I know full well the vitriol of Ray Ceo, Jr. I've been the target of it, albeit under a fake "name", if you can call what he used that. I first met him as a volunteer for the Democratic Party in 2012. Ray and I don't see eye to eye on how the game should be played. We don't terribly often agree on policy. If there's a primary, chances are he and I are making our decisions on candidates along extraordinarily different lines, and more often than not arriving at a different selection. Ray and I have fought, have bickered, and in the time I've known him I'm pretty sure he's spent less time talking to me than not talking to me.
But, then, we are both proud liberal Democrats. I remember on election night, while everyone was anxiously awaiting Arizona's results, I kept ducking out to check for one lone referendum - in Maine. I held my breath for that vote. Part of the reason I am in Arizona to begin with is the failure of simple anti-discrimination laws in my home state years ago. Sitting there in 2012, at the Democratic Watch Party, it was all so deeply intensely personal again I could feel it in my bones. I'd been up for at least twenty some hours that day, slept for at most twenty some hours that week. I sat there in Kyrsten Sinema's suite knowing full damn well that I could say I had done absolutely, positively, everything I could for the Party that had given its all for me. My President's healthcare reform gave me back my future. My party threw its arms around equality. My own home congressional and legislative districts fielded candidates with whom I felt so closely aligned with that the title "representative" felt entirely and deeply true. In that moment I was an all capital letters bright blue Democrat, surrounded by people I knew and loved, and who knew and loved me, brought together by this amazing, unified, Democratic juggernaut.
Then it happened. All four marriage equality propositions went our way. It was pure, unadulterated joy. I remember springing up in the middle of the room and hopping around with Ceo like school kids on a snow day. We had won. As the results came in from across the state and the nation, there were the races we obviously won, the ones we obviously lost, and the ones we would be waiting what seemed like forever for official results. But the wins I knew we had that night, to me, were personal. Four more years of Obama guaranteed Obamacare would not be overturned, and I would never worry about a layoff or a lifetime limit ever again. Marriage equality moved forward, even being legalized for the first time by popular vote in my native Maine. Home in Arizona, we sent Kyrsten Sinema to Washington, the first openly bisexual member of Congress, on a race we could all point to and know that there, right there, the thing that happened in the party is the thing that's supposed to happen in the party. The candidates stayed true to our principles, they carried our messages of hope and equality, and in the end, we were able to unify behind a single champion. The darkness may not have entirely ended, but we could definitely see the dawn.
After the election, I volunteered for the reorganization convention, where I remember seeing the numbers up on the wall and being so proud that I had helped cause that to be. I got to collect ballots for our new incoming executive board. I saw someone who had truly inspired me during 2012 become our new County Chair, a trusted friend become the Secretary, and I had to be talked out trying to get my Precinct Committeeperson appointment form filled out and signed right there on the spot. Since then I've become engaged with other project, some higher profile than others, some national, some local, but it is a special point of pride to me that I, Jo D Hafford, was duly appointed to the office of Democratic Precinct Committeeman for Madison Park.
From that vantage point, I have had the privilege of meeting other like-minded folks who likewise want more for their communities, for our friends and neighbors and loved ones. I've met men and women who are absolute powerhouses and have had the privilege of helping them succeed. I've met candidates, up close and in person, and been allowed the space to ask them the hard questions that I personally wanted to ask. I've even gotten to see my name on a political mailer. In all my non-partisan workings, these men and women have cheered me on, placing our shared values and culture front and center, imploring me every step of the way to do all that I can for our causes. Almost without exception, the men and women I have met through politics here in Arizona have been not just good people, they have been the very best people. They have given me back my self-worth and restored my hope. I won't name them all, God knows I'd miss more than a few, but I hope they know who they are, and I hope in some way I can make them proud some day.
Here and now, though, my energies are behind growing our future. I am committed to the notion that if our students tell us they are not safe, we are obligated to make them feel safe. I believe the way to effect real, permanent, positive change in the community is to grow new leaders, to deepening the bench of people who have not just the passion but the building blocks for change. I am vested in projects to connect us all, because we are stronger together. I am doing the kind of work I love - the kind that unites us all.
Of course, we are not all so lucky. Sure there's City 6, where we are all of one mind. But outside of that, I have friends scattered across other races where sides must be taken. I do not envy them one little bit. I will cast my ballot in Phoenix City Council District 4 this year for one of the Democrats running, though I can't decide which. I've met the majority of them, had the opportunity to question them, seen them engage the public and run clean campaigns so far, even heard them embrace our shared values and principles. There are reasons I like several of the candidates, and for all the best reasons I am honestly undecided in this race. City 8 is not terribly much different. There are two really great candidates, with great credentials and real community support, and I am confident they would either one do right by their constituencies. On this, I am not from South Phoenix, and I feel it would be somewhat inappropriate for an activist from midtown to tell the folks down south who should represent them. They should listen to these two great candidates and decide for themselves which one they want. We believe in the democratic process every bit as much as the Democratic values, and it's good to see them both alive and healthy in one of our most important, core communities. The County Party is doing the absolute right thing there by cheering on all our good Democrats, and I'm happy for that fact.
What they are getting wrong, though, is confusing the D on a piece of paper with what we all together have decide it means to actually be a Democrat. It is anti-Democratic, for example, to oppose sunlight legislation. It is anti-Democratic to oppose fully funding public education. It is anti-Democratic to oppose collective bargaining. It is anti-Democratic to oppose immigration reform. It is anti-Democratic to demonize the LGBTQ community and deny us equal treatment under the law. We are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. I would go so far as to say the act of standing up for one another is an appropriate thing for to do and strengthens us.
You can imagine the gut wrenching churn in my stomach, then, seeing Warren Stewart's name on a flyer for a fundraiser. Now, I am not Ray Ceo. This is not where the vitriolic rhetoric of being killed or burned or whatever gets inserted. The Party is not backing Stewart as a candidate by listing him any more than they are backing any of the other candidates they've listed. But in the cold hard light of day, though the purpose of listing him may not be endorsement, there is still a purpose. In a fundraiser, the purpose is not to highlight the candidates or give them a soapbox. The purpose is to get the candidate's supporters to show up and donate $20 in exchange for a ticket, because the party really needs your $20. Now, I know the individuals who would have made this decision. Of all the horrible conspiracy theories one could think up against these people, of all the accusations that could be thrown, I don't believe any of them. I am ultimately confident that in inviting all three declared candidates who were actually Democrats by registration, that they felt they were being just as fair as they possibly could be, and they're right. It is fair to invite and list everyone - but it is not necessarily just.
We must stand by our values and principles. While I understand that there may be a cost to be paid for that, this is not a fact that has ever stopped us before. We are not just any Democrats, we are Arizona Democrats. We know better than most what it is to take a beating for your beliefs, and we do it over and over again. Now there is a narrative out there that Stewart's position against marriage equality is no different than Obama's before he "evolved", but this, simply put is a false bill of goods. One cannot read Stewart's statement and then take that position with a straight face. Besides, this is not about marriage equality. This is about a man who said members of the LGBTQ community are not capable of loving sexual relationships. This is someone who has said homosexuality is like adultery and bestiality. This is a man who said that supporting marriage equality will "mislead and/or confuse" our youth - which is code for the old slander that the gays are coming for your kids. If the line ended at him personally as a Baptist not supporting same sex marriage, I'd call it a day, but this is not that. This is naked homophobia and bigotry. What Ray Ceo gets right, the signal in all of that noise, is that it is unjust for the same Party that threw itself heart, mind, body and soul behind equality to sit silent in the face of those remarks.
I've heard all manner of reasoning of why it is still basically impossible for the Party to officially repudiate Stewart or even his actions, and they have run the gamut for me from not right to stomach turning. At one point some well-meaning soul even trotted out that tired "well it's Obama's '08 position" line or malarkey, and I can't help but think he or she simply didn't know just what malarkey that line was. These are good people. I simply refuse to believe that they would bow to political expediency and throw a constituency to the wolves on purpose, though they may think it necessary to hope that the LGBTQ community will grit our teeth and bear one more blow for the team. My friends, that shall not be necessary. It does not need to happen, and there is a clean, elegant rationale as to why not.
The Party decided for various reasons after 2012 that it would not take sides in Democratic primaries - period. If two Democrats ran for one seat, the Party would do what it does best and ensure the democratic process works, producing a candidate we can all rally behind. By law, Phoenix city council primaries are not Democratic primaries. Simply put, that rule does not apply here. Warren Stewart is not running as a Democrat. He can't run as a Democrat. He's running as a Reverend. We can't make party registration the litmus test, either. At present, the Party is already backing an independent in another race. There's also the problem of sham candidates. The Arizona House Minority Leader is subject to a recall. If Bob Thomas find some sham of a candidate willing to put a D after its name, the Party cannot sit there and do nothing. All of the metapolitical issues aside, it would be absolutely stupid for the party to not be able to defend its leader. The party as a whole and my district in particular should absolutely be allowed to get the torches and the pitchforks and run the phony-baloney "D" back to whatever swamp in Mississippi that Bob Thomas crawled out of. The obvious litmus test, then, is the platform. It's rather quite simple. Can the other candidates claiming to be Democrats honestly be said to be in alignment with our values? Yes. There are multiple candidates, however, so the Party should still decline to pick a favorite. Think of it as less a seal of approval and more an inspection sticker. The Party could, to the best of my knowledge, simply decline to invite or decline to acknowledge candidates in non-partisan races based on their alignment with the platform. The Party realistically could if it so chose go so far as to hold candidates in non-partisan races accountable for their words without violating its pledge not to tamper with Democratic parties because, by definition, it is not a Democratic primary. They realistically should be free to denounce the position that homosexuality is the same as bestiality, or to at least call upon the candidate in question to recant a policy position that we find utterly reprehensible to our values.
There's also an opportunity in here to build a path out of a reality in which we cannot defend an incumbent from a sham Democrat in a partisan primary, and it's actually the alternate way the Party could choose to hold Stewart accountable for his words. When a Republican challenges one of our own, we leap to point out the Democratic positions. From education to Social Security, we have no problems underscoring the differences between our guy and theirs. We race to defend our own as the other side takes its swipes, and denounce the opposing position as illogical, immoral, or both. Warren Stewart did not take a swing at another candidate on the campaign trail. The statement that caused so much ruckus is directed at the President, and we should defend the President. It is foolish to refuse to defend an attack because of a line item in a voter registration record. In the 2012 cycle, a number of folks changed their registration to Republican in the name of asking Ken Bennett to investigate as a constituent request whether or not Mitt Romney is a unicorn, much in the same way Bennett claimed constituent requests prompted him to investigate Obama's birth certificate. Needless to say, the R on a piece of paper did not move Ken Bennett much, since the aim was obviously a strike at their party leadership. He questioned it, he came to the right conclusion, and rejected the bogus affiliation. We should be able to walk through the same exact paces and reach the exact same conclusion if and when it should happen in our ranks. We should question what a supposed Democrat is doing calling the President's ability to lead into question, and reject the bogus affiliation if that's truly how he feels about it.
Having said all that to say this - I will still go to the County Party's fundraiser, because for one, they really do need my $20, and for two, I am not interested in taking away from the Party's genuine and real effort to pay tribute to the remarkable diversity within the party. I am not interested in fighting my friends. I will support no boycotts, and call for no resignations. I will say that the Party can, and should, decry actions and statements that are offensive to the platform. I have laid out my logic as to why they should do it, and how it is consistent wit their existing rules and mores. To me, the sole question is whether or not the Party bosses view the platform as worthless words on paper, or if they truly have the courage of their convictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment