This week, a great thought provoking diary was offered to us by
Shannika on the issue she described as "African-American voter disenfranchisement in the 2004 election." It was a wonderful diary full of real insight and asking hard questions. It was also unfair to markos, Kid Oakland and many others. It also gave a free pass to many who felt vindicated by the diary. I want to explore these three issues in turn. I'll start with Shannika's hard questions and pursue the other 2 below the fold.
The Hard Questions. Shannika writes that "the ultimate impact on African-American voting rights, in the end [] is what the fight in Ohio is really about, for those of you who don't get it." I agree that this is what the fight SHOULD be about. And those of us who stayed on the sidelines did not fight to make that what the Ohio battle was about. Simply stated, we didn't do enough to highlight this serious grievance. I don't think there is any other conclusion. Why did we not? Some of us simply decided it wasn't worth the trouble. And that was wrong. And it is wrong when we do this on any number of issues. Shannika highlights a few. I'm gonna highlight a few others in a subsequent front page post.
Unfairness. Shannika's points on markos and Kid Oakland were unfair. To the degree that I am included in the critique, they are fairer, I didn't work as hard as they did on highlighting the issue of suppression of African-American voting PRIOR to the Election. Shannika wrote " The silence . . . [was] particularly deafening, including most notably from the "official posters" of this site such as Kos (and including Kid Oakland, who, living in the city he does, should damned well know better)" That simply is not correct. For example, on November 7, Kid Oakland wrote these words and markos promoted them to the front page-
Further, very real voter suppression, voter intimidation, technological glitches, human errors, poor planning, and outright small scale skulduggery, and in the case of the Florida felon list. Large scale skulduggery, did indeed happen in this last election. These things have happened in every United States election ever. Our answer to this is not only to count every vote and investigate but to resolutely push for election reform and cast a bright light on all of the evidence that supports our case for change.
This is not simply necessary, it is already, after the close election results in 2000 and 2004....essential to convince our voters who are more poor, less educated and have less confidence in the legal system that their vote does indeed count. We need every last one of these votes. And our voters need to know that their vote will be counted.
I think the unfairness of Shannika's words is made manifest by this quote. And the unfairness is related to my third point - the free pass granted those who, in my opinion, badly mishandled the Ohio controversy.
Fraud in Ohio. A number of names do not get mentioned in Shannika's diary. I'll take 2 -Bev Harris and Wayne Madsen. To not mention the cult that developed here for these two folks is simply to ignore aa central part of the story here at dkos. Harris and Madsen developed next to nothing on voter suppression issues. Their concern for disenfranchised African-American voters was difficult to discern. Their voices dominated Ohio discussion for weeks after the Election. Not Greg Palast, who rightly focused on punch cards, spoliation rates and voter intimidation in predominantly African-American precincts. No, the story was about Diebold and $29 million checks. To not discuss this facet of the issue is to, coin a phrase, "not get it."
The full story has many to blame, some of us who write on the front page of dkos. Certainly the Democratic Party. And many of those who felt vindicated by Shannika's diary. Honesty requires that everyone take a hard look at their actions and properly deal with their mistakes. Everyone wanted the best. But not everyone acted in the best manner. Including me and my fellow front page posters. And including those who press the Ohio issue today.
In a diary this morning, the universally respected Georgia10 wrote:
After KO's diary which gave birth to the 'Thread That Never Ends" (you think I'm kidding...people are still posting there!), I got to thinking about how polarizing Ohio has become.
OHIO IS SEXY
Poor Ohio. It never meant to be a wedge issue for Kossians, let alone liberals. But what is clear from KO's thread and the rebuttal diaries is that Ohio provokes strong but conflicting reactions in people.
I think that misses something. In particular, the implication is that some believe the issues raised by Ohio are to be taken seriously while others do not. I simply do not believe that is the fault line in the diverging views. Shannika argued that
there appear to be three primary reactions:
A vigorous attempt to insist that systematic disenfranchisement through whatever means is not the same thing electoral fraud, such that the Ohio disenfranchisement is less of a priority right now since it will be fixed "someday"; or
Silence in response to any poster who contends that, whether or not it changes the outcome, the ongoing fight to count all votes in Ohio is a fight to ensure the rights of African-American voters and thus deserves the party's public attention and commitment.
A cry of "tin foil hat" and arguments that nothing is "proven" so it must not be reality -- it's just bad planning, bad administration, in other words, just an unfortunate mistake.
With due respect, that distorts the reactions. I myself believe that the second is a distortion of the view of the front page posters. In particular, it ignores the reasons for the silence. The reason, speaking personally, was the highjacking of the issue by the Ohio cult of Bev Harris and Wayne Madsen. It was my view that wild and unsubstantiated charges damaged "the fight to ensure the rights of African-American voters." It is my view that the conversation was dominated by that cult. It is my view that engaging in that discussion would not help. That's my why for silence.
But my why was wrong. We should have written on Ohio from our perspective. We should have highlighted the issues we deemed important. And that is why, while Shannika's description of some of us is inaccurate, it remains, at heart, correct.
The Democratic Party
Shannika wrote
There is a saying in the Black community: If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. The reaction (or, most notably, lack thereof) of mainstream Democrats and the Democratic Party to what happened to African-American voters in Ohio, following what happened in Florida, makes crystal clear to this African-American voter what the Democratc Party is indeed willing to go for.
So, as I said before, y'all don't get it. I am becoming increasingly convinced that you will never get it because, in the end, it's all about you, and not about us. What is happening now with the Democratic "leadership" (including its strongest advocates and mobilizers in the blogosphere) is making crystal clear that you are quite happy to allow our rights to be sacrificed for some "larger good" that you are seeking (one which conveniently doesn't negatively impact YOUR rights or access to power).
There is a lot of truth in that. And it is a significant issue for the Democratic Party. And it goes beyond Ohio, as the Party looks for the magic formula for winning on a national level, particularly in the South. I have a lot of thoughts on that and Shannika's diary has informed them further. The Democratic Party is at a crossroads - I've used the metaphor of Lincoln and his 1860 speech at Cooper Union and will have a post on that as well later today. But this is already too long, so I will leave that discussion for the next post.