Excellent points as usual. I’ve always felt that a lack of racial/ethnic/gender diversity is only a problem if it is the result of discrimination or an unfair playing field. If a white guy happens to be the best candidate, so be it, so long as that’s not because nonwhite or female candidates aren’t getting a fair opportunity.
Also, aren’t there other types of diversity that we should value, besides racial and gender diversity? It’s sort of pathetic when all our legislative candidates are wealthy lawyers, or our SCOTUS justices all went to the same five elite schools (I don’t have much nice to say about Barret but at least she went to Norte Dame instead of Blue Blood Fancypants University, or as people now call it, Yale).
Jess Piper, who explains rural voters well, noted in a recent Substack column, that women are more likely to forgo running for elected office if they have any baggage. Something as common as a speeding ticket can discourage women from running. The patriarchy gives white men a pass that a woman would never be forgiven for. As long as we don't address the reasons why more women aren't running for office, we will continue to see a dearth of women in Congress.
I will say that at least women candidates tend to have fewer surprise (that is, during the campaign) sex pest issues than guys. But the remaining guys here seem clean. So far.
Folks know what they need to do at this point, no "holding the nose," just do the voting. It's that important.
The Trump years have made me far more tolerant of personal scandals. When a man has been up to such shit that I’m now just hoping his next rape accusation involves an ADULT victim, I’m not going to lose any sleep over some halfassed Katie Hill scandal.
Sinema left office before her scandal exploded (and she was also a campaign finance scammer). Katie Hill also left office bc of an affair with a staffer.
I'm just tired of guys doing this. But you're right, it isn't fair. I am just hoping vetting has worked (well it probably obviously has for Ossoff). But this primary season has been really friggin' brutal, between Swalwell and Platner alone.
Yes, I agree. But as I said, the sins of the worst of any group cannot reasonably be paid by every member of that same group. There is no indication any of these men have sexual misconduct in their past, and assuming some will be found just because they are men is proving Stephen’s point.
Leslie Jones said it best. White people claim that they don’t see color until a Black woman gets cast in what they believe to be a white role.
Our electorate should be a cross section of our country. Handicapped, Asian, women, Black, indigenous, Hispanic. We’ve got a way to go I’ll agree but changes made slowly make them seem like the natural flow of a river. Over time it can change the shape of mountains.
I totally agree with Stephen on this issue. Sadly, the media loves to pick out the most extreme Democrat who will step in front of a camera, and then they present that person as a spokesperson for a much larger group with a wide diversity of views and experience.
And as Seth has said, the media treats Republicans with extreme views as if they were totally innocent and blameless, while constantly treating a few Democrats with non-mainstream views as leading to the death of civilization and representative of all Democrats. Only Democrats have agency, and the media contortions to normalize the extremists on the right, while cherry picking a few outliers on the left as a way to provide "balance" are insulting and ridiculous...and exhausting.
I completely agree, and saying so has put me at odds with many of my fellow left leaners on this issue. "Elect more women!" is essentially a meaningless statement, as is a comment that any race that includes a straight white man (especially one in the lead) is evidence of the patriarchy at work. Nor do I believe members of a dominant group are obligated to apologize for or police the actions of their most extreme members. We are individuals! Not monoliths! Like Stephen, I believe diversity itself is an admirable goal, but I also *strongly* believe it is secondary to policy concerns and my voting record makes that clear. Clearly, diversity *in and of itself* will not fully address the issues of the day important to our side (hello, Clarence Thomas), but electing people whose worldviews and views on justice across the board might.
I certainly think it’s worth exploring if there are any structural issues holding certain groups back from being put forward as senate candidates, and to stay vigilant on that point. Jess Piper has an excellent article on why women don’t come forward as candidates: https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/vetting?r=1v21b6&utm_medium=ios
But it’s also worth pointing out that there are going to be varying mixes of diversities within any group put forward. It’s also worth mentioning that representation alone isn’t enough.
Look at the U.K. - we are allegedly more progressive than the U.S. as we elected our first female leader in 1979 - Margret Thatcher. However Thatcher was a disaster for women and the working class in general. We are still paying for her misrule now.
Still we do need to stay vigilant, especially following the debacle in Maine where a desperation to field a progressive white male led to - well yeah.
The fact that there already was an excellent candidate in Maine who was ignored in favour of the Platner circus suggests someone might need to examine their priors. Ironically that candidate was also a white male but clearly didn’t measure up to whatever standard of manliness or whiteness that those who were starstruck by Platner.
Okay fair dos I’m from the UK, my knowledge is limited. My understanding is Platner was recruited to run for Senate by Daniel Moraff and Morris Katz - two Democratic operatives. He won support from both Bernie Sanders and more mainstream democrats (the Pod save America people) and he had a message Mainers clearly wanted to hear. He got a stupidly huge amount of votes in the Democratic primary.
However, somehow candidate vetting got overlooked. Stories dribbled out but were excused - see the humungous primary vote. However eventually he was credibly accused of rape. The Democratic establishment and the Bernie people withdrew their support. Eventually Platner resigned - although he still maintains his innocence in the rape case.
The Maine Dems then held as quick a ‘primary’ as they could and went - in droves for a white male progressive guy, leading me as an outsider to conclude why they didn’t go with Troy in the first place. But again - I am for the U.K. I may well be in error.
Troy Jackson was running for governor, actually, but didn’t win the primary (we have a great candidate for governor now). There’s a long background story re: Platner, but it’s yesterday’s news now. You are correct, though, that he tapped into a deep ache in the electorate, and I’m sorry he didn’t work out as a candidate.
Excellent points as usual. I’ve always felt that a lack of racial/ethnic/gender diversity is only a problem if it is the result of discrimination or an unfair playing field. If a white guy happens to be the best candidate, so be it, so long as that’s not because nonwhite or female candidates aren’t getting a fair opportunity.
Also, aren’t there other types of diversity that we should value, besides racial and gender diversity? It’s sort of pathetic when all our legislative candidates are wealthy lawyers, or our SCOTUS justices all went to the same five elite schools (I don’t have much nice to say about Barret but at least she went to Norte Dame instead of Blue Blood Fancypants University, or as people now call it, Yale).
Jess Piper, who explains rural voters well, noted in a recent Substack column, that women are more likely to forgo running for elected office if they have any baggage. Something as common as a speeding ticket can discourage women from running. The patriarchy gives white men a pass that a woman would never be forgiven for. As long as we don't address the reasons why more women aren't running for office, we will continue to see a dearth of women in Congress.
I was just going to go back and link to that article as an example of a structural barrier that does prevent women running for political positions.
It's just the circumstance we find ourselves in.
I will say that at least women candidates tend to have fewer surprise (that is, during the campaign) sex pest issues than guys. But the remaining guys here seem clean. So far.
Folks know what they need to do at this point, no "holding the nose," just do the voting. It's that important.
The Trump years have made me far more tolerant of personal scandals. When a man has been up to such shit that I’m now just hoping his next rape accusation involves an ADULT victim, I’m not going to lose any sleep over some halfassed Katie Hill scandal.
Sinema left office before her scandal exploded (and she was also a campaign finance scammer). Katie Hill also left office bc of an affair with a staffer.
I remember both those. But that's why I always say "fewer" because there's been way more guys that have done this (and sunken us).
But I get it, so I say full speed ahead and may they all win.
"So far"
Makes it sound like you expect allegations to be made against at least one of them? Which really isn't fair.
I'm just tired of guys doing this. But you're right, it isn't fair. I am just hoping vetting has worked (well it probably obviously has for Ossoff). But this primary season has been really friggin' brutal, between Swalwell and Platner alone.
Yes, I agree. But as I said, the sins of the worst of any group cannot reasonably be paid by every member of that same group. There is no indication any of these men have sexual misconduct in their past, and assuming some will be found just because they are men is proving Stephen’s point.
That is fair enough.
Leslie Jones said it best. White people claim that they don’t see color until a Black woman gets cast in what they believe to be a white role.
Our electorate should be a cross section of our country. Handicapped, Asian, women, Black, indigenous, Hispanic. We’ve got a way to go I’ll agree but changes made slowly make them seem like the natural flow of a river. Over time it can change the shape of mountains.
I totally agree with Stephen on this issue. Sadly, the media loves to pick out the most extreme Democrat who will step in front of a camera, and then they present that person as a spokesperson for a much larger group with a wide diversity of views and experience.
And as Seth has said, the media treats Republicans with extreme views as if they were totally innocent and blameless, while constantly treating a few Democrats with non-mainstream views as leading to the death of civilization and representative of all Democrats. Only Democrats have agency, and the media contortions to normalize the extremists on the right, while cherry picking a few outliers on the left as a way to provide "balance" are insulting and ridiculous...and exhausting.
The media must strike a careful balance between attacking the left and defending the right. Otherwise things just wouldn't be fair.
I completely agree, and saying so has put me at odds with many of my fellow left leaners on this issue. "Elect more women!" is essentially a meaningless statement, as is a comment that any race that includes a straight white man (especially one in the lead) is evidence of the patriarchy at work. Nor do I believe members of a dominant group are obligated to apologize for or police the actions of their most extreme members. We are individuals! Not monoliths! Like Stephen, I believe diversity itself is an admirable goal, but I also *strongly* believe it is secondary to policy concerns and my voting record makes that clear. Clearly, diversity *in and of itself* will not fully address the issues of the day important to our side (hello, Clarence Thomas), but electing people whose worldviews and views on justice across the board might.
I certainly think it’s worth exploring if there are any structural issues holding certain groups back from being put forward as senate candidates, and to stay vigilant on that point. Jess Piper has an excellent article on why women don’t come forward as candidates: https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/vetting?r=1v21b6&utm_medium=ios
But it’s also worth pointing out that there are going to be varying mixes of diversities within any group put forward. It’s also worth mentioning that representation alone isn’t enough.
Look at the U.K. - we are allegedly more progressive than the U.S. as we elected our first female leader in 1979 - Margret Thatcher. However Thatcher was a disaster for women and the working class in general. We are still paying for her misrule now.
Still we do need to stay vigilant, especially following the debacle in Maine where a desperation to field a progressive white male led to - well yeah.
The fact that there already was an excellent candidate in Maine who was ignored in favour of the Platner circus suggests someone might need to examine their priors. Ironically that candidate was also a white male but clearly didn’t measure up to whatever standard of manliness or whiteness that those who were starstruck by Platner.
I’m from Maine, and could probably give you a more accurate first hand account of what actually happened in that instance. 😒
Okay fair dos I’m from the UK, my knowledge is limited. My understanding is Platner was recruited to run for Senate by Daniel Moraff and Morris Katz - two Democratic operatives. He won support from both Bernie Sanders and more mainstream democrats (the Pod save America people) and he had a message Mainers clearly wanted to hear. He got a stupidly huge amount of votes in the Democratic primary.
However, somehow candidate vetting got overlooked. Stories dribbled out but were excused - see the humungous primary vote. However eventually he was credibly accused of rape. The Democratic establishment and the Bernie people withdrew their support. Eventually Platner resigned - although he still maintains his innocence in the rape case.
The Maine Dems then held as quick a ‘primary’ as they could and went - in droves for a white male progressive guy, leading me as an outsider to conclude why they didn’t go with Troy in the first place. But again - I am for the U.K. I may well be in error.
Troy Jackson was running for governor, actually, but didn’t win the primary (we have a great candidate for governor now). There’s a long background story re: Platner, but it’s yesterday’s news now. You are correct, though, that he tapped into a deep ache in the electorate, and I’m sorry he didn’t work out as a candidate.