Welcome to SheKos! SheKos is a diary series for all Kossacks to explore issues related to feminism, women's history, and equality. We seek to find solutions within and beyond the Democratic Party to improve the lives of women -- and men -- regardless of race, sexual orientation, or economic status. We believe that women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights.
When I was a little kid - which was four whole scary-long decades ago, if you must know - I loved Twinkies. My mother was an excellent, traditional cook, and from our kitchen frequently emanated the enticing aromas of fresh, home-baked goods, but Mom was no snob - she liked her Oreos and Famous Cookies assortments, and even Ding Dongs and Twinkies, on occasion.
Twinkies were, to my impressionable young self, the ultimate in pre-packaged sugary treats. The soft, springy cake; the smooth, rounded shape; the luscious, creamy vanilla filling... You know, it wasn't just the taste. It was an entire sensory experience that I always found thoroughly satisfying.
Over the years, I noticed (sometime in my teens, I think) that Twinkies no longer provided exactly that same sensory oomph. Oh, they were still the same shape, the same color, and still toothache-inducingly sweet, but there were subtle but undeniable changes. The filling had become less creamy, the texture of the cake less delicate. Some of this was probably due to Hostess gradually replacing highly perishable ingredients like eggs and cream with chemical emulsifiers and such, and part of it is probably that my tastes had become more refined over time. Nevertheless, I continued to buy Twinkies even into adulthood, even though I no longer found them as enjoyable, simply because of the memory I retained of how much I used to enjoy them.
Irrational, right? Of course it is. I could have put the same money toward a snack that gave me a more fully satisfying experience, or at least one that didn't remind me each time I ate it that it was now a lesser pleasure than it had once been. One that wasn't a promise that turned out to be a lie.
I don't remember what finally prompted my eventual abandonment of the Twinkie Promise. There was no epiphany, no singular, definitive moment that brought me to my senses, no voice in my ear shouting, Hello - empty calories, they don't taste that great, and you're wasting your damn money! Probably there was some combination of health, weight, and financial concerns that led to their elimination from my grocery list. But having acknowledged their diminished pleasures, I've never been tempted to try them again for old time's sake.
Like Twinkies of old, the Democratic Party platform is also really good - on paper. In many respects, it is almost what I'd like it to be; in others, it coyly avoids extra controversy by implying things that should be made explicit, loud and clear. But it certainly is light-years closer to what I want for the world than anything the Republicans have ever proposed. Taken by itself, reading it can make you feel pretty damn good about being a Democrat. It's almost childhood-Twinkie good.
Our platform is full of people-first, socially-just goodness:
We believe that quality, affordable health care is a basic right.
It's time we stop just talking about family values, and start pursuing policies that truly value families. We will expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to reach millions more workers than are currently covered, and we will enable workers to take leave to care for an elderly parent, address domestic violence and sexual assault, or attend a parent-teacher conference. Today 78 percent of the workers who are eligible for leave cannot take it because it's unpaid, so we will work with states and make leave paid.
We will never put ideology above women's health.
We support the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.
We are committed to ensuring full equality for women...
We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.
We support affirmative action, including in federal contracting and higher education, to ensure that those locked out of the doors of opportunity with be able to walk through those doors in the future. As the late Ann Richards said, "We offer a vision where opportunity knows no race, no gender, no color, a glimpse of what can happen in government if we simply open the doors [and] let the people in."
There's more, of course, lots more; the platform is a whopping fifty-nine pages long. If you have never read it, I highly recommend it... particularly if you enjoy fantasy. Because that is precisely what that platform is: lofty, high-minded fantasy. And why is it a fantasy? Is it because it's too ambitious? Too far beyond our ability to achieve?
No. It's a fantasy because too many elected Congressional Democrats don't support the principles it describes.
I accept that Democrats can and will differ on the strategies and implementations of the concepts laid out in the platform. As is often pointed out on this very site, Dems do not march in lockstep. There will often be many ways to approach a problem, and chances are that each one will be favored by at least one Democrat. That's fine. That's healthy.
But when we have Democrats in Congress voting directly against many of the core principles of their party, that's not acceptable. Disagreement about ways to achieve Democratic goals is understandable; actively thwarting the achievement of those goals clearly is not. Certainly a Democrat retains the right to disagree with certain parts of the platform, but if he wants to be affiliated with the Democratic party, he can and should be expected to support the platform when it comes down to a vote. Otherwise, the platform is utterly meaningless, little more than a bait-and-switch tool to win the support of voters who will then be betrayed by the con artists we've elected.
I will use the healthcare debate as one example. While the lack of Democratic unity in choosing an approach that will benefit all Americans to the greatest degree is frustrating, it's also more or less consistent with the idea that there's room for disagreements about strategies and implementation details. (We won't touch on the issue of corporate influence in this diary, other than mentioning that it obviously impacts the debate - and politics generally - to our detriment.) But watching "Democrats" threaten to scuttle the legislation if they don't get certain language into the bill definitely flies in the face of the party's explicit belief in healthcare as a "basic right" and the party's stated commitment to ensuring that healthcare reform legislation will be passed.
And if the party platform boldly states that "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act" and "We support the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," why has there been no movement by "Democrats" in the past ten months to propose such repeals? Why is marital equality even a matter of controversy among Democrats if opposition to the DOMA is part of the party platform?
Why are they "Democrats" if they don't support what is stated in the platform? Particularly something that speaks so much to the core of liberal ideology - equal rights for all.
And of course, we have the matter of reproductive rights and the bullshit that certain "Democrats" have engaged in during the HCR leglislative saga. First, "Democrat" Bart Stupak ramrods into the House bill a Republican-written amendment that will severely limit women's financial access to abortion... and other "Democrats" help.
Now, "Democrat" Ben Nelson is demanding that language identical to the Stupak amendment be included in the Senate bill, or he'll filibuster. I submit that Nelson and Stupak have no business calling themselves Democrats if they intend to actively defecate all over women's reproductive freedoms. And before the inevitable comments proliferate telling me that there is no reason for outrage over this because I shouldn't expect taxpayers to pay for "my" abortion, let me direct you to this particularly bold and uncompromising part of the Democratic platform:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The emphasis is mine. The wording is clear. It is right there in black and white: The Democratic Party doesn't just support the letter of Roe v. Wade by saying that abortion is legal but you have to find your own way to pay for it. It says it supports women's right to abortion regardless of ability to pay. As Ross Perot might say, case closed, end of story. There is simply no basis in the Democratic platform for restricting abortion to those who can afford to pay for it out of pocket. Anyone who supports such restrictions is not a Democrat. It really is that simple.
I'm not saying that every Democrat has to personally be in favor of abortions. Every Democrat should, however, be expected to vote in favor of reproductive freedom. And they damn well should not be voting for anything that impedes women from having that freedom. Including financial restrictions.
That means that proposing language such as what is in the Stupak amendment is contrary to the Democratic agenda. It means voting for such language is betraying Democratic women. It means that renewing Hyde every year is their way of telling feminist Democrats that they are willing to say literally anything to get our votes, but have no intention of fulfilling promises the platform explicitly makes to us.
I had held onto my identification with the Democratic party, even in the face of the scores of betrayals of Democratic principles by elected "Democrats" over the years, because I believed that we were working toward something. For a long time, we were beseiged, outnumbered, fighting for legislative survival. Then when we started to make a gradual comeback in Congress, I attributed the weak performance to being out of practice exercising power and fortitude. But I honestly believed that once we were coming from a position of strength, with the clear weight of American support behind us, the party would do right by women and GLTB.
But we the people handed Congressional Dems a hearty mandate last year, and they have managed to do nearly nothing with it in almost a year of screwing around. Not only do we still have no healthcare reform, but they've even managed to dilute all the most progressive elements from the proposed legislation. Whatever we get now will not a bold step forward for fulfilling the dream of the Democratic platform, but a weak baby-step upon which we will have to build in future sessions. But to do it, you can bet we'll again have to bite and scratch and claw the "Democrats" for whom we phonebanked, canvassed, and voted every step of the way.
It's the Twinkie all over again, only this Twinkie is full of something brown and reeking rather than fake creme. Call it the Stinky Twinkie.
And, finally, I have had that epiphany, which essentially amounted to this realization:
The "Democrats" will never act like Democrats. The "Democrats" will continue to vote in accordance with their fundamentalist religious beliefs or the orders of their corporate puppetmasters as long as we keep electing them. As long as we signal that it's okay to pretend to believe in the human and civil rights enshrined in the party platform by calling oneself a Democrat, but betraying those principles in one's voting record, "Democrats" will continue to weaken our party and cheapen its name. As long as we continue to elect bad "Democrats," we we never see any progressive legislation and the rights of women and gays will never be protected.
So my solution is simple and powerful. Stop voting for them, stop supporting them, stop pretending that they are Democrats.
Because they AREN'T. And every won election just keeps sending the wrong message.
And don't even start with me on the "omg, but what if we got REPUBLICANS in those seats instead????" Because I'd rather know that it was Republicans fucking us over than people who pretend to be on our own side. It's just more honest. A knife in the chest will always hurt, but the pain is worse when it's a "friend" holding the knife.
It'll be hard. We have to primary every betraying "Democrat," and in cases where those primary efforts fail... we have to not vote for the winner. That's anathema to most of us, but we have to stop sending the message, You have demonstrated that you won't represent me, but I will keep voting for you because I don't want a Republican to win. Right now, "Democrats" think we'll let them do whatever they want, even if it makes us SICK, and we'll keep voting for them anyway. They're thinking, Where else are they gonna go?
Well, I've figured out where feminists and GLTB can go. We can go away.
Without feminists and gays, the Democratic party will be hurting. They know this. If we make a stand, a serious, resolute stand, and communicate to the party that we can and will withdraw our time, money, and voices, they will listen. But we have to commit to it first, and start communicating it effectively.
We need to take the Stinky Twinkie off the market.
I know this won't be easy for most of us. Not supporting the available Democrat is contrary to everything that feels right. We'll miss feeling like we're a part of something bigger than ourselves, something full of hope and promise. But we have to keep reminding ourselves that the hope and promise is currently a hollow shell that crumbles to nothing under the lightest of touches. In the end, we won't really be missing anything, because it was already just an illusion.
I miss the feeling I got from the Twinkie of my youth, but I don't miss today's Twinkie one bit.
I won't miss the "Democrats" we have today, either.
SheKos is open to your submissions. Please email the fabulous Angry Mouse at angrymouse.grrr@gmail.com with your ideas.