Lucia Guzman and the death of responsibility, 2016 edition

Lucía Guzmán represents me in the Colorado State Senate. She is also, on paper a minimum of, among the leaders of the Democratic celebration in Colorado, working as Minority Leader. As an freely out lesbian Latino chosen official, she is, definitionally, part of a very little minority, one which has few noticeable leaders.

She is also a female who made it through tough starts in South Texas, a Reverend, and is normally concerned as characterful. In some political circles in Denver, she is known as St. Lucia. I supported and worked for her election to the State Senate, when she beat in a primary Representative Joel Judd, which a couple of considered an upset, however cleverer folks realized as the most likely result.

Guzman is also an ardent fan of Hillary Clinton, and has looked for to make that assistance effective and visible, most just recently in a Facebook post, but likewise on Twitter.

When she did so I asked her 3 basic questions, based upon Hillary's record. They were not particularly pointed, they just represented celebrations where Hillary Clinton's public record were in sharp contrast to the most likely held positions of Guzman (this exercise got me unfriended on Facebook, so that appears the political and social price paid these days for asking tough questions). The concerns:

Guzman: I support Hillary

Do you then support her vote in favor of the war on Iraq?

Do you then promote her on Libya, where the she was the architect of a policy that left us with another failed Arab state?

Do you support her taking millions from the exact same people who damageded our economy, and continue to wager recklessly, backstopped by the taxpayers? (previously referenced Clinton's million dollar Wall Street paydays *).

These are concerns with which you should respond to honestly for your constituents and advocates. It isn't really a game. Trillions have been lost, and 10s of thousand of your fellow Americans have shed blood based upon these judgements. If you promote Hillary, do you stand with her, too?

I didn't get an response. Well, I sort of received one: "I Support Hillary.".

Unanswered, naturally, are the policy matters. We don't know whether Clinton's outrageous dump trucks full of Wall Street money trouble her. We have no idea if there is a more nuanced view on Libya. Exact same on Iraq.

And these aren't simply unclear, rhetorical workouts. Among the polite fictions of our present, busted democracy is that we plebeians should have to understand where our chosen stand on concerns, and when there seems to be such sharp harshness, why. The exact same precise matters are being played out in hundreds of jurisdictions, where Democratic Party superdelegates are promoting Hillary are, in the primary, not addressing the dissonance that promote develops with read more their positions.

But those failures imply that there is no responsibility for these political leaders and party leaders. And without accountability, the standard social contract of democracy fails. Not that it already hasn't. However it is great to be reminded again.

In Guzman's defense, she has situationally legitimate reasons for promoting Hillary. As a legislative leader, she may think that Sanders as a candidate would cause her democratic associates to lose seats. It is a colorable point, as Dems throughout the nation have lost countless seats throughout the Obama years, and have in Colorado as well.

There are likewise the now tired and threadbare canards of identity politics, which augur that the simple election of a lady to the White House would have so many positive impacts that her actual actions in office do not matter. That's one of those points that it is difficult to say empirically, but we do understand that the mere election of a black male to the presidency coincides with traditionally low levels of black males in the workforce, the shrinking of black-held wealth as a fraction on the country's wealth, and growth in the imprisonment of blacks proportionally and the obvious extremely noticeable number of black deaths at the hands of police. On its face, identity politics appears to be a non-starter. That does not disrupt the romantic view of it; however democracy should be held on logical premises, no?

But additionally, while situationally valid, they are morally void. Clinton's actions are morally dubious at finest-- taking millions from the Wall Street she has actually pledged in rein is no less than venally corrupt.

On this, Lucia Guzman is no different from countless politically effective Hillary acolytes. But in refusing to resolve legitimate questions, the Reverend Guzman is administering at the funeral service of accountability in our little corner of the world.

* Since she stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013, Hillary Clinton has actually been making comparable charges from the very same sources. Of the almost $10 million she earned in lecture charges in 2013 alone, almost $1.6 million from significant Wall Street banks, consisting of $675,000 from Goldman Sachs (the payments referred to by Bernie Sanders in the January 17 2016 argument), and $225,000 each from UBS, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *