Abrams has a great explanation of what is currently happening with the all-out Republican Party sabotage of the US Postal Service. She uses that as an example of how far the they are willing to go. "This [the Republican side] is not a community that believes in shared power. And if you don't believe in shared power, then your only answer is to aggregate it and hold it to yourself."
She also encourages Democrats to think in less sporadic and more strategic ways about the positioning of the political parties. After 11:30: "We think of elections as moments. The other side see elections as opportunities. And they use it as the infrastructure for the power they want to keep." (After 11:30 i the video)
That's true of the Democratic Party to a large degree ever since Reagan got elected President in 1980. The Republicans have been pursuing a broad-based strategy.
That comes in the midst of talking about how important the Census is, and she says repeatedly, "I need everybody to fill out the census."
All of this is fine. She makes some good points and couches them in media-friendly soundbites.
But the census portion isn't so clear and obvious in what she's trying to message.
Abrams here surprisingly doesn't really seem to have a good sense of the main audience she's addressing, even though she gave a well-received speech at the 2017 convention in Atlanta. (In fact, her supporters mainly drowned out the speech of her opponent in the gubernatorial primary, Stacey Evans (Greg Bluestein, Stacey Evans gets shouted down at Netroots conference Atlanta Journal-Constitution 08/12/2017 ) Abrams is mainly talking to highly-engaged activists and politically-engaged journalists consider themselves Democrats and who are chronically frustrated that the party isn't taking enough of the longer-term strategic perspective she's saying is needed.
This is not a group you have to convince of the importance of the Census, much less tell them they need to fill their personal Census forms out. It just seemed like an odd framing.
Also, having attended several of these, this video brings out one of my pet peeves about Netroots Nation. When they have big-name figures appearing in these keynotes, they often structure it as an interview. And, as in this case, they give it to an interviewer who basically fawns on the speaker. So, for instance, she doesn't press Abrams to take a position issues that are certainly on the minds of attendees, like: Do you think the Democrats have a clear message on cops murdering black people for no good reason? Or, does it make sense for the Democratic Party to give the highly popular AOC one minute to speak at the convention while giving a rightwing, staunchly anti-abortion-rights, fiscally reactionary *Republican* like John Kasich a featured speaker's spot?
Honestly, Jessica Byrd's over-the-top flattery of her at the end is reminiscent of one of those Trump cabinet meetings were each person praises the greatness of Dear Leader. I don't think this a good look for the Democrats, especially not for progressive Dems. Having seen her supporters basically shout down her primary opponent in 2017 - it wasn't just a brief protest, they wanted to block her from being heard - I have to wonder if Abrams herself may be encouraging an excess of personal adoration among her closest supporters.
I understand the need to encourage people to get involved in political action. But Abrams seemed at times to think she was talking to a interested but apolitical audience. After the memorable observation, "We think of elections as moments. The other side see elections as opportunities. And they use it as the infrastructure for the power they want to keep," she went on to say:
We see it as interruptions in our complaints about our power, or lack thereof. And when I say 'we', I mean a collective 'we' - there are those who are constantly engaged, but by and large, we don't see the huge infrastructure - we're so used to living inside, we forget what it takes to build it. And the other side, they know what they're building.It seems like an odd message to a group like Netroots Nation that is all about building activist, grassroots alternatives to Republicans (and conservative Democratic) ones.
But she also relies on a tired centrist cliché: "I've been frustrated in this moment at this bifurcation that we hear. And I get angry with those who say, 'just vote', to those who protest. And those who say, 'voting doesn't doesn't matter'. You're both wrong."
I've yet to see any protest signs saying, "Black Lives Matter So DON'T VOTE!" This is just a lazy way to invoke a content-free kind of positioning between two extremes, one of which is 99% imaginary. Sure, there will always be third party voters or bad faith manuevers like the Kanye West stunt. And Democrats who lose elections can always point to that as an excuse.
But I wish Democratic leaders would knock it off with this kind of condescending, both-sides-do-it posturing. The wealthy and the powerful will always promote a depoliticizing apathy and cynicism toward politics among a majority, while they themselves remain intensely aware of and involved in politics. Ransom online anarchists are not the ones with the media access that allows them to promote mass cynicism and apathy.
No comments:
Post a Comment