Tag Archives: election 2024

On racedep and immigration

Uncategorized, , ,

The wedge argument that the ADOS/FBA/AfAm nativist movements hinges upon is that African Americans who were enslaved on American plantations are uniquely disadvantaged compared to even other Americans (Afrodescendant or otherwise) who immigrated voluntarily.

Unfortunately, the ADOS/FBA/AfAm nativist movements parlay this wedge into helplessness and futility toward the WASP American power structure, as well as a wide-ranging angst and contempt against almost everyone else in the world.

For liberals and progressives, what is the utility of this wedge which separates descendants of the antebellum enslaved in the United States from descendants of those enslaved elsewhere?

How do those who do not share in the mythology of the voluntary immigration experience – particularly of the depiction of immigration as a formative, affirmative rite of passage and ethnogenesis – deal with this wedge in a healthier way than ADOS’ nativism? Or, alternatively, being a Black expat?

I fear that progressives and liberals do not yet have an answer to this wedge, no way to resolve the contradiction of a big tent bringing together descendants of slaves, immigrants, aborigines and settlers.

Enough of the big tent broke ranks to vote against that solidarity and sacrifice some immigrants’ dreams, livelihoods and potentially lives in the name of security and certainty.

We need a better arrangement to bridge this wedge, a liberalism which can respect and celebrate immigrant experiences while respecting that it’s not a formative experience for some ethnicities and may be less pleasant to experience in reverse from the most powerful country on earth.

We need a liberalism which can promote immigration as a benefit for those who did not experience immigration, even for those who are descendants of forced migration and enslavement like myself.

Racedep (race depolarization) happened this election, to the benefit of anti-immigrant, anti-urban conservatives like Donald Trump. Promoting an alternative integrative social contract will be a major task of the post-Obama Democratic coalition.

Thoughts on the Last day of Veepstakes

Politics, ,

I’m rooting for MN Governor Tim Walz to be VP Harris’ running mate. He has the rare experience of being in both federal legislative and state executive roles.

I would be surprised if PA Governor Josh Shapiro became VP Harris’ running mate. Not too disappointed, just surprised.

The last time either major party nominee selected a running mate with no federal legislative experience was Sarah Palin (R, 2008). The one before that was Sargent Shriver (D, 1972). Earlier:

  • Spiro Agnew (R, 1968, 1972, won, resigned in second term)
  • Earl Warren (R, 1948, lost, later became Supreme Court Chief Justice)
  • John W. Bricker (R, 1944, lost, later became a senator)
  • Henry A. Wallace (D, 1940, won)
  • Frank Knox (R, 1936, lost)
  • Charles G. Dawes (R, 1924, won)
  • Charles W. Bryan (D, 1924, lost)
  • Calvin Coolidge (R, 1920, won, later became president)
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1920, lost, later became president)
  • Thomas R. Marshall (R, 1912, 1916, won)
  • John W. Kern (D, 1908, lost, later became a senator)
  • Theodore Roosevelt (R, 1900, won, later became president)
  • Garret Hobart (R, 1896, won)
  • Arthur Sewall (D, 1896, lost)
  • Whitelaw Reid (R, 1892, lost)
  • Chester A. Arthur (R, 1880, won, later became president)
  • Richard Rush (N-R, 1828, lost)
  • Daniel D. Tompkins (D-R, 1816, won)
  • Jared Ingersoll (F, 1812, lost)
  • Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (F, 1800, lost)

Just saying, it would be most wild for VP Harris to pick PA Governor Josh Shapiro, who does not have federal legislative experience, for this single reason. Only one person with no federal legislative experience becoming vice president since WWII is not a good sign, IMO.

Syllables

Another thing: the last time that a nominee for president had a running mate with more syllables to their last name than themselves was Bush-Cheney 2000 and 2004.

Others:

  • Gore-Lieberman (D, 2000, lost)
  • Mondale-Ferraro (D, 1984, lost)
  • Nixon-Cabot Lodge (R, 1960, lost)
  • Willkie-McNary (R, 1940, lost)
  • Smith-Robinson (D, 1928, lost)
  • Cox-Roosevelt (D, 1920, lost)
  • Taft-Sherman (R, 1912, lost)
  • Taft-Sherman (R, 1908, won)
  • Bryan-Stevenson (D, 1900, lost)
  • Cleveland-Stevenson (D, 1892, won)
  • Blaine-Logan (R, 1884, lost)
  • Hayes-Wheeler (R, 1876, won)
  • Grant-Wilson (R, 1872, won)
  • Grant-Colfax (R, 1868, won)
  • Cass-Butler (D, 1848, lost)
  • Polk-Dallas (D, 1844, won)
  • Clay-Frelinghuysen (W, 1844, lost)
  • White-Tyler (W, 1836, lost)
  • Jackson-Van Buren (D, 1832, won)
  • Clay-Sergeant (NR, 1832, lost)
  • Clay-Sanford (DR, 1824, lost)
  • King-Howard (F, 1816, lost)
  • Clinton-Ingersoll (F, 1812, lost)
  • Adams-Jefferson (DR, 1796, won)

Conclusion

The only reason why Shapiro may already be selected is that it would be awkward to announce someone who is not Shapiro at the Philadelphia rally meant to debut the ticket. But at the same time, prioritizing winning Pennsylvania to this extent seems silly when you’re trying to imagine working with this running mate for (hopefully) 8 years of your life.

But either way, unity is needed, no matter who the running mate may be.