When minorities turn to bigotry

November 4, 2008 marked a momentous day in United States history, while also serving as a black day for civil rights in California. By a majority of votes, Californians saw fit to strip Gays and Lesbians of their constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution, granted by the state's Supreme Court.

What is most despicable about this result is the participation of visible minorities, including African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans in supporting this discriminatory measure. Certainly while many amongst these communities didn't support this, exit polls suggest that a large portion of African Americans in particular voted in favour of Proposition 8.

Visible minorities ought to know better than to support discriminatory measures that deprive a class of people of certain rights. Japanese Americans were targeted for internment during World War Two. African Americans were once prohibited from marrying Whites, until the state Supreme Court ruled that such laws deprived them of equal protection under the state constitution. This was practiced in other states including Virginia until the United States Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in 1967. This took place many years ago, but imagine if ballot initiatives were available back then which would permit changing the state constitution to deprive African Americans from marrying whomever they chose to, thus invalidating the rights granted by the court?

However, this bigotry isn't restricted to African Americans in California and the United States. In Canada, during the run-up to Parliament passing legislation permitting same-sex marriages across the country, numerous religious and ethnic minorities, including those from the south Asian community, voiced their opposition to same-sex marriage, in addition to the usual bunch of White religious hate mongers. Thankfully, Parliament stood firm and followed through.

I would simply say that members of visible minorities who support prohibition of same-sex marriages ought to ask themselves how much they value their right to equality when applied to them, and realize the damage they have perpetrated to the cause of equal protection and human rights in the United States.

Transposing Political Change

With the election of Senator Barack Obama as the first African-American President, a Canadian friend of mine (very) recently asked/commented on her Facebook status message the following: "X (my friend) wants Canadians to imagine how likely they'd be to elect an Aboriginal or First Nations PM...Hmmm..."

Prior to yesterday evening, one of the things I imagined that his victory would bring, would be a sense of possibility - that people of color could not only be elected to high office, but also aspire to run for such office(s) in greater numbers and perhaps participate more vigourously in the process. President-elect Obama isn't the only person of color to be sure to accede to important government positions: Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (D), Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D), Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (R), and a whole host of members of Congress.

But to return to my friend's query, I think that in order for voters in Canada or other countries to imagine electing an individual, who belongs to a member of a traditionally perceived "other" community, I think it requires a significant diminishment of that person's "otherness" or perceived otherness. It has been said of course that the reason many White voters have been drawn to Obama is that "he isn't really Black" or that the way he speaks is more White than Black - a notion which is highly problematic and will be the subject of a later post. But one of the things that separated Obama and made him a viable candidate for so many, was that he was different from earlier African-American Democratic presidential candidates (i.e. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). The identity of being 'post-racial' - of being able to move beyond an identity politics - the ability to be more inclusive. Obama rarely brought up race in the election, it was only when he had to address remarks made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright that he launched into what many considered an important statement on race.

But yet I don't think it is entirely impossible to imagine a similar circumstance in other countries. But in order to do so, you will need an individual who can get the voting public to suspend (in large enough numbers) their own entrenched caricatures of what other people can or ought to be. I think a person of colour or an Aboriginal Canadian could potentially do the trick were they able to do a number of things. First, they would have to project themselves more broadly as a Canadian (who happens to be) of aboriginal/First Nations descent (or pick an ethnicity of choice) rather than as an Aboriginal/First Nations-Canadian or other hyphenated designation.

Second, one of the important aspects of Obama's candidacy was that he did not cater to a politics or perceived politics of ethnic grievance. It goes without saying that Aboriginal/First Nations Canadians have much to be angry about, as did/do African-Americans. Yet there is no way Obama would have won if he spoke much about these grievances. This isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, yet it is a political reality.

The case of an Aboriginal Canadian becoming Prime Minister of Canada could be particularly challenging because for many Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians are more often associated with seeking greater independence and autonomy from 'Canadian society' and self governance while receiving money from the state. An Aboriginal Canadian would have to overcome such perceptions.

Even with other visible minorities, the climb to become head of a national party isn't easy either. While there are members of Parliament from visible minorities, there are some if not many who represent constituencies that are primarily comprised of their own ethnic community in addition to others. I think if a member of a visible minority were to break out and run for a leadership position, a real challenge would be to gain support outside of their insular space.

All that said, what made Obama's run so unique was his own individual ability to communicate and his eloquence, an ability to attract people of so many different backgrounds, an ability that few people possess, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic or Aboriginal. It will require the ability to speak in an accent and a voice that doesn't scream "foreign" all over it, a voice that won't take too much adjusting to. Of course there is a double standard involved because we need only hear the majestic erudition that flows from the mouth of George W. Bush to recognize that the same rules don't apply to minority candidates. Had Obama possessed the same speaking skills or accent as the current president, I doubt he would have even won his state senate seat in Illinois, much less what was to follow.

Notwithstanding the hurdles though, Obama's victory provides individuals of colour with a type of pathway (with necessary adjustments for local/national) circumstances that could lead to victory.

A Moment in Time

Senator (now President-elect) Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. It marks a momentous time not only for African-Americans, the country-at-large, but also the world. For many it marks the beginning of an opportunity to engage with an intelligent, thoughtful administration led by a cosmopolitan, transformative figure.

President-elect Obama first propelled himself through his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. I might add it may have been one of Senator John Kerry's most important and eventful decisions (as the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party) for it exposed the country and the world to a new light and inspiration that was seeking to break through the darkness of the Bush administration. His campaign had been marked with considerable discipline and had bested several political veterans - including his own Vice-Presidential-elect, Senator Joe Biden, not to mention Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

His victory signifies the idea that many of the things that we believe are impossible - are indeed possible. With a great deal of determination, perseverance and intelligence, the greatest of accomplishments are achievable. When his victory was called - I experienced a sense of empowerment - that anything was within my grasp if I chose to work for it. Yes it is very hokey.

But the sense of empowerment is what helps move people to do great things and affect others positively through their efforts.

One can only hope that Obama's win will impact and inspire others to take part or engage in politics in a similar manner.

Legislating Bigotry - Voting against Proposition 8

November 4th will be a date to be remembered in many respects. The United States will elect its first African-American President or its first female Vice-President. But it will also be remembered as the election where the people of California were given the chance to support the right of same-sex couples to marry or to support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court of California's decision in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) granting same-sex marriages under the state constitution.

The original proposed language of Proposition 8 read:

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state

The language was changed by the Attorney-General of California to read as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

The altered language accurately reflects the import and weight of what Californians are about to engage in. It is not just about defining the legal definition of marriage (which the original language suggests), but it is about destroying a right, a total deprivation.

What is frightening about this mechanism is the possibility of a majority possibly depriving a minority of a constitutional right through a mere vote. If successful, this may prompt litigation (at some point) to test whether such a constitutional amendment to the state constitution may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At this stage, it is not entirely clear that the U.S. Supreme Court would find such an amendment to violate the Equal Protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In an earlier decision, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment, endorsed by the state's voters that effectively stripped homosexuals of legal protections against discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. The amendment read:

Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

The Court viewed the amendment as (not surprisingly) violating the equal protection rights of a class of individuals: homosexuals. The amendment was not even sufficient to be considered rationally related to a legitimate government purpose - the lowest standard of scrutiny that the Court applies. Whether the Court, as presently constituted, would rule the same way as it did in Romer is not all that certain given that the deprivation was far reaching in Romer. The question is, whether the Court would see depriving same-sex couples the right to marry goes that far.

What I think is important for California voters and particularly minority voters (Latino-Latina Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans) to strongly consider is the sheer bigotry that underlines Proposition 8. Many racial minorities have had experiences being targeted at some point for discrimination and being excluded (as have White Americans). Here is their chance to not perpetrate the same bigotry on another minority. We are all members of a majority or minority depending on how we define such concepts (i.e. race, nationality, religion, gender etc.) The majority of these racial minorities form part of a heterosexual majority and have the opportunity to respect the recognized right to marry by another minority. In California, Asian-Americans are particularly aware of discriminatory policies that have been aimed against them in United States history. African-Americans were once prohibited in certain states from marrying White Americans. In the case of the latter, these discriminatory norms were ushered out by judicial decisions much the same way that the California Supreme Court did earlier this year. Now imagine that the voting population decided to overturn those decisions by a majoritarian vote. We would not hesitate to denounce such a notion were such deprivations based on race.

So when does it become time to recognize the rights of same-sex couples? California voters have the opportunity to do what is right or they can shame themselves.

Living in the Age of That One

This isn't a year to be a standard politician or political party leader. Particularly when we're living, as we do, in the era of That One - a.k.a. Democratic United States Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) and Democratic Party candidate for President. Beginning with his 2004 Keynote Address before the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Senator Obama established himself as an orator-extraordinaire rivalling even Bill Clinton. Although Obama's debating skills had previously left something to be desired, it seems like he has mastered that one as evidenced by his recent jousts with Senator McCain. His ability to connect has brought so many voters, new and old, Democrat, Republican and independent to his side. The longer lines at the early voting stations and the excitement to be able to vote for him illustrates, in part, this trend.

Contrast that with elections recently held in Canada where voter turnout was lower than normal. During the English-language Canadian party leaders' debate, the moderator Steve Paikin had to admonish the leaders from talking over each other lest viewers get frustrated and switch the channel to watch the (presumably more entertaining) Biden-Palin debate being telecast that same evening instead of theirs. Imagine a U.S. Vice Presidential debate catching more Canadian interest than the debate amongst a group, one of whom would become the next Prime Minister of Canada. Well at least this year, perhaps not so difficult.

The reality is, and this goes back, in part, to living in the Age of Obama - the leaders of political parties across the world, including in Canada and Britain, as well as the head of the Republican Party in the United States, don't excite the public in quite the same way. Perhaps they don't aspire to be, but they are not transformational figures who enliven the public to take interest in who is leading their government. Senator McCain's campaign was kick started by the selection of Governor Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. But recent polls suggest that while the GOP base is still high on the candy that she represents, many others in the public, including Republicans, are feeling a little ill from all the sugar.

Maybe there is only enough space for one Obama at a time, but I have to believe that rather than merely trying to rip Obama apart by calling him un-American, (and there are fair areas related to policy to disagree with him on whether you are on the left or right), this is a call to individual politicians to rise to the occasion and do their best to get out their inner orator.

Obama's appeal though doesn't just rest as a splendid orator and/or hope-monger, it's also as an intellectual. Someone who makes being a thinker look good again. Of course this isn't difficult given what the lack of a keen mind has done to the United States under the Bush Presidency, or as exemplified by Governor Palin. I don't mean to say that they are not nice people one-on-one (they may be), but I think we have come to realize (even though it should have been obvious already) that we need smart people running the government, any government, and not people who aspire to the lowest common denominator who think becoming/voting for a president is akin to electing some one to lead a Joe Six-Pack beer-guzzling fraternity.

Being an intellectual, I should stress doesn't mean, strictly speaking, holding several graduate degrees. It's about having an intellectual curiosity and analytical mind to process information. One of my closest friends chose not to pursue studies beyond essentially a community college level, yet he has a curiosity and interest in what is happening in the world. He is an intelligent person who is interested in learning but chooses to do it outside the realm of academia. What is important is that thirst to learn, as a life long endeavor.

What I hope is that in the age of "That One", that some of his dust will fall onto other politicians and would-be politicians about the necessity to be smart, policy-oriented individuals who can also communicate in an engaging manner. The bar has been set high.

Knowing your Role

It seems as though the Republican National Committee (RNC) has opted for style over substance. In a recent Politico report, the RNC has spent $150,000.00 on Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin and her family's wardrobe - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html

Where's the lack of substance that good money might have paid for? Well, it seems that Governor Palin seems to (still?) misunderstand the role of the Vice President with respect to the United States Senate. According to the Governor, Vice Presidents are "in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better...."

Here's what Article I of the Constitution says about the matter: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

No where in the Constitution is it suggested that the Vice President shall have a role in forging "good policy", "bad policy" or any policy. If she wanted to have a direct part in forming policy, she should have finagled the U.S. Senate seat presently held by the embattled Senator Ted Stevens of the state of Alaska.

How could the RNC spend their money better? Well for starters, they ought to consider perhaps spending money and hire a constitutional law scholar to tutor, if not intensively home school the Governor on the constitutional law that governs the United States and sets out the limits of the Vice Presidency; the position she aspires to be hired for by the American voters.

The Colin Factor

Former United States Secretary of State, General Colin Powell (Ret.) endorsed Senator Obama's campaign to become President of the United States on Meet the Press yesterday. The significance/irrelevance of the endorsement will be debated (and it has already begun) over the next two-three days - both in terms of the substance and the reasons that Powell provided and what it will mean vis-a-vis influencing voters, particularly individuals in the military and/or fellow Republicans.

There was one component of General Powell's endorsement that has however stayed in my mind, as it certainly has for many others. Powell drew attention to the persistent allegations that have been levelled against Obama, specifically, that he is a Muslim. While Powell repeated (as others have) that the correct response was obviously that Obama was a Christian, the larger point was - so what if Obama were a Muslim?

Powell was identifying the inherent bigotry that identifying Obama as a Muslim was intended to engender. In support of his argument about the loyalty of Muslim Americans, Powell has noted a photo essay which depicted a mother resting her face atop her son's grave stone at Arlington National Cemetery with a crescent moon inscribed on the stone indicating the soldier's faith. He emphasized that the soldier was an American citizen and born in New Jersey. Powell's point was that Muslims are part of the nation's military and were in it to defend their country just as others have. And perhaps more fundamentally, that they too were good American citizens - loyal and patriotic.

This is something that neither campaign has seemed to be willing to express, or if they have, they fail to do so in any prolific or sustained manner. Obama's campaign seems unable or hesistant to engage in this, perhaps for fear that he will be branded a Muslim/Arab sympathizer (as though again reaching out to and/or defending Arab and/or Muslim Americans was a bad thing). Senator McCain defended Obama against those who would accuse him of being an Arab by addressing the fact that Obama is a "decent family man", and "a citizen".

Powell, through his statements on this issue will hopefully encourage others, preferably in both parties to be more empathetic in defence of a visible minority than what we have witnessed so far.