AZ-01-- Wenona Benally Baldenegro Vs... Garbage

Tomorrow is primary day in Arizona. I want to spend a little time talking about the race for the district the Democrats have the clearest shot of turning blue-- AZ-01. One of the largest in America by square miles, this is basically the one district in the state that doesn't have voters from Phoenix of Tucson dominating its politics. In 2008, Republican incumbent Rick Renzi was driven out of Congress in a series of scandals and, in a year that saw the whole country revolted by Republican corruption, a middle of the road Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, beat a far right Republican, Sydney Hay, 155,791 (56%) to 109,924 (40%)-- a higher percentage not just than Obama but by favorite son, John McCain! But she was so disappointing to Democrats and so utterly worthless in Congress that she was immediately defeated by Republican Paul Gosar in 2010, part of the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse-- 112,816 (50%) to 99,233 (44%). Democrats didn't go over and vote for Gosar; they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a conservative nothing like Kirkpatrick. So along comes 2012 and Steve Israel immediately re-recruits Kirkpatrick to run again in a redistricted-- and far bluer-- AZ-01. In fact, it's so much bluer, that Gosar decamped for AZ-04, a low-info red hellhole, where his reactionary, anti-working family agenda will be better appreciated. And that brings us to tomorrow's primary for the Democratic nomination to represent AZ-01.

There's a really good candidate running, Wenona Baldenegro. But she's very progressive. And she's very independent minded. And she's not interested in playing footsie with corporate lobbyists or Wall Street banksters. She is, in fact, exactly what Steve Israel doesn't want in the House Democratic caucus. So he launched a vicious campaign to undermine her and boost the bland, robotic Kirkpatrick. Israel would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive like Wenona. This is an e-mail I got from a friend in Arizona that came from Wenona's campaign. After studying the DCCC intensely since 2005, the e-mail sounds spot on, although I don't think the DCCC's intentions are as much about racism as they are about careerism and corruption-- the only things that motivate hacks like Hoyer, Israel, Wasserman-Schultz and Crowley, the powers there. (Most of the accusations of racism, though are directed towards the Pima County and Arizona state Democratic Party. I have no first-hand knowledge of either but the case below is very persuasive and fits the picture well.)

This essay addresses a civil-rights issue that Mexican Americans and other communities of color have had to deal with for generations: the Democratic Party’s thinking that it owns us and taking our support for granted… applying a double standard to candidates of color… working against our interests even as it demands and expects our support, etc.

The racial-ethnic overtones of the Democratic Party’s attitude are particularly egregious in its actions regarding Wenona Benally Baldenegro’s historic congressional candidacy.

[While the focus here is on the Democratic Party’s actions regarding Wenona Benally Baldenegro, those actions can be generalized to other candidates of color, to other communities.]

Superbly qualified, Wenona is a Harvard-educated attorney who has extensive political and policy development experience and who is energizing constituencies-- Native Americans, youth, Latinos, women, etc.-- essential to the electoral success of the Democratic Party.

The only Native American congressional candidate in the country, Wenona, when elected, will be the first Native American woman in the history of the U.S. to serve in Congress and the first Native American, man or woman, from Arizona elected to Congress.

Yet, the Democratic Party-- at the Pima County, state, and national levels-- which, as a matter of policy and practice is not supposed to support one candidate over another in contested Primaries, is going all out to derail Wenona Benally Baldenegro’s candidacy and to defeat her.

Here’s what’s going on, re: Wenona’s Congressional District 1 candidacy:

Officials and representatives of the Pima County and Arizona Democratic Party are…

1. Falsely representing Wenona’s opponent as an incumbent to justify undermining Wenona’s campaign.

2. Calling Wenona supporters and pressuring them to withdraw their support of Wenona.

3. Sponsoring fundraisers for Wenona’s Primary race opponent.

The Party claims to be opposed, on principle, to the Payday Loan industry and to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, the right wing group funded by the Koch brothers), yet it is…

4. Openly and enthusiastically supporting a white candidate-- Wenona’s opponent-- whose campaign is funded by Payday Loan and ALEC lobbyists even as they are…

5. Undermining the campaign of a Native American candidate, Wenona, who (a) has worked against Payday Loan predators and (b) does not accept any corporate or ALEC donations.

The Democratic Party’s anti-Native American/Mexican American campaign goes all the way to the national level, viz.:

1. The national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman, Steve Israel, hosted a fundraiser for Wenona’s opponent, Ann Kirkpatrick.

2. Democratic Party National Committee shill James Carville sent an e-mail imploring us “to help Ann Kirkpatrick” and fight “…the Koch boys who are trying to buy this election…”

Carville’s and the Democratic Party’s hypocrisy is staggering, given that Carville and Kirkpatrick are swimming in the same cesspool as “the Koch boys”-- i.e., Ann Kirkpatrick’s campaign is funded heavily by ALEC lobbyists! [This is discussed more fully below.]

The majority of rank-and-file Democrats are decent and principled people, and in an ideal world, they would be outraged about the Democratic Party’s actions and do something about it. But the Democratic Party is run by an elite clique who purposely keeps the rank-and-file Democrats in the dark about what they’re doing. What the Democratic Party does do is maintain a stable of sycophants, minions and hangers-on who parrot the tired “lesser of evils” line. In their perverted view, Democratic race-ethnic discrimination is qualitatively better than Republican race-ethnic discrimination. Applying these folks’ reasoning retroactively, our community should not have challenged the laws and policies that:

1. Mandated that Mexican American children attend segregated schools with inferior facilities… because, well, they at least got to go to school.

2. Allowed Mexican American children to swim in public pools only one day a week, the day before the pool was cleaned… because, well, they at least got to swim…Etc., etc.

What prompted this essay?

Recent televised comments by the Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party brought to mind the issues discussed here, viz.:

Here’s the verbatim transcript of the July 6, 2012, (PBS program) “Political Roundtable” dialogue between program host Jim Nintzel and Jeff Rogers-- speaking in his official capacity as Chairman of the Pima County Democratic Party:

Start at Minute 21:54:

Jim Nintzel: Uh… Jeff, you mentioned earlier the Primary in this race, CD1 race. You’ve already got complaints from Wendy (sic) Benally Baldenegro that the Democrats aren’t playing fair in this race.

Jeff Rogers: Right. Well, I… I… I think that… that… that when we have an incumbent… uh, something that’s almost like a pseudo incumbent, like Ann Kirkpatrick, the Party has kind of rallied around her… uh… because she just… she just… she’s probably the best chance we have to win that race.

And I really do like Wenona a lot, and I have a lot of respect for her and consider her a rising star, but I just don’t think that this is her year. At some other point in time, I think… uh… she’ll present a wonderful… a wonderful new face to the party, but I just think that Ann Kirkpatrick has huge advantages, and so it’s… it’s hard to deny that, you know, everyone has rallied around Ann and her campaign. End at Minute 22:44

I. What part of “pseudo” do you people not understand? Kirkpatrick is a “pseudo incumbent” and therefore deserves the Party’s support? Jeff Rogers knows full well that the CD-1 seat is an open seat and has no incumbent and that Kirkpatrick is not an elected official and is not an incumbent of anything. “Pseudo” means “false,” “fake,” “not real.” In his zeal to deprive the Native American community a voice in Congress, Rogers turns “pseudo” on its head. [Not to mention that he obviously thinks we’re stupid and don’t know what “pseudo” means.]

II. WE’LL decide when the likes of you can run for office… Patronizingly (visualize Rogers patting Wenona on the head), Rogers asserts that (1) Wenona is a nice person and all, but that he and the Democratic Party have decided that “...this is just not her year” to run, and (2) he and the Democratic Party will determine when it’s her time to run. In essence, Rogers, playing God, is articulating the age-old mantra: We, your betters, will tell you people when you can run for office…in the meantime, be good little boys and girls and hang around the dinner table and there’ll be scraps for you after we eat.

III. So what if Kirkpatrick lost 68,000 votes from one election to another… to us she’s a winner! Rogers asserts that he and the Democratic Party support Kirkpatrick over Wenona because Kirkpatrick “…is the best chance we have to win that race.” But Rogers knows full well that in one of the-- if not THE-- worst and most embarrassing electoral defeats in Arizona history, 68,000 Democrats who voted in 2008 stayed home in 2010 and did not vote rather than vote for Kirkpatrick! (Arizona Daily Sun, 11/7/10)

Keep in mind that there was no organized “Do not vote…” campaign-- 68,000 Democratic voters individually and independently stayed home rather than go vote for Kirkpatrick. Incredibly[!], the Pima County Democratic Party and the Arizona Democratic Party would rather support a white candidate they know in their hearts will lose the CD-1 race rather than support a Native American woman who would most likely win that race.

IV. It’s “Payday Joe” we hate...We love “Payday Ann”…

A. In the last Tucson City Council election, the Pima County Democratic Party took the unprecedented action of not only endorsing one candidate over another in a contested City Council Primary race, it also invested $15,000 in a billboard campaign demonizing the hapless Joe Flores as “Payday Joe.” (As I understand it, either Joe Flores or his children operated a check-cashing and payday loan business.)

Jeff Rogers righteously expressed his and the Democratic Party’s abhorrence of the Payday Loan industry and anyone associated with that industry as justification for this first-ever action by the Pima County Democratic Party.

For sure, the Payday Loan industry is a vulture industry that preys on people’s misfortunes and makes hundreds of millions in profits off of the misfortune of its victims, destroys families, etc.
Methodist Bishop Minerva G. Carcano, Arizona Ecumenical Council president, described Payday lenders as “…thieves stealing from the most vulnerable.” (Tucson Citizen, 10/02/08) Carcano’s comment was made in the context of opposition to the 2008 Payday Loan industry-sponsored Proposition 200 in Arizona that would have allowed Payday lenders to charge 391% interest and to raid borrowers’ bank accounts.

B. But wait… Ann Kirkpatrick, whom Jeff Rogers and the Pima County Democratic Party and the Arizona Democratic Party enthusiastically support, is awash in payday loan money! The Payday Loan industry lobbyists who worked together on the aforementioned Prop 200, i.e., to foist Prop 200 on us, were [Republican] Jonathan Paton, [Democrat] Mario Diaz, and [Republican] Stan Barnes.

Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reports show that Mario E. Diaz, chief lobbyist for the predatory Payday Loan industry in Arizona, has made a series of substantial contributions-- $1,873 here, $2,300 there… I stopped counting at $8,746-- to Ann Kirkpatrick, the candidate Jeff Rogers, the Pima County Democratic Party, and the Arizona Democratic Party are actively supporting.

Mario Diaz, chief lobbyist for the predatory Payday Loan industry, also contributes tens of thousands of dollars to scores of Arizona and Pima County Democratic local, state, and federal candidates and incumbents, and… is a major contributor to the Arizona Democratic Party—$5,000 here, $2,000 there…I stopped counting at $25,810.

And then there’s Stan Barnes. The person consistently described in news reports as the “spokesman for the Payday Lending industry” in Arizona, (Republican) Stan Barnes, also contributed thousands of dollars to Kirkpatrick’s campaign and to the Arizona Democratic Party. [A relevant aside: Ann Kirkpatrick contributor Stan Barnes hosted fundraisers for Russell Pearce during the Recall Pearce campaign, even as Wenona Benally Baldenegro and her campaign staff traveled to Mesa, AZ, to gather Recall Pearce petition signatures, and on Nov. 8, 2011, Wenona and her staff canvassed neighborhoods in Mesa to get out the vote that recalled Russell Pearce.]

In contrast to Kirkpatrick, Wenona has no ties to the predatory Payday Loan industry and has not received contributions from anyone associated with that industry. In fact, Wenona, while working for the non-profit organization Arizona Natives Assets Coalition, was an advocate for people being exploited by Payday Lenders and conducted workshops for working and low-income families regarding how to avoid Payday lenders. Yet, Jeff Rogers and the Pima County Democratic Party and the Arizona Democratic Party are actively opposing Wenona Benally Baldenegro and supporting the candidate subsidized by Payday Loan Lobbyists Mario Diaz and Stan Barnes-- “Payday Ann.”

So, to recap: The Pima County Democratic Party’s and the Arizona Democratic Party’s position is: Association with the Payday Loan industry is vile and indecent EXCEPT if you’re a white Republican who opportunistically changed her registration to Democrat and receives massive contributions from Payday Loan lobbyists… in which case we’ll support you. [Dare we ask: Can we expect the Pima County Democratic Party to pony up $15,000 to put up “Support Payday Ann” billboards in the Pima County portion of CD-1?]

V. Rogers pretends to object to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). He recently reposted (with the comment: “So, what’s going on here?”) on his Facebook page a blog that criticized a Mexican American legislative candidate because a PAC that has ties to an organization associated with ALEC did a mailing in support of the candidate. Fair enough. ALEC is a right-wing organization funded by brothers Charles and David Koch. The Koch brothers and ALEC are the major funders of the Tea Party movement and develop legislation to, among other things, defund Planned Parenthood and disenfranchise minority voters. But wait…

Rogers and the Pima County Democratic Party and the Arizona Democratic Party enthusiastically support Ann Kirkpatrick who has received scores of contributions from ALEC members such as the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (which makes millions of dollars in profits from the Mexicans “rounded up” by America’s most racist Sheriff, Joe Arpaio), Arizona Public Service (APS), Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, and Schreck, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the Salt River Project (SRP), and others.

So, to recap: The Pima County Democratic Party’s and the Arizona Democratic Party’s position is: Having a PAC that has ties to an organization associated with ALEC do a mailing in your support is vile and indecent if you are a Mexican American candidate… BUT if you’re a white Republican who opportunistically changed her registration to Democrat and receives many, many contributions from ALEC members…we’ll support you, especially if you’re running against a Native American lifelong Democrat who has no ties to ALEC.

[There are advantages to having media friends who cover politics: Jeff Rogers’ “Political Roundtables” pal, Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly, also makes hay of the ALEC-associated PAC doing a mailer for a Mexican American candidate (which the candidate knew nothing about and basically disowns) and conveniently ignores the scores of ALEC-associated contributions Rogers’ candidate, Ann Kirkpatrick, has knowingly solicited and accepted.]

VI. Kirkpatrick is our pseudo incumbent who is in the pocket of the Payday Loan industry and depresses Democratic turnout and stands proudly with the Republicans and ALEC… During her single term in Congress (before 68,000 Democrats refused to come out to vote for her for a second term), Ann Kirkpatrick stood with the Republicans and ALEC…

1. Against the Latino community and fought the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against SB 1070, calling it a “sideshow” (on this Kirkpatrick stood proudly with Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and Joe Arpaio) and TWICE refused to vote for the DREAM Act.

2. Against unions regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, which speaks to the issue of the rights of workers to unionize.

3. Against Native Americans and unions by supporting the union-busting Rio Tinto corporation that is setting up a non-union mine operation, which will entail the destruction of sacred Apache land.

4. And turned her back on her environmentalist support base (the Sierra Club and others) by supporting the Rio Tinto mine, which, in addition to destroying Apache sacred sites, will do immense environmental damage.

5. And voted to support the tax cuts for the wealthy passed under President Bush.

6. And voted “Nay” on H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009.

7. And voted “Nay” on H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Accountability and Consumer Protection Act.
(Visualize Kirkpatrick’s Payday Loan Lobbyist donors looking over her shoulder to make sure she voted the “right” way on No. 6 and No. 7 above.)

8. And voted “Nay” on HR 1256, the FDA Oversight of Tobacco Products bill.

9. And voted “Nay” on H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009.

10. And voted “Nay” on H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2009.

11. And…well, you get the picture.

And Kirkpatrick’s pattern of voting in lockstep with Republicans and ALEC is not something in the past. Just this month, the (Flagstaff) Arizona Daily Sun ran an article comparing the Democratic and Republican CD-1 candidates’ stands on various issues. Here’s what that article concluded:

“Out of 30 issues, Kirkpatrick wound up agreeing nearly as many times with Republicans Wade and Martin (11 votes each) as she did with Benally Baldenegro (12 votes).” (ArizonaDailySun.com, August 7, 2012)

So, to recap: The Pima County Democratic Party’s and the Arizona Democratic Party’s position is: We oppose Republicans EXCEPT if you’re a white Republican who opportunistically changed her registration to Democrat and votes consistently with Republicans and ALEC and are running against a highly qualified progressive Native American woman who is a lifelong Democrat and who is energizing several key Democratic constituencies…in which case we’ll support you.

IX. That backbone is there, people just need to find it… What the Democratic Party is doing is wrong. The Party’s sycophants, minions, and hangers-on defending the Democratic Party’ actions is wrong. Rank-and-file Democrats who know what’s going on closing their eyes to what’s going on and doing nothing is wrong.

The do-nothings are acting out the script written for them: the Democratic Party and its leadership count on Democrats not standing up to them and forcing them to act in a principled and ethical manner.

For generations the attitude and actions described herein have been visited on the Native American and Mexican American communities.

And for generations we have fought back and have not only survived, we have flourished!

That is because there have always been people in our communities who have refused to be apologists for, enablers of, injustice… people who have had the backbone to stand up and speak out and fight against injustice.

History teaches us that if enough people stop hanging around under the Democratic Party’s dinner table waiting for crumbs to fall our way, things can and do change. Our collective political behavior has to be driven by the irrefutable fact that our communities have paid their dues-- over and over again!-- over the years…we have earned a place at the dinner table.

And if one considers the historical fact that our communities often make the difference between Democrats’ winning and losing elections, our place should be at the head of the table!

What’s easy, and what takes courage… In Arizona, for Democrats it’s easy to criticize Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, Tom Horne, John Huppenthal and their partners in hate. No courage involved there. (Other states have their counterparts to Pearce, Brewer, Arpaio, et al.) What takes courage…integrity…principles is to confront those who claim to be on our side but who act against our interests…

What takes courage… integrity… principles is to declare that Democratic race-ethnic discrimination IS NOT qualitatively better than Republican race-ethnic discrimination. THAT’S where the backbone comes in! Those amongst us who have a full-grown, or even a budding, backbone need to organize ourselves outside of the Democratic Party apparatus and... GIVE AND WITHHOLD our votes and support on the basis of principle rather than the “Democratic racism is qualitatively better than Republican racism” hoax…viz.:

Support good issues and candidates on the basis of principle rather than opportunism… Oppose candidates who stand with those whose interests are inimical to our community’s interests… Take on openly and publicly the Democratic Party elite who treat our community as if they own us and take our support for granted… who apply a double standard to candidates of color… who work against our interests even as they demand and expect our support, etc.

Even a cursory study of history instructs us that the do-nothings… those who crave the approval of their superiors… those who are satisfied with crumbs rather than a full meal… those who accept race-ethnic discrimination as their due… are not the ones who influence the course of history and are indeed as much the enemy as the perpetrators of discriminatory actions.

A couple of quick questions in closing…

1. If Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar Chavez had been part of the do-nothing, sycophant, minion, and hanger-on crowd, would we revere and respect them as we do?

2. This question, to which I have yet to receive a cogent answer, is one I’ve been asking for decades. But I’m an optimist in whom hope springs eternal, so here it is again: If Democratic race-ethnic discrimination is qualitatively better than Republican race-ethnic discrimination-- as the Democratic Party and its sycophants, minions, and hangers-on insist-- and is something we should embrace… Does that mean we have been unjustly and unfairly demonizing the likes of Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Bull O’ Connor, and the KKK of the 1950s-1960s, all of whom were Democrats and operated under the auspices and with the full support of the Democratic Party, and therefore owe these fine Democrats an apology?

Tomorrow is voting day in AZ-01. In case you don't read The Guardian-- and if you're still not fully convinced by the arguments above-- let me recommend a column by Glenn Greenwald that was published yesterday, which warns of the dangers inherent in kissing up to power.

[I]t is very easy to get people to see oppression and tyranny in faraway places, but very difficult to get them to see it in their own lives ("How dare you compare my country to Tyranny X; we're free and they aren't"). In part that is explained by the way in which desire shapes perception. One naturally wants to believe that oppression is only something that happens elsewhere because one then feels good about one's own situation ("I'm free, unlike those poor people in those other places"). Thinking that way also relieves one of the obligation to act: one who believes they are free of oppression will feel no pressure to take a difficult or risky stand against it.

But the more significant factor is that one can easily remain free of even the most intense political oppression simply by placing one's faith and trust in institutions of authority. People who get themselves to be satisfied with the behavior of their institutions of power, or who at least largely acquiesce to the legitimacy of prevailing authority, are almost never subjected to any oppression, even in the worst of tyrannies.

Why would they be? Oppression is designed to compel obedience and submission to authority. Those who voluntarily put themselves in that state-- by believing that their institutions of authority are just and good and should be followed rather than subverted-- render oppression redundant, unnecessary.

Of course people who think and behave this way encounter no oppression. That's their reward for good, submissive behavior. As Rosa Luxemburg put this: "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." They are left alone by institutions of power because they comport with the desired behavior of complacency and obedience without further compulsion.

But the fact that good, obedient citizens do not themselves perceive oppression does not mean that oppression does not exist. Whether a society is free is determined not by the treatment of its complacent, acquiescent citizens-- such people are always unmolested by authority-- but rather by the treatment of its dissidents and its marginalized minorities.

In the US, those are the people who are detained at airports and have their laptops and notebooks seized with no warrants because of the films they make or the political activism they engage in; or who are subjected to mass, invasive state surveillance despite no evidence of wrongdoing; or who are prosecuted and imprisoned for decades-- or even executed without due process-- for expressing political and religious views deemed dangerous by the government.

People who resist the natural human tendency to follow, venerate and obey prevailing authority typically have a much different view about how oppressive a society is than those who submit to those impulses. The most valuable experiences for determining how free a society is are the experiences of society's most threatening dissidents, not its content and compliant citizens. It was those who marched against Mubarak who were detained, beaten, tortured and killed, not those who acquiesced to or supported the regime. That is the universal pattern of authoritarian oppression.

The temptation to submit to authority examined by Compliance bolsters an authoritarian culture by transforming its leading institutions into servants of power rather than checks on it. But worse, it conceals the presence of oppression by ensuring that most citizens, choosing to follow, trust and obey authority, do not personally experience oppression and thus do not believe-- refuse to believe-- that it really exists.

Now, if you live in AZ-01, go out and do the right thing... for humankind.