Racism in the US Senate

We all know of Blogojevich, and how he appointed Burris to Senator Obama's former seat. The Senate swore up and down that they would not accept him, but just as with Senator Lieberman, Reid caved and showed he had no backbone, accepting Burris as a Senator. They had only one condition- be open in testifying to your relationship with Blogojevich when testifying before the Illinois Senate. They caved in large part because Burris was a black man, and when Blogojevich announced his appointment, they had another black congressional leader from Illinois, standing there saying anyone who resisted Burris' appointment was a lynching racist.

Now we know that, unlike his testimony, Burris actually did have conversations with Governor Blogojevich, with his brother in particular, but there was no conversation about fund raising or the senate seat. I mean, he did express that he wanted to be senator, but only in mentioning it, and no one talked about fundraising. I mean, they did ask him to do so, but he refused. I mean, at the same time he mentioned he wanted to be senator, he tried to raise funds, but found out nobody would support Blogojevich. It wasn't that Burris was against quid pro quo- it was that he was really bad at it.

And now there are calls by many for Burris to resign, and indications that the Senate will not expel him if he does not resign. Why? Because he's black, and the only black member of the Senate.

The Senate allowed him in because they were worried about the appearance of racism, not to avoid racism. They have cared more about how things look politically than about actively fighting the pernicious evil of racism. They are likely to continue to allow him to be a senator for the same reasons.

This is the worst kind of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a good and laudable policy, but not when it keeps people in place regardless of their actions, because of their race. The message we are receiving is that African-Americans are to be held to a lower standard simply because of the colour of their skin. It has now become quite clear that Senator Burris lied under oath- what is called perjury. I recall recently a President was impeached over this issue. But Burris is likely to receive no justice, because the US Senate, run by Democrats who can't afford to lose the black vote, are not wanting to expel a black member. (On a side note, speaking purely politically, do we really think this is possible, with a black President?)

There are many, many black politicians in Illinois who would make great US Senators and who are ethically and legally clean. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a name initially considered inappropriate because he had been discussed on the Blogojevich tapes but who was never asked for money, comes to mind. But what our elected representatives, and therefore we as a nation, are now doing is saying that an African-American man can do whatever he wants, regardless of the law, because of his skin colour, or more to the point, because we want the votes for our party. This also is racism. This is saying that African-Americans don't have to follow morality or ethics. It is implying that there aren't enough African-Americans out there who do follow morality and ethics. And by extension, it is saying that in someway African-Americans are morally inferior to the rest of society.

Senator Reid, it is time to step up. It is time to say, forgetting all the possible political consequences, you will not tolerate racism, even in the chambers of the senate. Expel this man who has no tolerance for truth and law, and show your tolerance and equality for people of all races.

Why Obama Shouldn't be Vice-President

It's made some headlines recently that Billary have been floating the idea of Obama as VP. Many others have pointed out the problems with this idea, most notably the candidate himself, asking why, if Hillary doesn't think he's got the experience to be President, she would think he would make a good Vice-President. Others have said this is indeed a momentous point in history, when the second place candidate offers the number two position to the first place candidate. I want to point out one more reason why this is a bad idea.

Both candidates have repeatedly and rightfully stressed that this is a momentous election in American history. We will have either the first female or the first minority President. Indeed, this is cool. This is one part, not the most significant, but one part of the reason why many of us are voting for these candidates- we want to make history. We want to show that we have moved beyond the sexism and racism of the past, and enjoy the fruits of a different perspective in the leadership of this nation.

The candidates are right- this would be the first time, and therefore something to strive for. Not the only reason, but part of the reason. But not if Obama's the VP. Why? Because we already had a person of colour in the VP position.

What, you say? When? Well, I was surprised to discover this too. But it turns out, the Vice-President of our only truly Quaker President (I'm sorry, Nixon doesn't count) was half Native American! Vice-President Charles Curtis was technically 3/8ths Native American, of three separate tribes, and made a good deal of that in the 1930s. And though not an exceptional Vice-President, he was well known as an personable and outstanding politican and Senate Majority Leader, instrumental in getting women the right to vote and a strong advocate of the ERA.

So, it would be a special thing if Hillary was the first female President, or Obama was the first President of colour, or if Hillary was the first female Vice-President. But it wouldn't be anything new if Obama were the first Vice-President of Colour. Sure, it would be neat to see that we've moved beyond the sin of our past and can elect a Black Vice-President. But, as far as milestones go, considering Mr. Curtis, it just wouldn't carry the same panache. It wouldn't be a complete first.

If we want Obama for the milestone, elect him to President. Vice-Presidency means nothing, for so many reasons.

Obama, the First Female President

I've been considering this after conversation with a friend at his blog. There was a great deal made 15 years ago about how Bill Clinton was the First Black President. He just seemed to fit in so well with African-Americans, they were by and large happy to claim him as one of their own. Bill Clinton did a great deal for the African-American community, and he is still remembered by them fondly. Indeed, until Bill introduced race into the Presidential race in S. Carolina, it was widely considered a dangerous situation for Obama, for it was feared that he wouldn't be able for him to get a significant portion of the African-American vote.

Now, here's a thought. Part of the attraction of having a woman in the highest office in the land, for me and others, is that a woman bring something to the office that a man doesn't. This isn't to say that all women think one way, and all men another. But we can say salvo reverentia, without outraging reverence, that there are some general trends. This is perhaps principally so in the approach towards conflict, and resolving conflict. It would seem that men tend to like conflict more, to want the adrenaline of the big fight, and women tend to value the relationship more, trying to find a way to work together. And after so many years of having men ruling the roost and doing conflict their way, some of us think that maybe it would be helpful to have a woman's approach this next time around.

Then along comes Hillary, the exception that proofs the rule. For time and time again in this campaign, she has gone for the jugular against Obama. She has insisted on being contentious, using the politics of fear in the Red Phone Ad, and now repeatedly comparing herself positively to McCain, so as to show Obama negatively. Sadly, this is nothing new. Eight years in the Whitehouse showed us the experience of both Clintons to be one of the most contentious periods in American politics. Certainly this isn't all do to Hillary. The Republicans have the lion's share of the blame during that time, and Bill has a healthy does of it too. But Hillary's experience in the Senate seems to have continued this trend, where she seems either unwilling or unable to resolve the divide between her and the Republicans. To be fair to her, she may perhaps not know how. So let us be honest. Obviously there's no denying that she's biologically feminine, but what is there about her approach to politics that makes me feel that I am electing a female President by voting for her? Other then breaking the ultimate glass ceiling, I see little in her that makes me feel the value in having a woman as President.

And yet, Obama seems to be the one who actually can fulfill George II's old promises, never kept. Obama's record in Illinois and the US Senate have been very clear that he is a uniter, and not a divider. He is so eager to negotiate and work with others, that some like Hillary accuse him of being unable to lead and deal with foreign governments because he's not antagonistic enough. Obama has repeatedly passed on possible openings for attack on Clinton, and instead rebuked members of his team who degrade Clinton. For Obama, its always about the high road and relationship.

And then it dawned on me- why we like Obama. His approach to conflict is decidedly classically feminine. He cares about the relationships, and he wants to resolve conflicts through mutual dialogue.

First Black President's already taken. Vote for Obama: Our First Female President.