the elections; and state and local bloggers as we speak.

With that in mind, I want to say that Nancy Keenan, Rachel Perrone and the people responsible for putting this call together have taken a bold step forward in dealing with this new world of media and activism called the liberal blogosphere.

Since I don't wear hats, my bra's off to them.

I really encourage them to continue to continue reaching out to the feminist netroots. There are over 400 feminist bloggers in The Goddess' What She Said blogroll ALONE. Not only that, she includes conservative bloggers as well. I have well close to 200 women in the BlogSheroes community site. And there are other lists like the Feminist Blogs, Des Femmes and others.

Still, what I would like to see them do is to engage also the pro-choice men of the blogosphere. All of their harshest critics are pro-choice; but they need a little ... what would I call it? ... political BlogHer'ing, if you know what I mean. They really need to engage in an honest, straighforward and thorough discussion with the women's issues chicks.

But I am getting ahead of myself...

I first posted this over at my blog, culturekitchen, but have been so happy with the numbers that I'm pulling a Sinatra and am spreading the news from New York, New York. So be a part of it, after the jump:

This was first posted at c u l t u r e k i t c h e n: Secular Blue America

I got to Steve Gilliard's News Blog : They voted for this mess via another awesome post, written by Chris Bowers, at MyDD :: Yes, These Are Conservatives.

Gilliard's is one long-winded rant that starts out hitting liberals good but ends up really tearing appart the post-election appeasement façade of the extremists ruling the Republican party. I wish he had spent more time flogging the "Liberals". Here's why :

So here's the thing.  We're wrong.  We have to stop.  We have to do something different.

Let's examine this Laura.  What she got from us:

"Domestic violence workshops."

What she got from the church: food, a job, and people that said they loved her.  The church gave her something to do, a narrative to organize her life around.  Someone to tell her what to do.

Are we prepared to do that?  To make her a bowl of soup, and sit there and hold her hand while she eats it, and pretend to love her, and force our narrative on her--to own her?  To tell her what to think?

I think probably not.  Because we're liberals.  We believe in teaching her skills, in getting her a job, giving her a loan, maybe lecturing her.  But she doesn't want to learn skills, she's weak and tired and afraid.  She doesn't want to think.

And most people would rather be preached at by a preacher than a social worker.

We have this idealized image of our fellow humans: that human nature is perfectible, that people go for what's best for them, that given the opportunity, people want to be happy and free.  We're liberals.  We believe that, given equal access to information and resources, people will work toward happiness.  That they will act for the best for themselves, their family, their community, their country and eventually, the world.  

We're wrong.

What precedes this comment is a heart-wrenching description of the tribulations of a single, working poor, pregnant mother named "Laura". What he describes is the chasm between the life options offered by the church people who offered her real life support and encouraged her to vote Bush, and the bureucratic treatment of the liberal social-workers that marginally served her.

I have an older brother by my father who is a Pentecostal preacher. He and my sister-in-law have Masters and PhD degrees in Education, and found their calling in ministry. Their parish is in the middle of a working poor Latino neighborhood in, of all places, Rhode Island.

This is the sister in law that taught me at about 10 or 11 all about reproduction, female sexuality and "christian responsible" birth control. I was raised a "bad" catholic girl and, being so young, I wasn't even interested in boys in that way. My hormones did not really kick until I was about 16 years old --and all hell broke lose then :) But if it had not been for her, I would have never been properly trained in the issues of reproductive rights.

I sincerely do not know if she still does this, but at the time (they were not preachers yet), she saw it as the responsible christian thing to do. Better I know the consequences of sex and getting pregnant and the truth about not just abortion but pregnancy, labor and birth. I was not around during her son's birth, but I sure was during her pregnancy. I went to the hospital to see my nephew and I remember staying overnight a few times in a one bedroom apartment with them and the screaming beast (who is by now in his late 20's, by the way).

My brother and sis-in-law are some of the most giving people you'll ever meet. And they take personally the poverty that's around them. They're always talking about lifting up the community. They are the kind of people that will give you a plate of hot food, will open their houses to anyone in times of need and will find a way for those who have no hope. And they are rabid, anti-liberal, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, christian fundamentalists. But such is their compassion that at least they pray for my abortionist and atheist soul.

I honestly do not know if they voted for BushCo, but let's say it would not shock me.

Still, can you see why people in despair, who end up at a Pentecostal or Baptist church, who are too tired of being kicked around by "the system", too mired in their sorrow, would choose to vote for BushCo? It's not because they are stupid, or dumb or irresponsible. It's because by voting for BushCo, they are voting to support people like my brother and sister-in-law and the communities that have offered them a place to belong.

c u l t u r e k i t c h e n: Post-Election Notes From The Blogosphere : Chris Bowers of MyDD

---------------------

MyDD :: Please, No More Gimmick Strategies

Our success in the battleground was a good start, but we have a long way to go. The country is composed of much more than 22 states, and nationally we are still witnessing the electorate slide toward reactionary and theocratic ideologies. Considering this, if, two years from now, when the next round of Presidential candidates slowly comes into focus, we are still spewing crap like "well, she's a moderate Governor from a slightly red state, so I think she has a better chance than the mildly liberal Senator from the lean blue state" I may start believing that we are in fact doomed. Those who see our problems as embodied entirely within the biographies and demographic profiles of our Presidential nominee not only fail to grasp the scope of our decline, but may in fact contribute to our decline. We are in the grips of a major crisis here, and simply nominating someone who is "strong on defense" or "who can compete in the South" will do nothing to alleviate the severity of this crisis. If we want to win, we need to structurally alter the electorate and its ideological framework, not try and fool it with a gimmicky candidate biography and selective issue positions. The only way to become more electable is to shift the electorate in our direction. Please, no more gimmick strategies. [Emphasis mine]

What I find interesting about this statement is that, albeit the fact that his intention leads his idea into the right direction, his target is incorrect.

Have you ever tried to change your loved one? Chris' statement echoes that classic line of the forlorned :  "If I only could just make her see that I am the one for her. All I have to do is change how she thiks about me, then she will love." This kind of speaking is as bad as the one that says : "All I have to do is say the things she wants to hear so she'll love me."

Substitute she for America and you'll get where I am coming from. This is the language of co-dependency. What if change is not about suppression but about shift?

Change in the language of Bowers' is about banishment, suppression, erasure of what makes the electorate not love Democrats. What if nothing needs to be changed in America? What if what Democrats need is a shift in speaking, organizing and acting?

I just read briefly what Clinton said about how Kerry lost. Well, this is the second time I have to say that Clinton is a moron. The first time was with the Lewinsky affair. Seriously, I can't believe Bill Clinton believes gay-rights cost Kerry the election.

No, what cost Kerry the election was Bill Clinton himself. The Democrats are still functioning as if November 2, 2000 and September 11, 2001 never happened. No system of voting accountibility was set in place. Not only that : The troops were reasy to fact-check, audit and follow the software and ballot trail on this election. Dean and Clark gave the motherfuckers a networked army of writers, journalists, lawyers and paralegals waiting to pounce on the facts and make the government count each and every ballot. What did the Democrats do? The walked away from the opportunity to direct the largest networked voting audit in the history of this country.  

The shift the Democrats need is right here, right now, in the form of the progressive grassroots network we are. If they don't shift to this barely tapped power then, really, the Democratic Party deserves to die. It's as simple as that.