Legislator Guzman and the death of accountability, 2016 variation

Lucía Guzmán represents me in the Colorado State Senate. She is also, on paper at least, one of the leaders of the Democratic party in Colorado, functioning as Minority Leader. As an openly out lesbian Latino elected authorities, she is, definitionally, part of a extremely small minority, one which has few noticeable leaders.

She is likewise a lady who survived tough starts in South Texas, a Reverend, and is normally considered characterful. In some political circles in Denver, she is referred to 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 few considered an upset, but cleverer folks realized as the most likely result.

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

When she did so I asked her 3 simple concerns, 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 nowadays for asking difficult concerns). The concerns:

Guzman: I promote Hillary

Do you then promote 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 promote her taking millions from the very same some people who wrecked our economy, and continue to bet recklessly, backstopped by the taxpayers? (previously referenced Clinton's million dollar Wall Street paydays *).

These are concerns with which you should respond to truthfully for your constituents and fans. It isn't a video game. Trillions have been lost, and 10s of countless 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 answer. Well, I arrange of received one: "I Support Hillary.".

Unanswered, obviously, are the policy matters. We do not know whether Clinton's outrageous dump trucks filled with Wall Street revenue bother her. We have no idea if check here there is a more nuanced view on Libya. Same on Iraq.

And these aren't simply unclear, rhetorical exercises. Among the polite fictions of our present, busted democracy is that we plebeians deserve to understand where our chosen stand on problems, when there appears to be such sharp dissonance, why. The exact same specific matters are being played out in hundreds of jurisdictions, where Democratic Party superdelegates are promoting Hillary are, in the primary, not dealing with the harshness that promote creates with their positions.

But those failures suggest that there is no accountability for these politicians and celebration leaders. And without responsibility, the basic social contract of democracy fails. Not that it currently hasn't. However it is good to be reminded again.

In Guzman's defense, she has situationally valid factors for promoting Hillary. As a legislative leader, she may believe that Sanders as a candidate would trigger her democratic colleagues to lose seats. It is a colorable point, as Dems across the nation have actually lost countless seats throughout the Obama years, and have in Colorado too.

There are also the now tired and threadbare canards of identity politics, which augur that the mere election of a lady to the White House would have a lot of favorable effects that her actual actions in office do not matter. That's one of those points that it is challenging to say empirically, however we do understand that the simple election of a black male to the presidency coincides with historically low levels of black males in the workforce, the shrinkage of black-held wealth as a portion on the country's wealth, and proliferation in the imprisonment of blacks proportionally and the evident extremely noticeable variety of black deaths at the hands of law enforcement. On its face, identity politics appears to be a non-starter. That doesn't interrupt the romantic view of it; but democracy should be held on rational grounds, no?

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

On this, Lucia Guzman is no different from countless politically effective Hillary acolytes. However in declining to resolve genuine concerns, the Reverend Guzman is administering at the funeral service of responsibility in our little corner of the world.

* Since she stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013, Hillary Clinton has actually been earning similar charges from the same sources. Of the nearly $10 million she earned in lecture costs 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 *