Veggie Veggie, WTF Arizona, and bye bye DSA
I've cooked veggie dinners two nights in a row now :-) I'm following through on my intention to become more vegetarianish. It's slow changing food habits, though, especially while working from home. Too many of my convenience foods have meat in them. Working on it.
-----
The Arizona Democratic Party has formally censured one of the two Democratic US Senators from Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, because she wouldn't agree to change Senate rules regarding the filibuster.
Usually a parliamentary organization reserves a formal "censure" for ethical wrongdoing that doesn't rise to the level of expulsion. For example, if somebody lied on their financial disclosure forms, or somebody secretly dated their employee, or something like that. An ethical violation. But the Arizona Democratic Party is upset because of a policy disagreement, over the extent of the filibuster rules.
I hate the filibuster, I think it is antidemocratic and makes it difficult to hold our federal government accountable, because Senators can do what Senator Sinema did -- they can say they support a bill, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, but then the bill is blocked unless a supermajority of 60 Senators vote for it. I'd get rid of the filibuster entirely, and I don't care which party is in control, get rid of the filibuster!
But to formally censure the Senator because of a policy disagreement? That's wrong. Say you disagree with her, support a primary challenger, don't give her money, whatever, but it isn't immoral or unethical to support the filibuster. It isn't an abuse of office to support the filibuster.
In her defense, Senator Sinema has argued that if we get rid of the filibuster and pass a bunch of Democratic stuff this year, then 3 years down the road a Republican Congress and Republican White House could undo all that Democratic stuff and pass a bunch of Republican stuff instead. She'd rather support bipartisan solutions and protect against a lurch toward the Right. That's an argument I've heard plenty of times over the years, even from liberal friends of mine. I'm glad that more and more people are interested in getting rid of the filibuster, maybe that means we'll finally get rid of it before I die, that would be a wonderful day, I'd celebrate.
But it's wrong to censure her over a policy disagreement. To me, this is a sign of how the Left in the US is becoming increasingly authoritarian -- not even willing to allow policy disagreements among its members.
-----
Yet, I'm struggling with a related matter. I'm so offended by the "Defund the Police" slogan that I have a difficult time remaining a member of any group that supports this slogan. In particular, the Democratic Socialists of America has a strong "Defund the Police" attitude among its members. I haven't quit them yet, but the credit card funding my monthly contribution to DSA expires this month.
I'm not inclined to renew. I'm also not inclined to volunteer with them as I pick an organization to spend some of my increased free time with. That's how deeply offended I am by the "Defund the Police" slogan. I'm quitting an organization that I otherwise have a lot in common with.
Does this make me an authoritarian? I think it makes me somebody who is looking for an organization that doesn't violate my #1 pet peeve of Left politics. I want to be somebody on the Left who speaks in favor of police and the rule of law.
I feel similarly about people who want to abolice ICE. The problem is not our law enforcement personnel, the problem is the laws we have them enforce, or our failure to oversee how they enforce the laws. I think it is horrible that police in the US kill 3 people per day on average. But I also know that we're not going to fix global warming without passing laws that ban the use of fossil fuels, and we'll need a police force to enforce these bans. We're not going to reduce wealth inequality without raising taxes, and we'll need a police force to enforce these higher taxes. We'll probably need to increase funding for the police.
Then there's the horrible increase in violent crime over the past couple years., and how we have so much more violent crime than our economic peers around the world. I think we need to put more resources into reducing crime, and "Defund the Police" sounds like the opposite. It's a stupid slogan.
There are policy disagreements, and there are issues that mean so much to a person that we're willing to resign over them. I feel I'm willing to work with a lot of Left organizations or Left parties so long as they accept the need for a police force.
So, at the moment I'm planning to let my DSA membership lapse with the credit card. That's how strongly I feel about this issue. I remember a few years ago, I read about how at the DSA annual convention, they expelled somebody from the leadership of the organization after they found out he'd been a police officer in the past. That's not right. I also remember reading last year about how NYC Pride banned all uniformed law enforcement from marching in the Pride Parade, even LGBT law enforcement. That's not right. Too many people on the Left are scapegoating the police. I don't feel this is something I can treat as a policy disagreement. It's a huge and counterproductive mistake that plays into the hands of the Right.
-----
So, filibuster? Policy disgreement. Defund the Police? I'll resign over it. But there are other organizations I can volunteer with. It's not like I'm becoming a Republican. I'm part of the pro-police Left.
And, without Senator Sinema, Democrats would lose control of the Senate. Democrats shouldn't be pushing people out of their party when they have no seats to spare. Instead they should be asking their more moderate members -- what can we pass the Senate while we still have control of it? We're only one plane crash or heart attack away from Republicans controlling the Senate and bottling up every Goddess Damned Thing that Biden and Democrats might want. Democrats should be nicer to their moderates instead of censuring them.
-----
The Arizona Democratic Party has formally censured one of the two Democratic US Senators from Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, because she wouldn't agree to change Senate rules regarding the filibuster.
Usually a parliamentary organization reserves a formal "censure" for ethical wrongdoing that doesn't rise to the level of expulsion. For example, if somebody lied on their financial disclosure forms, or somebody secretly dated their employee, or something like that. An ethical violation. But the Arizona Democratic Party is upset because of a policy disagreement, over the extent of the filibuster rules.
I hate the filibuster, I think it is antidemocratic and makes it difficult to hold our federal government accountable, because Senators can do what Senator Sinema did -- they can say they support a bill, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, but then the bill is blocked unless a supermajority of 60 Senators vote for it. I'd get rid of the filibuster entirely, and I don't care which party is in control, get rid of the filibuster!
But to formally censure the Senator because of a policy disagreement? That's wrong. Say you disagree with her, support a primary challenger, don't give her money, whatever, but it isn't immoral or unethical to support the filibuster. It isn't an abuse of office to support the filibuster.
In her defense, Senator Sinema has argued that if we get rid of the filibuster and pass a bunch of Democratic stuff this year, then 3 years down the road a Republican Congress and Republican White House could undo all that Democratic stuff and pass a bunch of Republican stuff instead. She'd rather support bipartisan solutions and protect against a lurch toward the Right. That's an argument I've heard plenty of times over the years, even from liberal friends of mine. I'm glad that more and more people are interested in getting rid of the filibuster, maybe that means we'll finally get rid of it before I die, that would be a wonderful day, I'd celebrate.
But it's wrong to censure her over a policy disagreement. To me, this is a sign of how the Left in the US is becoming increasingly authoritarian -- not even willing to allow policy disagreements among its members.
-----
Yet, I'm struggling with a related matter. I'm so offended by the "Defund the Police" slogan that I have a difficult time remaining a member of any group that supports this slogan. In particular, the Democratic Socialists of America has a strong "Defund the Police" attitude among its members. I haven't quit them yet, but the credit card funding my monthly contribution to DSA expires this month.
I'm not inclined to renew. I'm also not inclined to volunteer with them as I pick an organization to spend some of my increased free time with. That's how deeply offended I am by the "Defund the Police" slogan. I'm quitting an organization that I otherwise have a lot in common with.
Does this make me an authoritarian? I think it makes me somebody who is looking for an organization that doesn't violate my #1 pet peeve of Left politics. I want to be somebody on the Left who speaks in favor of police and the rule of law.
I feel similarly about people who want to abolice ICE. The problem is not our law enforcement personnel, the problem is the laws we have them enforce, or our failure to oversee how they enforce the laws. I think it is horrible that police in the US kill 3 people per day on average. But I also know that we're not going to fix global warming without passing laws that ban the use of fossil fuels, and we'll need a police force to enforce these bans. We're not going to reduce wealth inequality without raising taxes, and we'll need a police force to enforce these higher taxes. We'll probably need to increase funding for the police.
Then there's the horrible increase in violent crime over the past couple years., and how we have so much more violent crime than our economic peers around the world. I think we need to put more resources into reducing crime, and "Defund the Police" sounds like the opposite. It's a stupid slogan.
There are policy disagreements, and there are issues that mean so much to a person that we're willing to resign over them. I feel I'm willing to work with a lot of Left organizations or Left parties so long as they accept the need for a police force.
So, at the moment I'm planning to let my DSA membership lapse with the credit card. That's how strongly I feel about this issue. I remember a few years ago, I read about how at the DSA annual convention, they expelled somebody from the leadership of the organization after they found out he'd been a police officer in the past. That's not right. I also remember reading last year about how NYC Pride banned all uniformed law enforcement from marching in the Pride Parade, even LGBT law enforcement. That's not right. Too many people on the Left are scapegoating the police. I don't feel this is something I can treat as a policy disagreement. It's a huge and counterproductive mistake that plays into the hands of the Right.
-----
So, filibuster? Policy disgreement. Defund the Police? I'll resign over it. But there are other organizations I can volunteer with. It's not like I'm becoming a Republican. I'm part of the pro-police Left.
And, without Senator Sinema, Democrats would lose control of the Senate. Democrats shouldn't be pushing people out of their party when they have no seats to spare. Instead they should be asking their more moderate members -- what can we pass the Senate while we still have control of it? We're only one plane crash or heart attack away from Republicans controlling the Senate and bottling up every Goddess Damned Thing that Biden and Democrats might want. Democrats should be nicer to their moderates instead of censuring them.