Guzman and the death of responsibility, 2016 variation

Lucía Guzmán represents me in the Colorado State Senate. She is likewise, on paper at least, among the leaders of the Democratic celebration in Colorado, serving as Minority Leader. As an honestly out lesbian Latino chosen authorities, she is, definitionally, part of a extremely small minority, one which has few noticeable leaders.

She is likewise a lady who survived tough starts in South Texas, a Reverend, and is usually considered characterful. In some political circles in Denver, she is referred to as St. Lucia. I supported and worked for her election to the State Senate, when she beat in a main Representative Joel Judd, which a few considered an upset, however cleverer folks recognized as the most likely result.

Guzman is also an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, and has actually looked for to make that support reliable and visible, most recently in a Facebook post, however also on Twitter.

When she did so I asked her three basic questions, based upon Hillary's record. They were not particularly pointed, they simply represented occasions where Hillary Clinton's public record remained in sharp contrast to the most likely held positions of Guzman (this workout got me unfriended on Facebook, so that seems the political and social rate paid these days for asking tough concerns). The questions:

Guzman: I promote Hillary

Do you then support her vote in favor of the war on Iraq?

Do you then promote her on Libya, where the she was the architect of a policy that left us with another failed Arab state?

Do you promote her taking millions from the exact same people who damaged our economy, and continue to gamble recklessly, backstopped by the taxpayers? ( formerly referenced Clinton's million dollar Wall Street paydays *).

These are questions with which you need to respond to honestly for your constituents and advocates. It isn't really a video game. Trillions have actually been lost, and tens of countless your fellow Americans have shed blood based upon these judgements. If you promote Hillary, do you stand with her, too?

I didn't get an answer. Well, I arrange of gotten one: "I Support Hillary.".

Unanswered, obviously, are the policy matters. We have no idea whether Clinton's outrageous dump trucks filled with Wall Street money bother her. We don't understand if there is a more nuanced view on Libya. Same on Iraq.

And these aren't simply unclear, rhetorical exercises. Among the polite fictions of our present, busted democracy is that we plebeians are worthy of to understand where our elected stand on problems, when there seems to be such sharp harshness, why. The very same precise matters are being played out in on the main page numerous jurisdictions, where Democratic Party superdelegates are supporting Hillary are, in the main, not resolving the dissonance that support develops with their positions.

However those failures imply that there is no responsibility for these political leaders and party leaders. And without accountability, the standard social agreement of democracy fails. Not that it already hasn't. But it is great to be reminded once again.

In Guzman's defense, she has situationally valid reasons for promoting Hillary. As a legal leader, she might believe that Sanders as a nominee would cause her democratic coworkers to lose seats. It is a colorable point, as Dems throughout the nation have lost thousands of seats throughout the Obama years, and have in Colorado too.

There are also the now tired and threadbare canards of identity politics, which augur that the mere election of a lady to the White House would have a lot of favorable impacts that her actual actions in office do not matter. That's one of those points that it is challenging to say empirically, however we do understand that the simple election of a black male to the presidency coincides with historically low levels of black males in the labor forces, the shrinkage of black-held wealth as a fraction on the nation's wealth, and development in the imprisonment of blacks proportionally and the evident extremely noticeable number of black deaths at the hands of law enforcement. On its face, identity politics appears to be a non-starter. That doesn't interrupt the romantic view of it; but democracy should be held on logical grounds, no?

But furthermore, while situationally legitimate, they are ethically void. Clinton's actions are fairly suspicious at finest-- taking millions from the Wall Street she has actually promised in rein is no less than venally corrupt.

On this, Lucia Guzman is no different from thousands of politically powerful Hillary acolytes. But in refusing to deal with legitimate questions, the Reverend Guzman is presiding at the funeral of accountability in our little corner of the world.

* Since she stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013, Hillary Clinton has been earning equivalent costs from the very same sources. Of the almost $10 million she made in lecture charges in 2013 alone, almost $1.6 million from major Wall Street banks, including $675,000 from Goldman Sachs (the payments referred to by Bernie Sanders in the January 17 2016 debate), and $225,000 each from UBS, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Comments on “Guzman and the death of responsibility, 2016 variation”

Leave a Reply