A fair deal for every American
That’s what the Justice Party is about: a fair deal for every American. Whether you’re rich or poor, male or female, black or white or brown or beige — no matter who you are, you deserve a fair deal. All of us do. Not just the bankers and the fat cats and the Village Idiots and the elites. All of us.
I know I said planning was on hold til after Christmas, and it is; but I gotta get this off my chest. The Justice Party (or whatever we’re gonna call it) was discussed in a diary thread over at Firedoglake. Here’s the comment that prompted me to put down my wine glass and hot glue gun and start typing this post:
“I don’t know where you are from or how you grew up, but I grew up in RedneckLand and I know how they think. You start referring to feminism and populism and peace and LGBT and economic justice and so forth and you immediately stoke up a bunch of latent dread about ‘commie hippie peace queers.’ Now I am 100% in favor of all those above issues and most others but I’m telling you that the surest way to turn off middle America is by bringing up a lot of what are perceived to be exotic, nebulous issues.”
The commenter (whose name appears to be GDC707, whatever the hell that means) goes on to insist that middle Americans are uninterested in “vaguer issues like justice, feminism or 3rd world exploitation.”
Everybody clear? Feminism — which is to say, the economic, legal, and social rights of half the American population — is, according to GDC707, a vague, exotic, nebulous issue.
What do you wanna bet GDC707 is a guy?
What’s really ironic is that he (I’m assuming) thinks that the Democrats are already a feminist party. Which is kind of hilarious. “What would this Justice Party be but just another name for the disaffected left wing of the Democratic Party?” he asks. Yeah, we’re just soaking in feminism. So much feminism in the Democratic Party. I can hardly breathe for all the goddamn feminism.
But that’s not what I wanted to talk about. What I want to talk about is this notion that feminism is some exotic thing, some intellectual latte that none of the rubes could possibly care about. Bullshit.
You know what feminism is? It’s fairness. It’s about giving women a fair deal. Every woman in this country wants that, and the only women who don’t think they deserve it are the brainwashed fundie hostages.
Look: I, too, know from RedneckLand. I come from crackers and hillbillies and trailer trash. My folks are the salt of the South: Scotch-Irish and Melungeons and Indians, all mixed together in the farm villages and mill towns of Appalachia and the piedmont. This is a culture where women work and have always worked. You wanna talk about strong women? I tell you what: there ain’t a woman in my family that doesn’t think she’s worth a fair shake and equal pay and some damn respect.
That’s feminism. That’s popular, grassroots, redneck, middle American feminism.
Now obviously you don’t popularize the Gender Justice plank in your new political party by talking about Judith Butler or holding symposia on the collected works of Mary Daly. That’s intellectual feminism; it’s the academic counterpart to an activist movement (and note that all activist movements have academic counterparts, including commenter GDC707’s pet project of single-payer). Feminism on the ground is different: it’s basic, immediate, and vitally important in every woman’s life. It’s not some airy-fairy egghead thing. As I said here and here:
Women’s lib is not like some rich white kids going to protest at a nuclear power site. Women’s lib is needing a rape shelter, needing child support, needing a job, needing equal pay, needing not to be harassed at work, needing not to have to sleep with the boss, needing birth control, needing an abortion. It is as down-to-earth and basic as it gets…
Listen: when a small-town Christian woman who belongs to the local Republican party talks about how she has to work a double shift (home and work) because she’s a woman, and why doesn’t her husband do his share, and why is her work at their family business not fully compensated but his is…that’s feminism.
This is why I’m confident that Gender Justice as a value is not some strange, irrelevant concept.
What people want is fairness, and that includes women. Women want to be treated fairly and they want to be treated with dignity. They want to live and work and love and be safe and have a fair shake in life. That’s all.
Now I gotta go finish my wine.
**********************************************************************
UPDATE (From the comment thread below):
To recap, the (now 7) Justice Values:
–Economic justice: a fair deal whether you’re rich or poor.
–Gender justice: a fair deal whether you’re male or female.
–Racial justice: a fair deal whether you’re black or white or brown or beige.
–Social justice: a fair deal no matter what you look like or who you love or what you believe.
–Global justice: being a good global neighbor, treating other nations and nationals fairly.
–Environmental justice: a fair approach to the environment; clean air and water for everyone, not just rich folks. No dumping in poor people’s communities.
–Democratic justice: fair government, fair elections.
70 Responses to “A fair deal for every American”
-
riverdaughter says:
Bingo!, Violet. I think you’ve got it. It is basic. It is equality, dignity, respect. That’s all it is. The things you mention, equal pay, child support, deciding when and if to be a parent, that’s the crux of it.
I know it’s going to be really hard to keep the mission from creeping but if you go with Hillary’s brand of feminism, you absolutely cannot go wrong. Women all over the world respond to it no matter how repressive their culture.December 18th, 2009 at 6:38 am EST -
janicen says:
I am sick and tired of people who say we can’t ask for or expect what is right because there are people out there, “Rednecks” no less, who are going to get really mad. I’d like to remind everyone that we were the “Rednecks” of 2008. I still have Obot relatives who refer to the people of WV and KY as “Rednecks”. Have these Obots spent more than a day in either state getting to know the people there? No, the Obots have decided that the people of WV and KY are “Rednecks” because those states went overwhelmingly for Clinton over Obama, therefore they must be “Rednecks” (read ‘racists’).
We have every right to ask for and expect equal rights. Watering down that expectation to appease the people who oppose us immediately puts us in a weakened position. Fuck the people who oppose equal rights for all.
-
pds says:
right behind ya! but the populism….populism!
-
Kookaburra says:
It was the “red necks” in Wyoming who gave women the vote before the 19th Amendment was passed, and it was those same red necks who refused to join the Union if it meant the disenfranchisement of half its citizens.
I read a bit farther down the thread - did you see that ridiculous comment about “family in cowboy hats and western wear?” Gosh, those crazy red necks! How on earth did they learn about Burma?
-
flawedplan says:
That’s some fantastic writing, I am off to retweet it. But I did not know about your origins, it makes sense, the bond I feel with you and so few others who have the same politics. You know I come from trash, inbreeding, violence, no one graduated high school, but all the mysterious womenfolk were self-supporting spinsters, unmarried, aunt Jack (!) aunt Daisy, living on their own into their dotage, but we weren’t allowed to talk about that, to acknowledge their magnificent deviance, cuz my mom, Ellie Mae, was pushing hard in the submissive femmy direction so I’d catch a man and escape all that.
She was a serial wife, there was never a period w/out a man in the house but she was as you describe, exploited by them, bewildered and seething, never negotiated terms with her husbands or stood up to a perpetrator, even after a beating. She told me on her deathbed, they’d be watching a movie and my bestdad would get up and turn off the TV before it was over and say, “I’m all in, time for bed” without a clue that hey, she was watching that. I know she drank to cope with her station in live as a fuckbot, and the rage, she took that out on her kids. I don’t know how many nights I laid awake wondering what she needed to live.
When I grew up, she took a long look at me. “I blame feminism” she said, with a hint of yearning underneath. Feminism was too foreign in our world. If only it were normalized, assumed, part of the everyday terrain, we wouldn’t have had all these problems.
It’s easy to take it for granted that we’ve arrived, feminism is all around and everyone is educated, enlightened and on the same page, then you cross paths with a liberal dude and ZOMGWTF.
Damn. Thank you for a very stirring post.
-
anna says:
You’re absolutely right Violet, and don’t forget job opportunities. Feminism isn’t just about giving women a fair chance to be lawyers and doctors and CEOs, although that is important, but it’s also about making sure working class women have a fair chance to be police officers and truckers and firefighters, instead of being shoved off into low paying low valued jobs like secretary.
-
madamab says:
The liberal elitists’ refusal to accept that people in other states, with different educational and monetary backgrounds, are people too, is why right-wing populism works.
You can feel the commenter’s contempt oozing from the screen.
All I know is, a three-year-old child is able to comprehend the concept of justice. Who among us has not heard the whine from an outraged toddler, “It’s not FAIR!” So, what the commenter is really saying is that Americans that don’t look or sound like him (and yes, of course the commenter is a man) are dumber than three-year-olds.
I don’t believe that’s the case.
-
sharon says:
Hey Violet,
I am fresh off a local victory here against what is taking over California: medical pot, or rather, the ruse of medical pot. If you don’t have this crap in your state, trust me, you don’t want it. At any rate, one of many epiphanies I gleaned from this fight is that the opposition kept trying to paint us as a small, marginalized group of hysterical 12-steppers and over-anxious parents. Didn’t we get it that everyone BUT us wanted pot to be widely available in this city and state? It’s a little disheartening to hear that over and over. One day, I realized, hey wait a second, WE’RE the majority here - a group of businesses, homeowners, activists, parents, school admins, non-profit heads, etc. The pro-drug crowd was the hysterical shrieking minority, and just because they’re loud and well-funded doesn’t make them right, or the majority.
We turned that around by getting everyone across the city to realize, hey, we all feel the same way. No one wanted our neighborhoods overrun with pot shops, and no one wanted them camping next to schools.
It was very liberating, and heartening.
So I guess the lesson is to shout back to naysayers, ‘hey idiot, we’re the MAJORITY, not some exotic little fru-fru population that just makes a lot of noise. Watch out…’
The other little tidbit I gleaned from this is that candidates are oh so useful. Go to Dems, Republicans, anyone you can, that is running for office, and get them talking YOUR language. Don’t listen to their party line, or what they want to tell you. Tell them what you want them to say, and make them bend to that, because you’re a majority, see. They can’t get elected without you. They need the coverage to get elected and we need the visibility, and we need this shit fixed.
So when we approach candidates, we don’t accept the ‘oh, I am pro-choice’ line as the endgame that they support feminism. Sorry, that’s not enough. Where are you on rape as a hate crime? Where are you on fair pay and promotion practices for working mothers, whom we desperately need to raise our nation’s children without being a burden to society, and whom we further need to help power us out of this economic slump? Where are you on healthcare for ALL, instead of healthcare for just men?
And here’s one we used that I pirated off that old Republican ‘family values’ populist campaign, and intend to wield fiercely:
If you’re not for protecting women, if you’re not for healthcare for all, then you’re anti-child and anti-female. You belong right over in the corner with the pedophiles and child pornographers.
Who would sign up for that???? Back them into that corner and let them claw their way out, I say.
-
Nina M. says:
That’s why I find “fairness” to be a more compelling message than “justice.” To me “justice” implies retribution, judgement, punishment…. I don’t think we have a common understanding of what “justice” means. Justice is something that is determined, as in the image of the scales - there’s a balance of various factors that must be achieved, but by whom? Fairnesss, on the other hand, simply is - we all know it when we see it. I think.
Also - there is a nugget of truth hidden under GDC707’s manure pile. I don’t think a party based on a list of ideological / political positions will be that attractive to those who aren’t already engaged in some form of activism (so-called “regular people”). A party defined by certain values - fairness, personal autonomy, common decency, a social contract - that’s what we’re missing in our politics and our culture. The trust that comes from knowing someone is thinking about the issues the same way you are, that even if you don’t precisely agree, you have the same values and the same goal in mind - the trust that lets you open your mind a bit, to hear a different opinion - totally missing in our political culture.
The Democratic party tried what was derisively called the “special interests” coalition approach - it didn’t hold together because, as we found out, some constituencies were considered more equal than others. Party strategists saw the constituencies as building blocks they could use or discard on the way to achieving a goal. What the party lacked, and continues to lack, is a set of values, a moral core that unites people. A moral core is what makes the difference between a flag of convenience (which is what the Democratic party has become) and a movement.
-
Sasha, CA says:
The pro-drug crowd was the hysterical shrieking minority, and just because they’re loud and well-funded doesn’t make them right, or the majority.
What a load of crap! A majority of Californians voted for medical marijuana; we’re definitely not the minority here. Personally I hope we continue moving closer to a legalization of all drugs — the insanity that is the “war against [people who use certain] drugs” must end! Talk about injustice. I’m tired of seeing rape victims in prison whose only crime involved self-medicating with heroin or cocaine following their rape in order to avoid suicide. Often they are further brutalized behind bars by COs and other personnel. But I guess they had it coming, right? You probably also think that arresting prostitutes is a good way to “help” them. Tell me, are you also working to make alcohol illegal, or is that a drug you’re okay with?
-
S Brennan says:
I know you want what is good so please understand this criticism is not mean spirited.
I’m just going to point out, for many non-white minorities, “justice” is not a word that has positive connotations. “Justice” is tied to law enforcement and the Dept. of “Justice” which handles incarcerations…and lets remember we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Just saying
I think something that captures the “New Deal” optimism…and maybe some of that ying/yang Franklin/Eleanor sprinkled with Truman’s willingness to confront corruption. With IKE & JFK’s willingness to use government to build a better future…and LBJ’s sense of fairness.
Good luck
-
Sasha, CA says:
Interesting points, Nina, but I don’t see why the party couldn’t be defined by a list of values (e.g., fairness, personal autonomy, etc.) and a list of ideological/political positions like Violet originally proposed. I think by focusing only on the values, we run the risk of being too vague, since those things can mean different things to different people. Now, I realize that vague can also be a plus (see Obama’s campaign last year), but I know what my reaction would be if I heard about a new party based on the four values you mentioned: Sounds potentially interesting, but I need to know more about their positions on the issues — especially considering the Republicans’ history of co-opting the language of social justice movements.
-
myiq2xu says:
Sharon:
Obviously you don’t believe that medicinal marijuana is being smoked by sick people. Let’s assume you’re right. Why do you care if adults get high?
Do you really think that throwing people in prison is the best way to protect them from drugs?
-
Violet Socks says:
Interesting points, Nina, but I don’t see why the party couldn’t be defined by a list of values (e.g., fairness, personal autonomy, etc.) and a list of ideological/political positions like Violet originally proposed.
Huh. I thought a party based on values *is* what I originally proposed. Maybe I’m misunderstanding terms here.
To me, justice isn’t an ideological position; it’s a value. Economic justice, social justice, gender justice, etc. I think we need to build a party around those concepts (which also have the advantage of being well-developed areas of thought).
Perhaps those are more into the ideological end of the spectrum than words like “decency” or “fairness,” but I think it’s necessary. You start your party and someone immediately asks, what do you mean by decency? What do you mean by fairness? And then we point to: economic justice, social justice, gender justice, etc.
As for the non-white reception of the term justice, I think that “racial justice” is well-understood. In fact, we should probably add that to the list of core Justice values, just to be clear. MLK talked about justice in that sense.
-
SweetSue says:
Dr. Violet, you are so right to seperate on the ground, basically fair, pragmatic feminism from the cis/trans/zie/zer crowd.
Most Americans-most people-will react negatively when scolded for using the wrong terminology or not being able to anticipate every single slight and objection.
I’m not saying that I don’t care about gay rights, but some of these Third Wave sites act almost in a Maoist way, ganging up on some poor soul who offends their ultra sensitive, intersectionalist ways.
It’s funny how they don’t see how “privileged” they are to have the time to pick on each other over percieved slights.
Hillary’s brand of feminism spoke to the people and that’s my brand, too. -
Nina M. says:
I agree, Sasha. I would want to know the positions on specific issues. What I’m reacting to, I guess, is the presumption that there’s a natural alignment among the “progressive” issues - if by “progressive” one means “that thing that we have in common with the enviro, labor, civil liberties, gay, anti-poverty et al people.” I mean, there’s an assumption that because these issue positions fall under the “progressive” banner, there’s an underlying ideological alignment that we can all see and understand.
But if that alignment ever existed, its been unarticulated for so long that I’m not sure anyone knows what it is. Instead of the various “progressive” constituencies working together for a common good (Dr. King’s “Dream,” for example), we’re in a framework that has us competing against each other for a share of political muscle. Instead of a movement, we’ve got a complex multiparty arranged marriage in which everyone is supposed to go through the right motions - vote Dem no matter what, support the health insurance reform package no matter what, kiss the ass of the faith-based community no matter what, don’t talk about sexism no matter what - in order to get something out of it in return. There’s no center, so it doesn’t hold.
Sorry - I’m on a tangent, I think its the flu I have. I should not type when sick.
-
SweetSue says:
BTW, has anyone ever told you that you bear a remarkable resemblance to the gorgeous Mata Hari?
Well, let me be the first. -
Violet Socks says:
I still love the iconography of Lady Justice. And I like having the 6 (or now 7) Justice Values as the intellectual core of the party. But we could call the party the Fair Deal party or something, and sloganeering could emphasize “fairness” as the concept, as a translation of justice.
Which would also create an opportunity to educate people about the true meaning of justice. Justice isn’t — or shouldn’t be — blind. Justice isn’t some cold thing. True justice, as MLK and Gandhi and the Bible conceive it, is profound fairness. It’s thoughtful and it takes work and effort and compassion.
I think exploring the iconography of Lady Justice in all her potential guises (Egyptian Ma’at, etc.) could help to personalize the concept. Justice is wise and brave and fearless.
-
Nina M. says:
Violet - pay me no mind - I must add “no typing while sick” to my “no typing while drunk” and “no typing while getting drunk” rules.
-
Violet Socks says:
To recap, the (now 7) Justice Values:
–Economic justice: a fair deal whether you’re rich or poor.
–Gender justice: a fair deal whether you’re male or female.
–Racial justice: a fair deal whether you’re black or white or brown or beige.
–Social justice: a fair deal no matter what you look like or who you love or what you believe.
–Global justice: being a good global neighbor, treating other nations and nationals fairly.
–Environmental justice: a fair approach to the environment: clean air and water for everyone, not just rich folks. No dumping in poor people’s communities.
–Democratic justice: fair government, fair elections.
-
Violet Socks says:
Nina, don’t go away! Your comments are always great. Try drinking. Then you can type while sick+drunk. Who knows what’ll come out.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
I worry that the word “Deal” anywhere near us could scare away many who do share justice/fairness values, but who have been taught by 30 years of conservative propaganda to hate and fear lib’rul buzzwords. As galling as it may be to cede ground on terminology that resonates in our own minds, we may want to consider constructing an opinion study to test various names on a wider swath of people and viewpoints than are represented here. Possibly there is someone among us with experience in polling science.
The right wing has invested heavily in understanding the type of language Americans find compelling. Evil pollster Frank Lunz, for instance, has a new book out that shows how very important just the right wording can be in either attracting or repelling support. Neurolinguist George Lakoff has also written extensively on the right’s successful exploitation of value-loaded words to conceal the intent of their cruel policies.
One thing we should be sure to leverage is stories. I’ve heard the human mind described as a story-telling engine. Violet, I’m sure you know more about this, but I recall reading theories that a possible reason humans achieved speech at all was so we could gossip about each other. Regardless of how it came about, we can all appreciate the power of a compelling story to move us, transforming lofty principles into emotionally accessible truths. Obviously, Obama’s two books effectively manipulated the human tendency to believe a well-spun tale.
*****A
-
sharon says:
Quick defense of my position on the pot thing:
Medical pot approved by voters in 1996 in Ca, no problem. Idea is to give pot to people at the end of their rope access to something that might ease their suffering.
Dispensaries proliferating like mad to a density of one per corner, selling pot freely to kids and people recreationally, promoting their wares on school campuses, and cartels moving grows to mountainsides and killing hikers who stumble on them - NOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
Our fight wasn’t against medical marijuana nor is it against legalization. It was against ganjapreneurs interpreting a compassionate use law as open license to deal recreationally, and this is not what we voted for. Sorry if you misunderstood…
-
Sasha, CA says:
I thought a party based on values *is* what I originally proposed. Maybe I’m misunderstanding terms here.
Yes, you did; I agree that “social justice,” “gender justice,” etc. are values (just a little less vague than the ones Nina mentioned), but I was referring to the concrete policy positions you outlined (e.g., passing the ERA, campaign finance reform, promoting green technologies, an end to oil wars, etc.). I think those are crucial because without them, you still have the problem that the broad categories can mean very different things to different people. Sure, “environmental justice” is less vague than “fairness,” but that doesn’t mean people can’t and won’t interpret the term very differently. Case in point: A few weeks ago I was talking to a libertarian-leaning Republican who claimed to be deeply committed to “economic justice.” It probably won’t come as a surprise that his idea of economic justice is very different from ours. He believes in a flat tax because “it’s just not fair to make some people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than others,” and thinks that we spend far too much money helping out people who “are too lazy to work.” Or take the right-winger who came up with the idea to go to ACORN offices posing as a pimp and prostitute; she considers herself a social justice crusader.
Obviously, the more clearly we define what the party is about, the more likely it is that we will alienate some people who disagree with us on one or more issues. However, I think the current Democratic Party with its propensity for signing up anyone willing to run as a Democrat — no matter how conservative or out of touch with what is supposed to be the party platform — illustrates quite clearly the danger of trying to be all things to all people. It simply doesn’t work. You may be able to get more people elected this way, but you won’t be able to govern effectively. Also, I think linking all the policy positions under the umbrella of justice may help people reconsider their stands on at least some issues.
As for adding “racial justice” to the list of the core justice values — absolutely. Apart from other valid considerations, it just won’t go over well if “gender justice” has its own category, while “racial justice” is lumped in under the “social justice” heading. The alternative would be to do away with “gender justice” as a category and move all equal/civil rights movements under the “social justice” heading. That would have the advantage that LGBT, disability rights, etc. groups won’t feel relegated to second-class status by not having a category of their own, but since history has taught us that women’s rights tend to be overlooked or used as bargaining chips unless they are front and center, I can’t really endorse that approach.
-
lambert strether says:
Brava!
-
Violet Socks says:
but since history has taught us that women’s rights tend to be overlooked or used as bargaining chips unless they are front and center, I can’t really endorse that approach.
Exactly. In fact, I would refuse to have anything to do with an approach that lumped gender justice in with anything else. It must be fronted separately. Sexism, unlike most other forms of oppression, happens within groups: within the racial group, ethnic group, class group, etc. Typical liberation movements do absolutely nothing to touch women’s status. Gender justice must be tackled within each community.
The only thing that comes close to women’s situation is the gay issue — but even there, gay people tend to form communities with each other. Also, the gay population is tiny compared to the 50% of humanity that is female.
Women’s liberation is hard because we fall in love with, marry, and give birth to our oppressors. It’s interwoven in our own families. Extricating ourselves from that oppression is complicated as hell.
-
Branjor says:
Women’s liberation is hard because we fall in love with, marry, and give birth to our oppressors. It’s interwoven in our own families.
It takes a lot of emotional manipulation from birth onwards to get to that state of affairs and make it look “natural”.
give birth to our oppressors
Actually, women give birth to their daughters’ oppressors. Women are oppressed more by the men of their own generation than by their sons.
-
Sasha, CA says:
Sexism, unlike most other forms of oppression, happens within groups: within the racial group, ethnic group, class group, etc. Typical liberation movements do absolutely nothing to touch women’s status. Gender justice must be tackled within each community.
Agreed. Also, there’s an abundance of research indicating that greater equality for women — whether we’re talking about equal pay, access to education and loans, reproductive freedom, or rape/domestic violence prevention — does benefit the community as a whole, because women reinvest in their families and communities at a much higher rate than men. I tend to have somewhat mixed feelings about mentioning this because, frankly, women would deserve equal rights even if their increased equality did not also benefit men and children, but in the context of a political party’s platform, it is yet another good reason to prioritize gender justice.
-
Sasha, CA says:
Medical pot approved by voters in 1996 in Ca, no problem. Idea is to give pot to people at the end of their rope access to something that might ease their suffering.
Actually Prop 215 wasn’t just about easing the suffering of people “at the end of their rope.” It covered patients with any debilitating illness where the medical use of marijuana has been “deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician,” including but not limited to anorexia, arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, migraine, and multiple sclerosis.
Dispensaries proliferating like mad to a density of one per corner, selling pot freely to kids and people recreationally, promoting their wares on school campuses, and cartels moving grows to mountainsides and killing hikers who stumble on them - NOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
Yes, there are a lot of dispensaries in some parts of the state (though nowhere close to one on every street corner) — and not nearly enough in others — but I fail to see the problem with having a lot of dispensaries. I know I’d much rather have a pot dispensary on my block than a liquor store, and there sure as hell are many more liquor stores than medical marijuana dispensaries in California, but for some reason liquor stores don’t seem to bother you. As for pot being sold to recreational users, sure, some people make up symptoms and illnesses to get a doctor’s recommendation, but it’s not like these people weren’t smoking pot before Prop 215 passed. I really couldn’t care less if adults who decide they want to smoke pot get their weed from a dispensary instead of a dealer. In fact, it’s probably safer and there’s no risk of them trying and possibly getting addicted to the “hard” drugs the dealer may be selling in addition to pot. As for kids, they need their parents’ permission to get a doctor’s recommendation. And it’s not like every high school kid and most middle school students don’t know where to go to score some weed anyway. It’s always been much easier for minors to get their hands on pot than alcohol, but in some areas where there are so many dispensaries that pot dealers have increasingly been driven out of business, kids are complaining that scoring pot has actually become more difficult for them, similarly to alcohol. As for your last point about cartels killing hikers who stumble on their grow fields, that kind of thing will unfortunately continue to happen as long as there are illegal drugs. That’s why I support drug legalization and regulation — not just decriminalization.
Our fight wasn’t against medical marijuana nor is it against legalization. It was against ganjapreneurs interpreting a compassionate use law as open license to deal recreationally, and this is not what we voted for.
So, you’re not opposed to drug legalization? What exactly is your group trying to accomplish? Shut down dispensaries? Overturn the compassionate use law? If so, I think that would make it difficult to argue that your fight isn’t against medical marijuana.
-
Kookaburra says:
What would you say is the core, founding principle from which the 6-7 bullet points spring, Violet?
When I was young stripling, the libertarian movement appealed to me, because all I saw in the Dems and GOP were people who had no core principles, but decided on a “position” and then twisted their principles to justify it after the fact. The libertarians, with their simple, succinct, “The only legitimate role of government is to protect people from fraud and force,” very compelling. We need something like that - simple, to the point, that is a unifying idea in the party, from which we can build positions. I know there’s got to be one, and I’ve been turning it over and over in my head for the last few days, but I don’t feel like I’ve gotten anywhere yet.
-
Violet Socks says:
What would you say is the core, founding principle from which the 6-7 bullet points spring, Violet?
Justice!
Which means: Fairness!
Think of the the adjective “just,” which means “fair, equitable, righteous.” A just cause. A just society. Justice requires truth, compassion, and fair-dealing.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said justice is “the conscience of the whole of humanity.” Martin Luther King’s entire career was dedicated to the concept of justice (”Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”) All the social justice philosophies (economic justice, etc.) are about how to make society fair.
If you want a pithy summary, in my mind it’s that everyone deserves a fair break.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Justice also has a special place in our nation’s founding. It was first on the to-do list:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*****A
-
sister of ye says:
Coming out of lurking to make one point: If this movement censors itself to avoid words the Republicans have corrupted, it will be muter than Marcel Marceau. Part of the work will be to reclaim the true meanings of fairness, justice and equality.
It’ll involve a lot of work. But then, the Republicans have worked very hard to twist those meanings. So of course the reversal will require at least as much. There are plenty of examples, such as Dr. King’s, that will resonate with people to make it possible if the required work is done.
-
sharon says:
Sasha,
I am not going to debate you further. You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. It’s attitudes like yours that ruined my small town, and yes, put a pot shop on every corner. Spew your crap about legalization (those initiatives are BS) on someone else. I’ve seen what people like you are up to, and I didn’t stand for it.
-
Violet Socks says:
I’ve seen what people like you are up to, and I didn’t stand for it.
You need to dial it back. A lot of people are in favor of legalizing drugs, including me. Including my mother (and if you think my little 70-year old mother is a stoner who’s out to ruin your neighborhood, you’re out of your mind).
Drug criminalization = Prohibition = insanity.
Now, you can disagree, and that’s fine. But going off on people on the other side of the debate like they’re creepy drug fiends or something is just whacked.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
You know, Violet, re relisting 7 values, I have to say I find your original 6 to be a much better list, much clearer and not at all redundant.
I’m really uncomfortable about the slippery slope of pulling racial justice out from where it was originally mentioned under social justice.
As for adding “racial justice” to the list of the core justice values — absolutely. Apart from other valid considerations, it just won’t go over well if “gender justice” has its own category, while “racial justice” is lumped in under the “social justice” heading.
I had the opposite reaction to Sasha, CA, and I think it’s just tough luck if it doesn’t go over well since IMO it’s exactly the point we’re trying to make.
Of course I’m for justice for people irrespective of hue, parentage, language, culture, or whatever other category you want to include to define what is typically termed “race.”
The alternative would be to do away with “gender justice” as a category and move all equal/civil rights movements under the “social justice” heading. That would have the advantage that LGBT, disability rights, etc. groups won’t feel relegated to second-class status by not having a category of their own, but since history has taught us that women’s rights tend to be overlooked or used as bargaining chips unless they are front and center, I can’t really endorse that approach.
If all things were equal, gender justice could fall under social justice. But considering that improvements in racial justice have not translated into commensurate improvement in gender justice, and since the Patriarchy constantly pits these two in particular against each other to divide us, ALWAYS to the detriment of gender justice, it seems to me that a separate line item for racial justice actually dilutes what for me is the main purpose of this exercise: Gender Justice (in all non-PC honesty, justice for WOMEN).
If we go down that road, why then shouldn’t we list:
Age Group Justice,
National Origin Justice,
Sexual Orientation Justice,
Religious Affiliation Justice,
Physical Ability Justice
…
and so on?The other reason I’m uncomfortable with the idea of listing race as a separate category in our creed is that I find the very concept of “race” to be a meaningless distinction in a modern world. Our sameness as a species is encoded in our DNA. Any fertile male can mate with any fertile female and bear fertile young. All the superficial differences that arose via temporary geographical separation that people continue to fixate on and to exploit to subdivide us can’t erase that fundamental biological truth.
On the other hand, my woman-ness, also coded in my DNA and repeated in every cell in my body, distinguishes me from the other half or so of our species to an extent worth taking into consideration, at least for the time being.
*****A
-
Donald W. Paulus says:
Justice in all its forms is a marvelous concept and I wish you the best for your new party. But, to obtain justice , people must fight and fight hard. Great gains can be had but not without a tremendous struggle. And, those who are benefitting from injustice will not freely give up their advantages. So folks, gird yourselves for the battle of your collective lifetimes.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I don’t want to threadjack, but this is interesting to me: Do those who want legalized drugs have a problem with regulation of the drug sellers? Sharon’s problem seems like it could be solved with better (and enforced) regulations over who gets to be a dispensary and where dispensaries are located. Is this really controversial?
-
alwaysfiredup says:
*make that I apologize in advance for the threadjack, since it’s obvious that’s what I wanted to talk about.
-
myiq2xu says:
I have never heard a good justification for the prohibition of marijuana. If the purpose is to protect the users then why do we punish mere possession? “Protecting the children” is a rationale for regulation, not complete prohibition.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are legal. Marijuana is not physically addictive, it’s harmful effects are minimal and it’s virtually impossible to overdose on it.
The single biggest danger from marijuana is getting caught with it. If it were legal the dangers caused by prohibition would disappear and since it’s cheap to produce (it grows wild in some places) it could be taxed fairly heavily and still be cheaper than it is now.
-
Violet Socks says:
I personally think most drugs should be legal. Not just marijuana, but cocaine, heroin, acid, whatever. I think that the suite of laws and regulations surrounding alcohol (where it can be sold, who can consume it, when and where, etc., etc.) would be appropriate to handle the recreational drug situation.
Making drugs illegal just creates a vast, global criminal enterprise. It doesn’t stop usage and it doesn’t stop addiction. It just compounds those problems with the enormous addition of trafficking, crime, drug enforcement, gangs, etc., etc., etc.
When drugs are legal — as they were in the 19th century, both in the West and in China — what happens is that you get a small hardcore percentage of the population that is addicted (just as there is a small percentage of the population addicted to alcohol). And obviously that’s a problem, but it can be dealt with as the health/life issue that it is.
When drugs are illegal, you still get that small percentage of the population that is addicted. But now on top of that you have people being criminalized, lives ruined, plus of course the whole apparatus of global crime.
Dealing with drug abuse by criminalizing drugs is like curing your headache by shooting off your head. In my opinion.
-
Vera says:
I have a couple of thoughts to add to this threadjack. First, what Violet says about the small percentage of addicts that always exists in a population, whatever the laws: yes. This fact is readily perceived by anyone who reads a couple of unbiased sources about drugs, alcohol, and prohibition. Addiction seems to “travel,” so if the incidence of alcohol addiction (for instance) in a population decreases, other addictions increase. The overall level remains steady. In the U.S., from the beginning, there has been an pro-prohibition element (closely aligned with religious fundamentalists). Someone could write an interesting history tracing the prohibition movement from its roots to the present. The prohibitionists have never succeeded in reducing the instance of addiction. They only succeed in increasing the misery of addicts.
Meanwhile, people with chronic pain who can’t tolerate narcotic painkillers need access to alternatives. I think it’s fair to say that anyone in chronic pain, or with a loved one in chronic pain (I am in the latter category), understands this. People who know cannabis well know that it is a good alternative for some people. Unfortunately, in the U.S. the DEA blocks all attempts to do research on the pain relieving qualities of cannabis.
As public policy, the entire “war on drugs” has been an expensive failure. More than that, it has destroyed lives. It continues to destroy lives. It is a piece of governmental insanity that must be brought to an end and replaced with practical regulation.
-
Kookaburra says:
Oh gosh Donald, thank you for telling us that. I mean, I thought we could just pop on over to the Washington, sit down and really have a heart to heart with the President and the Senators and the Courts, and they’d see our point of view. I can’t imagine what we’d do without your wise, dudely warning.
-
Violet Socks says:
I don’t see any problem with what Donald said. Geez, folks, enough with the sniping in this thread. Merry fucking Christmas!
-
lambert strether says:
I’m confused about the 6 vs. 7. Were the 6 edited away and replaced? It might be nice to have them to compare, since Adrienne has questions about them.
* * *
It’s interesting that this thread has a strong legalization focus. Seems like this really is the burning (as it were) issue of the moment — the thing that would make people’s lives materially better is a really obvious way. Quite a data point.
-
Violet Socks says:
Lambert, just look at the original post. Nothing has been taken away — the six are still there. The 7th is racial justice.
-
lambert strether says:
Well, my memory isn’t what it used to be. Could there be a link back to the original post, then?
* * *
As far as 6 vs. 7, I see Adrienne’s point on the slippery slope, but working from what we’ve got, I don’t see an issue. As an exercise, I tried scoping the justice principles by one or two words they were “about.” See if this resonates:
–Economic justice: money (class… )
–Gender justice: gender
–Racial justice: color (appearance…)
–Social justice: love and compassion
–Democratic justice: the state
But I couldn’t complete the exercise for the last two:
–Global justice: being a good global neighbor, treating other nations and nationals fairly.
–Environmental justice: a fair approach to the environment; clean air and water for everyone, not just rich folks. No dumping in poor people’s communities.
Not sure why. The first translates to me as the empire, and the second as climate, but I really don’t think that’s right, and they are deeply intertwingled.
-
Violet Socks says:
The words Justice Party in this post go back to the original post. And here it is again.
-
Kookaburra says:
Sorry Violet, I got more than my usual dose today of male condescension (”Why are you going to school for that? Don’t you know that’s going to be hard?”) and Donald’s contribution put me over the top.
-
Sasha, CA says:
You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about.
Right, Sharon, I’ve only spent half my life working on drug law reform and harm reduction measures (needle exchanges, etc.), so of course I have no clue what I’m talking about.
-
Sasha, CA says:
Do those who want legalized drugs have a problem with regulation of the drug sellers?
Not at all. As I said before, I favor drug legalization and regulation — not just decriminalization, although decrim would be huge step forward. Even what they’ve successfully tried in some European countries — decriminalization of drug use and possession, while trafficking and selling continue to be illegal — would be major progress for the US.
As for the medical marijuana dispensaries in California, each county has different regulations and cities also have their own ordinances determining how many dispensaries may operate in a given area and where they may be located. Some towns are very “pot friendly,” while others are so hostile that not a single dispensary has been able to remain in business due to constant harassment and legal actions by drug warrior types. Some towns have simply banned all dispensaries within their city limits, sick people who need marijuana to alleviate their suffering be damned. There are also delivery services that have no storefront at all, but the anti-pot brigade has a problem with them too. You’ll note that Sharon never claimed that the dispensaries’ owners, employees, or customers are creating disturbances, bothering or assaulting pedestrians, etc. IME, people like her just hate pot and they especially hate the fact that the dispensaries enable people to purchase pot in relative safety. We can’t have that. I mean, how are we going to continue making our “pot ruins lives” arguments if people are no longer facing arrest, incarceration, rip-offs, and violence from drug dealers?
-
lambert strether says:
Violet, thanks. But I still don’t think that global justice and environmental justice are as “talking point ready” as the others.
-
cwaltz says:
I actually like global justice. Perhaps if we had such a thing our foreign policy wouldn’t be fubar. We seem to have two sets of standards. One for allies and another for everyone else.
-
lambert strether says:
cwaltz, I don’t dislike it, and I believe in it. My point speaks to rhetoric only.
-
Branjor says:
I remember a sick coworker of mine years ago who smoked marijuana for the relief of his Hodgkins disease pain, on the premises and with the knowledge of our employer. There was no problem with it.
-
Donald W. Paulus says:
Tell me, Kookaburra, is it your goal to convert friends into enemies? If so, you are doing a great job.
-
Violet Socks says:
Okay, enough with the arguing and sniping. Everybody stop. Even if you’re right. Just stop. It’s time to be HAPPY for the HOLIDAYS GODDAMNIT.
Lambert, I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking about. Are you trying to come up with rhetoric? I’m afraid I’m full of hot glue today, so no rhetorical brainstorming here.
-
Violet Socks says:
Global justice: the immediate talking point is GET THE FUCK OUT OF AF-PAK AND IRAQ.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
To be clear, here’s version I thought was better.
1.Economic Justice. Healthcare reform. Jobs creation. Wall Street clean-up. A tax system that helps the middle-class and working folks, instead of making the rich richer. Freedom from poverty. FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” (modernized and inclusive-ized).
2.Gender Justice. ERA. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal representation. Autonomy and choice. Ending violence against women and sexual exploitation. Eliminating gender bias. Creating a culture that respects and values women as persons. How about a “Second Bill of Rights” for women?
3.Global Justice. An end to wars of conquest and empire. An end to oil wars and corruption. An end to exploitation of poor countries by rich.
4.Social Justice. Equal rights and opportunities for all people. The freedom to live, love, and marry as you choose. Continuing the fight against racism and bigotry. Diversity and tolerance.
5.Environmental Justice. A clean, healthy world for everyone. Green technology and solutions.
6.Democratic Justice. Cleaning up government. Campaign finance reform. Fair elections. Grassroots democracy. Ballot access and fusion.
Though now as I consider the above, I see inconsistencies in framing. Some of the items are expressed as specific remedies or policies (e.g., Economic, Gender, Global, Democratic ), while others are more generic statements of principle (Social, Environmental; actually that one’s a mixture).
It might be a helpful exercise to express these 6 (or 7 with Racial Justice)
- all as generic principles, ideally a positive vision of what should be
- all as specific policies/remedies,
- all as one or two-word “main theme,” as Lambert has attempted to do.A matrix like that would be needed anyway to explain what the Justice Party is all about. Violet has done much of this in various places, with a generic principle version in the updated list at top.
I just don’t know about “fair deal.” It seems vague to me. For instance, I’m for progressive taxation and affirmative action (yeah, I know, weird considering I don’t believe race even exists. But racism exists.) — policies intended to reduce starting point advantages like inherited wealth or who your parents happen to be, in favor of merit and personal effort. Whereas some would say “fair” means “same for everybody” (flat tax, say, as someone mentioned above, being an example on one side of the spectrum, but possibly communism being one way over on the other side). Equal Opportunity?
OK, enough self-indulgence for now. As Violet has said over and over, words are hard.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
Though now as I consider the above, I see inconsistencies in framing. Some of the items are expressed as specific remedies or policies (e.g., Economic, Gender, Global, Democratic ), while others are more generic statements of principle (Social, Environmental; actually that one’s a mixture).
Okay, let me explain something. The words that follow each of those things are not intended as framing. They’re more like clues that I typed in at the last minute.
Most of the six Justice values correspond to existing areas of philosophy and activism. You can google them. I added in a few phrases and sample policies next to each one just to help people understand what I meant. But I did that very quickly — literally right before publishing the post — and it was never intended as formal framing of any kind. I was just glossing.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Please don’t take my dissection as nitpicking of your phenomenal work, Violet. I get what you mean. Just thinking ahead to what it takes to communicate and sell ideas to others, and to defend them coherently.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
No, that’s cool. I just want people to understand that what I put up was in no way, shape, or form a serious attempt at framing.
As for phenomenal work — ha! — actually that post was written very quickly that morning after I’d been up all night working on another project. The ideas had been percolating in my head, I had been thinking it through, but actually writing it down in the post…that was pretty quick and dirty.
-
Hedgepig says:
Australians have an expression that encapsulates the concept of fairness and justice for all that Violet is expressing. We call it “a fair go”. Not, of course, that Australians have managed to realise this particularly well either (we’re as sexist, racist etc as any other society), but it is a well known and commonly understood concept in the general populace. Is there no equivalent for Americans? “Fair deal” or “Fair break” seems pretty hard to misconstrue. I don’t know why “justice” isn’t also that plain and simple, but somehow it isn’t quite as transparent as the word “fair”. (My opinion is utterly irrelevant of course because my understanding of these things is based on Australian cultural quirks and this is an American endeavour but it’s hard not to want to get involved in something so invigorating!)
Just one more little, probably irrelevant bit of Australian political ephemera I can’t resist sharing:
For several years we had a small party that wielded quite a bit of power in our senate and they had an unofficial motto: “Keeping the bastards honest”. This was an idea that had a lot of appeal to the general populace, in Australia anyway.
I’m looking forward to watching the Justice Party develop in 2010, from the other side of the globe. Happy festive season and new year to you all. -
lambert strether says:
Well, I don’t think phenomenal work and writing very quickly are incompatible phenomena. The quickness could reflect a lifetime’s thought, for example.
* * *
And nothing says that an attempt at serious framing can’t evolve. Really, that’s what at least some of us bloggers try to do, is it not? Structure the discourse…
* * *
On Justice and Fairness: Today, I’m leaning toward Justice Party, but “fairness” as the value (and implied outcomes as the interest). I think if we weren’t living in a kleptocracy (androkleptocracy?) fairness might seem vague or subtle, but as things are, no. Yes, we’d need to evolve policy proposals (and internal mores and modes of operation that were “fair”) but as paraphrasing somebody upthread, children of six know what’s fair…
-
lorac says:
I think this would be more accurately called “The Social Work Party”. It’s what 3rd wavers did to Women’s Studies. It may work as a good party, but it did nothing to get progress for the women’s movement in the last couple of decades…
-
lambert strether says:
Still working away at the framing: I still think that “Global Justice” and “Environmental Justice” are in the “Why are these two different from all the others?” mode. They don’t seem to be able to be handled in quite the same way, rhetorically.
Then I thought maybe “green” for Environmental Justice, but doesn’t that cover Global Justice, too, and if so why not?
Then I was reminded of “the world is round” from Woman on The Edge of Time (in answer to a question like “Where do I throw this away?”)
-
okasha skatsi says:
I don’t think evnironmental justice is all that hard for Joe and Jane Sixpack to get on board with. Everyone wants to drink clean water. Everyone wants to breathe clean air. No one wants to be poisoned by the tailings of a mine uphill or upstream. No one wants to be an involuntary guinea pig on the effects of nonselective herbicide sprayed upwind from her neighborhood. (His poor neighborhood goes without saying.) In fact many of these issues can be tied to economic justice, since there’s no question that the gazillionaires in their gated communities will always provide themselves with clean water and air, even if they own the corporations that are fouling everyone else’s. Same with solid pollutants and experimental pest species eradication. These projects are always going to be situated next to people who either won’t protest because they need the low-paying jobs or because they don’t know how to protest. Teaching them how is one of the first things a Justice Party should do.
-
okasha skatsi says:
Oops. Runaway italics.
-
Activist Wednesday: He’s…Tired. « The Widdershins says:
[...] people to how heartless and elitist and warmongering this Administration is. Some of us are working on doing something about it, and we’ll keep working on it after the New [...]
-
Feminist Friday: What Do We Do In 2010? – UPDATED « The Widdershins says:
[...] what if I vote the Justice Party? Well, what if there is no Justice Party until 2012? I think it would be a miracle of epic [...]
