Losing your job impacts more than just your income. Don Peck’s How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America lays this out in an expansive piece that looks at how joblessness wreaks havoc on people’s psyche, their relationships, and culture overall.

Defining and understanding a Depression requires more than economics; it requires empathy. Empathy is neither a progressive nor conservative trait. We all demonstrate it in different ways and in different circumstances. Empathy’s universality makes it something we can organize around and build upon.

Empathy is oft forgotten when policy remedies to crises are being considered. Policy is inherently mechanical and pedantic. But the way we frame policy debates does not have to be. Understanding the people impacted must be a the forefront of our politics.

Take, for example, today’s un[der]employment disaster. The debate on what to do about it has withered down to whether increasing the deficit is warranted. There is not a less human way to talk about this human catastrophe than that. Tell that to the recent college graduates that Peck writes about who will earn significantly less money over their careers because they were born in the wrong year and will be more likely to develop drinking, drug, and marital problems. They hear “deficit” and think “doesn’t matter.”

What matters is the broken promise made to them that if they worked hard and got a degree that they’d have a job. What matters is the lack of personal and collective responsibility that threw their professional trajectory off course. What matters is the steely feeling of student loan debt jammed into the back of their minds like a gun during a stickup. Using this, we should instead be debating how to get students the jobs they’ve been educated for and everyone the jobs they’ve trained for.

This principle should inform all of our work: enable people to build and pursue their talents and use them for the benefit of themselves and society. Applying this value to this and other debates sets the table for a progressive future on all fronts. Some examples:

• Health care: Fear of sickness or injury must not deter hopeful and ambitious people; give them the protection they deserve.
• Education: Properly equip public educational infrastructure with well-compensated teachers and staff, well-designed curricula and tools, and well-implemented + structures and practices.
• Job creation: Full employment is full dignity; everyone working means everyone bettering themselves, their families, and society.

People must be at the forefront of our organizing and our politics. People don’t want rhetoric or process, they want answers.

One Love. One II.

Photo credit: srqpix on Flickr

Because policy makers are thinking about the next election and not the next generation, our politics remain at a standstill.

Sadly, this is also true of the broader progressive movement that’s been rightly critical of elected Democrats. It is important to show power & numbers and tell elected officials that they’ll get unseated if they do the wrong things. What’s missing is a broader context.

A bigger, more important story

“Next election pressure” has to be part of a larger, cohesive narrative describing a progressive future. We worry too much about “speaking our elected officials’ language” instead of giving them a better vision of a future and a story that they can use to make the right policies and get re-elected. Run for office if you want to do that. Even then, telling a bigger, better, simpler story will still work better.

The difference between “we’ll un-elect you” and “there’s a train leaving the station that everyone’s on board except you” is subtle and substantial. The first narrative is timely. It is framed in terms of the next election that’s 2, 4, or 6 years away. It can be fired off quickly with context. The second, stronger narrative is timeless. It can be used candidates on the campaign trail just as easily as during my annual Christmas political “debates” with my family.

Marshall Ganz in a recent interview with The Citizen said:

The legislative process has been much more responsive to the creation of crises that legislation is needed to resolve than it has been to, “Gee, wouldn’t it be a good idea if we made things work better?’ So, the job of those trying to create change is actually to create crises that require legislative solution.

What Ganz calls “creating crises” I call telling a story bigger than a specific policy or an election.

Example: Health Care

During President Obama’s nomination speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, he said something I wish he and others would remember: “don’t make a big election about small things.” That type of thinking would have benefited us all on health care reform.

Let’s describe what we want the days after the next election to be like. Instead of yelling and screaming about whose head you want on a silver platter, talk about the progressive future in a way that’s simple and compelling (and probably excludes your least-favorite elected officials).

Let’s replace “Democrats that block health care reform will be challenged in primaries and face the wrath of constituents on election day.” with the following:

America is a place where we give a damn about one another and are proud to see people be healthy and succeed in life. We pay homage to our heroes big and small every day. It is disgusting that being unlucky enough to inherit susceptibility to certain illnesses or being injured in a car accident puts not only our lives but our dreams in danger. The best way to protect our dreams and our future is to protect our health from any and everything that threatens it. Right now, the biggest threat to our health comes from insurance companies that determine who gets help and who doesn’t, who’s in pain and who isn’t, who lives and who dies. There are more people in this country who know this is unacceptable than who think this is OK. That majority will rule tomorrow.

This says the same thing while simultaneously communicating the values that are the foundation of a progressive framework for every policy debate. They are the values that define our progressive future.

Movements transcend elections.

Minutiae murders movements.

The necessity of elections must not distract us from our broader goals of building power and creating a better future. Don’t forget this tomorrow or the next time a politician does the wrong thing.

One Love. One II.

What’s up fam, I hope all is well.

I want to talk about a very serious relationship topic what I am tentatively calling the doctrine of moral inferiority. This idea was inspired by conversations I have had with Black women but I believe the principles transcend gender and culture. I am going to explain the doctrine, how I think it works in practice, and conclude with a special note for my sisters.

Definitions
Moral inferiority – The state of being where you and/or your partner know that you are
1)    More than likely will be the person to make a major mistake leading to a break up. (lying, cheating, disrespectful, inattentive, etc.)
2)    More likely to have weaker relationship management skills to work through rough patches. (communication, transparency, desire to see that both parties grow).

Moral Superiority – The state of being where you and/or your partner know that you are
1)    More than likely, will not be the one to make a major mistake leading to a break up (lying, cheating, disrespectful, inattentive, etc.)
2)    More likely to have better relationship management skills to work through rough patches (communication, transparency, desire to see that both parties grow, etc.).
3)    You don’t use your moral superiority as a bludgeon to devalue your partner.

Moral Superiority & Inferiority
I am using the term moral but I am not talking about morals in the strict sense but I am referring to the character that is required for a productive relationship. Moreover, each idea is relative to the partner you are with. There have been times I have been morally superior and there are times that I have been morally inferior. The relativity of these ideas suggests that you shouldn’t think of yourself as one or the other in absolute terms. The roles are also fluid such that you may ebb and flow between moral and superiority based on the specific circumstances within your relationship. However, I will encourage you to appreciate these differences because a lot of what I have and will discuss is often located beneath the surface of the relationship but rarely is dealt with on its own terms. This is merely a new way of examining and improving our intimate relationships.

Moral Superiority
Moral Superiority does not mean that you are perfect nor does it mean that you are better than your partner. What it does mean is that you are better at managing the ebbs and flows of a relationship. It is tantamount to saying I am physically superior to my wife because I can lift more weights than her. That doesn’t make me a better person; it just means I can lift more weights than her. In the same respect, being better at managing a relationship does not negate any other character defects and should not be taken as such.

Moral Inferiority
Moral inferiority does not mean you are less valuable than your partner. But let’s keep it funky. How many of us have been in relationships where we felt that we needed to eat some Relationship Wheaties because you knew you had to be a better person to make the relationship work? If you ever felt that way, then it is probably an outgrowth of a feeling of moral inferiority.

Mind v. Reality
So how does this operate in our mind? I think in our minds, we would ideally all want to be and be with morally superior people. Whether we are encouraging ourselves or our partners to be better, I think there is a general tendency to move toward this ideal.

Despite the ideal, in real life it generally takes time for moral inferiority/superiority traits to become clear in you and your partner. Of course, early in the relationship when things can’t seem to go wrong, there is no real opportunity to see someone’s true relationship skills. Usually, a major mistake or the repeating of a hurtful act begins the process of delineating who is morally inferior and morally superior. This speaks to who tends to make the bulk of the mistakes, which of you does the bulk of relationship work, etc.

You: morally superior/Partner: morally inferior or morally superior
I think it is easier to be in relationships where you are morally superior, regardless of whether your partner is. What does this mean? When both people are morally superior, that seems to be the ideal that many if not most people would seem to want.

However when you are morally superior and your partner is not, you now in a privileged position to set the bulk of the terms by which the partner will oblige if they want to stay in your good graces. Your partner will often tacitly concede such power as a sign how they view themselves in the relationship and their way of making peace with the situation.

You: morally inferior Partner: morally superior
This arrangement can work for good or for bad. I say that it can be for good because even if things don’t work out between these two, you can probably learn some helpful tips about managing your next relationship. It can similarly work out bad where you begin to believe that you are the less important partner in the relationship.

Example
I think the clearest example of moral/superiority/inferiority is in the context of second chance relationships. People break up for all types of reasons but more often than not, I think it boils down to one person being no longer willing to endure the pain and suffering due to the acts/words of their partner.

Let’s take Jane and John. Jane and John are both 32 and have been in a relationship for 5 years and have gone through a lot of ups and downs. Let’s assume that both John and Jane were morally superior throughout the bulk of the relationship. But John’s moral inferiority surfaced because he generally disregarded Jane’s desires, like wanting to take a trip to South Africa since she was a kid. (I am using a crude example on purpose, please reread based on your experiences)

Jane then breaks up with John because she felt John was subtly becoming more insensitive to her needs and the South Africa trip crystallized this pain for her. Soon after the relationship comes to an end, John realizes that he was grossly insensitive to Jane’s needs and he comes to grips with his moral inferiority. John and Jane don’t cut off each other for good and John really wants Jane back. Jane was really hurt about the trip and John pleads that he will be more sensitive and makes the necessary preparations for the South Africa trip. Jane admires John’s willingness to change and accepts him back in her life.

On their second go-round, Jane knows that her ability to shape the contours of the relationship will be greatly enhanced because of her moral superiority relative to John’s. John may have other serious issues but for Jane,
1)    He’s not that bad of a guy. (Women, you know how you stick up for your man)
2)    She has a general sense of what he is and is not capable of regarding how he hurt her
3)    She doesn’t really have to do any self-analysis because John is so desperate to have her back, she knows that her presence alone will suffice.
4)    Does John’s planning of a trip is proof that John’s insensitivity is cured, despite the fact she took him back during a time where he was willing to do anything to honor her desires.

And therein lies the problem for me because what if during their break up, Jane met someone, let’s call him Dan, who was morally superior that truly made her happy? I think many women, unfortunately will go with John because being with Dan means
1)    Jane would be forced to deal with her own shortcomings in relationships because the focus is not on what somebody else did.
2)    Jane having to overcome her fear of new emotional pain from Dan, even if John’s pain feels like surgery and Dan’s pain feels like getting a shot.
3)    Jane risking that she may have to start a whole new relationship with Dan to experience the love she always thought impossible.

Try it at home
Take a moment to think about your relationships. Can you think of times when you were morally superior/inferior? What kind of person do you tend to be in a relationship? What type of people do you attract? When are you most happy? I think that the following traits while not exhaustive, explain the types of qualities that help you understand how moral superiority/inferiority plays out in your relationship. These traits include consistency, transparency, follow-through, integrity, etc.

Sisters
Many, but not all sisters exclusively date Black men and unfortunately, there are many brothers that are morally inferior, regardless of their age, status, income, etc. From my perspective, inferiority is the way to go if you want to lock down a great Black woman. Why do I say that? I say that because far too many sisters will open and reopen the doors of their heart to inferior brothers who don’t treat them like the queens that they are while shutting the door to brothers that do. I didn’t realize this before but I guess a woman has to admit and believe that she has a morally inferior man before she can even make the necessary changes. Certainly, no one can tell her this and she can’t admit it to other people but she knows the truth in the pit of her soul. But even if she knows, she has to allow her actions to manifest this knowledge, which rarely happens because that would be emotionally inconsistent. ***”I know I shouldn’t be with him but I want to be with him so I can’t allow my actions get in the way of what I want.”***

One manifestation of not allowing your actions to get in the way is located in Proverbs 15:22 which says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” There is something very revealing in this scripture regardless of your religious persuasion and the principle is universal but pertinent in the Sisters section. There are really two types of advice we allow for the people we love. The first invitation is based on Proverbs 15:22 and it involves asking people that love and care about you what they think about a given situation before you have reached the ultimate resolution of the question. Regardless of how much you can probably assume what they are going to say, you bring it up anyway just as a safeguard to appreciate and fine tune your own analysis. The other invitation starts from telling your loved ones the conclusion you have reached. In this case, the analysis is somewhat important but the firmer the conclusion, the less need to examine how we got here. ***The goal of conclusion based advice is to keep your loved ones reasonably informed about what is happening in your life but the more tacit and I submit cynical goal is to let your loved ones know that their advice  is really about managing the adjustments that need to be made to accommodate your conclusion.***

When your loved ones know they are being asked for conclusion-based advice, the typical response from them will be, “Hey, I got your back, whatever you need, I’m here,” and sometimes we short shrift ourselves when that is all we want to hear. And if we really keep it funky, aren’t we all more inclined “figure out things on our own” if we suspect our loved ones will frown on our analysis? Therefore, the conversations that really need to be Proverbs 15:22 based get downgraded to conclusion based advice. To be sure, I do think there is a place for conclusion-based advice but not when it is summarily avoided when you are talking about someone you know you shouldn’t be with.

For example, a Proverbs 15:22 conversation would start from the premise of, “I am thinking about getting deeper with this guy, what do you think”can get warped into a conclusion based conversation of “I decided to go deeper with him but there are some sub issues we still have to work on that I wanted to talk to you about.” Do you notice the difference? I submit to you that it is probably the case that when we are dealing with someone who is really good for us, we look forward to having Proverbs 15:22 conversations. On the flip side though, when we are dealing with someone who is not good for us, we will often revert to conclusion-based advice. This does not mean that you need approval from your loved ones to make decisions. However, it does mean that you should not use your loved ones to merely rubber stamp your conclusions. Just think about the potential fall out that stems from a wrong conclusion based on a flawed analysis including divorce, emotional abuse, etc.  and weigh the opinions who you will need to rely on if and when that happens. Why make the choice to be penny-wise and pound foolish? So let me ask you ladies, are you dealing with someone that encourages you to seek Proverbs 15:22 advice or conclusion-based advice? ***To put it another way, are you ashamed to bring your guy around your  loved ones and if so, doesn’t that feeling confirm the lack of confidence you have in your relationship?***

And if you are in this space and expect your confidence to grow, have you truly counted the costs of building confidence where there already exists a significant deficit of trust that this man can and will love you the way you deserve? Just think about the bare minimum expectations that accompany people  you bring around your loved ones including but not limited to: this person is genuinely concerned with my best interests, I am willing to build a future with this person, they are good people, and they will not increase the negative drama in my life. So if you are with someone that you do not want to bring around your loved ones, just think about what is really being said when you don’t have the confidence to check off the bare minimum expectations. That is scary because if you want to love and make things work with a man that can’t meet those minimum expectations, I fear that you are in a place that is far more destructive than you might appreciate.

(To be sure, you can be as equally ashamed of someone who is accomplished in life as someone who is is a starving artist because I am referring to shame relative to their ability to truly love you, not their socioeconomic status.)

Breakups in name only

So what ends up happening is that inferior brothers get after pass to re-enter women’s lives only to wreak more havoc and the guy knows that there is so much bad in their relationship that the woman has a vested interest in keeping up appearances and doggedly protecting the reputation of the relationship. As a result, break ups are explained as innocent misunderstandings, emotional abuse is often compared to a mountain of goodness, and any other major shortcomings just need time.

Therefore, what is usually known as a break up is watered down to a pause in between getting back together, like when you put your computer to sleep. The sleep function is used to save the computer’s battery, in this case the relationship. And just like in real life, you can click any button on the keyboard and voila, the relationship is back to full power, right where you left off.

The inferior guy never really leaves; he just fades in the background. During the pause, there may be good faith efforts by sisters to start anew including dating new people, increasing their spiritual walk, or even seeking therapy. So what happens when these efforts fail to wipe the slate clean? A better question is what happens when you do subconsciously expect or want your good faith efforts to fail? The desire to fail is really heavy because deep down, women know that if they truly wanted to be free from a past relationship, they would necessarily be alone in the most profound sense of the word.

Therefore the failure to be free is often construed to justify the desire to try it again, expecting or hoping different results. And while the relationship was in sleep mode, you convinced yourself that this is your “alone” time but you knew he was just a click away so what is the utility of good faith efforts when you never confront the fear of being alone? Someone told me that if you can’t be happy alone you can’t be happy with another person. Sisters, many of you may be single, but you are not alone because your mind and heart are willfully caught up with a man that you convinced yourself that you just can’t shake when in reality, you don’t want to shake him. When you start from a place of what you cannot do, the mediocrity that falls under that starts to look really reasonable. What’s worse is the notion that you can’t let him go is really governed by a fear of being alone more than it is governed by true love. Unfortunately, some women will go to great lengths to use love as their explanation for going back and will contort their mind to avoid the issue of their own grave fear of loneliness or not having someone to love them.

And it doesn’t help when you are with a man who wants you to be in his life more than he wants you to have a truly fulfilled life that could be separate from him. Some women would respond by saying that the fear of being lonely is a reasonable justification for choosing to go back to someone. Others would say women should expect only so much from a man so if he is willing to be with you or marry you, just suck it up. I suppose the best way to summarize a critique of what I said would be to claim, “love is messy.”

Love is messy
I really hate this notion that love is messy. I readily concede that love can be very complicated and at times defy logic. However, the context in which “love is messy,” is used often suggests that it is used to justify mediocrity. I submit to you that many of the relationships where people use this phrase should really be described as emotionally dysfunctional. I also think that describing love as messy is the easiest way to make room for the expediency of life. What do I mean by that? If a woman hasn’t been married by a certain age where her friends and family start to give her the serious side eye with the woman convincing herself that,

1)    I have a decent man who is morally inferior, but it’s ok because most men are morally inferior and this is just what women have to deal with
2)    Real love with a morally superior man only happens in the movies
3)    I really don’t want to open myself up to a new relationship
4)    My eggs are not getting any younger and I want to raise a family
5)    I really do love him and even if my feelings are governed by fear now, I’ll get over it.

I understand why the aforementioned are powerful concepts but is it messy or dysfunctional? It depends on your perspective but if this woman married this man for these reasons, what is the likelihood of her living her best life with a husband, kids, and a career? To be sure, let’s all concede that getting married is not a cure to a relationship or a sign that it is healthy. Call me an idealist but I don’t think love should take a backseat to the expediency of life. All marriages are difficult enough in and of themselves so when you think about those dark times during your marriage when you won’t even want to be in the same bed as him, will you want to rely on love to keep it going or, “I am married, and I should stick it out.” I concede that love in and of itself is never enough for a successful relationship or marriage. However, to completely disregard love’s impact (or lack thereof) on your marriage, kids, and emotional and spiritual stability, is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

***Sisters please, be alone and find out how to be happy alone before you start your next relationship.*** The belief that things will be different next time is very strong and stems from the death grip that you have on the positive aspects of the relationship. I find it ironic how some women will simultaneously keep a death grip on the negative aspects that lead to things not working out with a morally superior man.

How many times have you claimed that this was going to be the “last time?” Time is really deep because a sister will be quick to tell you how many years (and you know you have to include the breaks) she has been with someone as if it that in and of itself justifies past, present, and future sacrifices because “I am not perfect and I owe him that much to see if we can make it.”

***It’s almost like “all these years” is tantamount for a man becoming a tenured professor because the guy can’t get fired save a serious breach of conduct. (e.g. violence)***

Showing Real Love
I believe in the notion that in some instances, the highest way to show love for someone is to let them go. There is also the idea that an inferior brother fighting to get you back doesn’t is a sign of his remorse and positive change.  I think with inferior men, it is very possible that his fighting has less to do with his ability to love you better than it does his desire to not want to lose you.

Those two ideas are very distinct because they serve as the catalyst for men’s actions. For example, a morally superior man whose catalyst is to be with you will be governed by doing things that fulfill your needs promptly because today is too precious for him to risk the loss of fully experiencing love with you. A morally superior man will not will likely not fight to bring you back because more often than not, he doesn’t operate in emergency mode and if you need to go, he would rather see you happy than be in a relationship where you can’t get what you need.

On the other hand, a man whose catalyst is to not lose you will wait to fulfill your needs until he sees how upset you are from which minor situations turn into full out damage control, code red. A morally inferior man will fight like hell to keep you back because his love is often marked by grand gestures rather than day to day consistency. ***A man that is afraid to let you go will never let you grow. ***

I was thinking about how much society has overstated the value in a man fighting for you. I remember in Love Jones how when Nina was talking to her girlfriend about how she should tell Darious about her desire to see if she wants to work things out with her ex. Her girlfriend said, (paraphrasing) “Well girl, if he doesn’t say anything and plays it cool, then you know nothing was there and you go on to New York, but if he starts tripping, then you know you got him?” I never understood that scene. Regardless of what you think of Darious, did Nina have the right to be disappointed in his response? (Ignoring the slight smugness in Darious’ response) I thought it was painfully clear that while Nina liked Darious, she had to work out things with her ex. Now let’s assume that Darious had deep feelings for Nina when she told him about going back, was he supposed to try and “keep her” from going back? Ladies, if you have a man that you think has deep feelings for you and you had to work things out with your ex, would you rather he throw a tizzy over your leaving or would you respect him giving you your space? I understand that everyone is different but I think men that throw tizzies wrongly get significantly more respect than men who are willing to let go.

***In other words, a man that cannot let you go will only want you to grow as much as you can within the context of the relationship and whether that growth is less than what  you need is immaterial because he can’t live without you.*** And deep down women know this and will sometimes try to imagine how they can extract the most amount of happiness from a situation where they know their deepest goals and desires are essentially “off the table.” At the end of the day, real love has nothing to do with you. Real love gives without expectations. H.Jackson Brown, Jr. said, “Love is when the other person’s happiness is more important than your own.” -  Ladies, I submit to you that many of you believe and live this quote but do you think your man does as well? Real love will never  allow the desire to be together trump the growth process of the other person.

No Good Brothers Out Here
So please, let’s stop with the “there are no good brothers out here.” There are really good brothers out here who are not only on point but are morally superior. The problem is that too many sisters won’t keep these brothers around long enough to reap the fruit that a fully functional loving relationship can bring.

Sisters, I know the statistics are not in your favor but I dare you to tell me that you never came across or tried to make it work with a morally superior brother. Now if you have been involved with one and things didn’t work out, chances are that you have explained that it didn’t work out because of some iteration of bad timing or it wasn’t mean to be. But when you think about it, it might also be true that the bad timing sprang directly from you letting Mr. Inferior take up so much mental and emotional real estate that have no room for Mr. Superior. And if that wasn’t the case, the unresolved issues from that past relationship were not fully worked out. Therefore, you tell yourself, “That was a nice ride, but he wasn’t meant for me.” That line of thinking is so self destructive because it reaffirms the unhealthy desire for mediocre love.

I want to scream, “Stop settling for morally inferior men,” but I don’t even think that advice is appropriate. Instead, I am going to scream, “STOP BEING SETTLED!!!” I say that because I am thinking about all the “SINGLE” Black women who have their facebook status set to single because they are not married when they are in full fledged, long-term, on and off relationships with a morally inferior man.

So in reality, many single sisters are not really single because their minds and hearts are in a perpetual relationship or the residuals of a relationship that leaves little room for real growth and an honest appreciation for a new chance at love.

What’s so sad about that is many sisters are carrying on comprehensively draining emotional and mental marriages with either no ring or a ring without peace of mind. So please stop deceiving yourself that what you deserve what you want because often times, sisters will adjust what they want based on what they can have right now. Therefore, Mr. Inferior is just a call away while what you really want is a better relationship with a morally superior man but you don’t want to invest the time, the emotions, or the newness that being with him requires. Moreover, the decision to end things with a morally superior man is often one of the few honest things a sister will experience a morally superior man will hold up the mirror to you and ask why don’t you want this to work? A morally inferior man just wants you in his life because he doesn’t want to lose you.

I know the brothers are much to blame for this state of affairs and in many ways they deserve more blame than you. Lest I be misunderstood, part II of this series will be exclusively devoted to the brothers. But ladies, I get it. It’s not fair. Some of the brothers you deal with stay on bs. I know sometimes it seems like it’s just a matter of time before a man hurts you or lets you down. I know the ironic comfort that comes from familiar pain. I know the ways you can twist your mind into situations that you would never encourage another woman to accept. It doesn’t have to be this way and you can stop it. All I ask of you is to,

1)    Unsettle yourself.
2)    Find the peace that comes from being ALONE AND HAPPY while defeating the fear of never being truly loved.
3)    Refuse to settle again for the same mess
4)    Make a conscious decision to be more morally superior in your own right.
5)    Value a man that truly values your heart, time, and your desires.
6)    Make a resolution to put at least half the energy to making it work with a morally superior man as you do putting forth the effort to make it work with a morally inferior man.

Yours,

Brandon Q. White
bqwhite@gmail.com

1.    If you haven’t noticed yet, the flurry of news surrounding Haiti relief is done. This is where the real work begins because character is what we do when no one is looking. So here we go, no more moving facebook updates, editorial cartoons, or grand speeches by political leaders. Now that no one is looking is the perfect opportunity to give more of your self. So let’s chill with the “We will never forget” slogans because if you remember and don’t do anything, what’s the point?

2.    So it appears that the Dems have decided to finally commit to using reconciliation to finish health care reform. Senate Majority Leader Reid put forth a goal of having this done in 60 days and I hope and pray Democrats get this done because it is simply unconscionable for a country flush with so much wealth to have so many people go without adequate healthcare.

3.    I wanted to share a quote that has had me thinking, “The greatest hindrance to living is expectancy, which depends upon the morrow and wastes to-day.”

-Lucius Annaeus Seneca
“On the Shortness of Life”
translated by John W. Basore, Loeb Classical Library
London: William Heinemann, 1932

In response to this quote, what expectations do you have of yourself and others?  How do you think these expectations have helped or hindered? What informs these expectations? Do you really carpe diem or are you one of those people who go through the week like a zombie expecting to truly live when get off work on Friday?

4.    I haven’t heard anything about the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building. See now if the guy was Muslim, it would be front page every day for at least two weeks. What I don’t want is more finger pointing based on race, what I want is appropriate and proportional responses based on behavior, not race.

5.   Black History month is almost over and before we move on, I just want to thank all the Black people whose efforts and names will never make it into a history book or a PBS Black History month program. I represent am 27 years of Black History but I also stand on the shoulders of giants and so many elders have pulled me aside to show guidance and encouragement. Black History did not end with Civil Rights but it will be if we don’t have a burning desire to make the world better for our kids and grand kids. How much more would those coming after us resent us for being so selfish for not fighting as if all is well.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

p.s. I really wish I could write more fam. Law school and life make it difficult to write the more in depth pieces I used to do more often. My apologies.

Love is patient
In the world of and email, status updates, and keeping up with the Jones’ broadly speaking, patience is often viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism and a hint of foolishness. What does patience mean though? What good is patience if it is done in bad faith? Can you be patient once good intentions turn away from love and towards proving a point? There are three qualifiers I add to this idea of patience to make sure it is proper and these are positive, persistent, and conscious.

By positive, I mean the quality of the thoughts of the person you are waiting on. Do you think highly of them or do you have resentful thoughts about why you are waiting in the first place? The resentment will spoil all of the anticipated benefits of patience. This doesn’t mean that some days will be blue, it just means that while resentful thoughts will come, you never let them stay for extended periods of time.

By persistence, I am referring to situations where there is not an agreed upon time where the patience will no longer be needed. Situations like this are doubly difficult because you will find yourself wanting to do something to break the patience. It is times like this where you build character. Anything worth its salt is worth waiting for. I have found that focusing on being a better person is a great way to transform the emotional energy that patience can exact.

As to conscious, being patient is almost always about learning something about your self and the other person and probably vice versa. So when the patient stage is over, your lessons learned will be the yardstick by which the patience will be deemed successful. I have found writing to be extremely helpful in helping me understand the lessons I need to learn from patient periods. Being conscious is not just being aware of what you are doing but why are you doing it, making sure to appreciate the complexity and gravity of the situation that has you patient in the first place.

Love is kind
This one seems easy but I have thought that this one is often misunderstood as being nice. Nice is often associated with good manners or social graces but kind means, “of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person: a kind and loving person.” For me, being kind means saying the truth in love, withholding digs that you may feel entitled to, doing kind gestures without any prompting, etc.

It doesn’t boast
For me this means that love does not boast about what it did or used to do and if it does, it is never done to justify present mistakes or shortcomings. I think there should be things you do for your partner that they never know about because they either didn’t notice or you didn’t tell them what you did. (and not have plans to use these acts as ammunition later) I think this approach helps make sure that your desire to do good for your partner is not conditional on receiving praise. This doesn’t mean that receiving praise is bad and couples should acknowledge each other whenever possible but doing the act should bring you more pleasure than seeking the praise.

It is not proud
I think this means that whenever two people are sacrificing, the tension between who is sacrificing more is going to be detrimental to the relationship. One person may be sacrificing their time more while the other may be sacrificing their money based on the given circumstance. Avoiding such distractions is absolutely key to a healthy relationship.

Just my thoughts,

Stay up fam and Happy Valentine’s Day

Brandon Q.

I get it. You inherited a hodgepodge of mess from the Bush administration and have tried to clean up house. However, your signature campaign issue, healthcare reform, appears to be on life support. Lest I be misunderstood, I am a strong supporter of the public option but that has gone by the political wayside. Unfortunately, your insistence on bipartisanship ad nauseam threatens any chance of meaningful reform that could be had.

As it stands, you have called for a bipartisanship healthcare summit but you have done your due diligence re: bipartisanship. The American people realize that Democrats and Republicans do not work well together. It’s probably time to put the bipartisanship bottle back on the shelf and get some results. If the Republicans want to filibuster a healthcare plan, I say let them do it. Call their bluff and let people know that when it counts, you are willing to fight for the average American. Of course, this move would be gutsy but substantively and politically, it would be brilliant. Valentine’s Day is fast approaching and the Republicans have no reason to show you love and that is all right. When all is said and done, despite the procedural hurdles of the Senate, the Democratic majorities are not so narrow that political hardball should be dismissed without consideration.

This is your moment President Obama, please seize the day.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

The story of the Saints is a classic rags-to-riches tale. The team had never been to the championship game. They had 2 playoff wins in 42 years. They were so bad that their fans wore paper bags over their head for years and unaffectionately called the team “The Aints.”

A New Orleans "Aints" fan

New Orleans has also had a hell of a ride, going from “Las Vegas of the South” to the flash point of modern government incompetence, racism, and social injustice after Hurricane Katrina. The city and its football team were ripe for a comeback.

Our Progressive movement is too. Why? We took back Congress in 2006. We took back the White House in 2008. We passed health care reform We’re working on that. We need a comeback because we’re disoriented.

It’s like we just woke up. Our eyes are open, but our vision is blurred. We know our slippers are near the bed, but we have to feel around with our toes to find them.

We reorient ourselves by becoming clear in our purpose. Let’s take a page from the Saints and make that happen. Progressive organizers, activists, and politicians can learn a lot from these World Champions about how to win this year and beyond. Here are 3 key lessons.

1. Be who you are

   The Saints have been a gutsy team all season. Their high-powered offense was planned and executed by a coach, offensive coordinator, and quarterback aligned with common purpose. They knew one another well and believed in each other. They gave each other space to be themselves.

   Drew Brees doesn’t have the strongest arm in the league, but he’s the NFL’s most accurate passer. Instead of throwing long balls, they played to Brees’ strengths and ran quick, short plays that relied on timing and precision.

   Progressives must do the same and play to our strengths. Let’s quit trying to act like people we’re not and pretending to hold views that we don’t. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t grow our thinking or our skills as a movement (see below), but it does mean that we must look at what makes us who we are and work with that.

   Now, Discover Your Strengths by Mark Buckingham is a book we all should read. It asserts that the most effective method for motivating people is to build on their strengths rather than correcting their weaknesses. We’re a big tent with big ideas and strong convictions. Let’s remember who we are, remember what our movement is about, and use that to boldly move forward.

2. Be bold or go home

   The Saints didn’t get to the Super Bowl by playing not to lose. They went for it on 4th downs. They kicked an onside kick to open the 2nd half. They went for the 2-point conversion. Some gambles worked, some didn’t. When they were down 10-0 after the 1st quarter, they didn’t forget the traits that made them the highest-scoring team in the NFL and NFC champions.

   Progressives must do the same: Be courageous enough to be boldly progressive. Stand up for your vision of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If something is disgusting, call it disgusting. If someone is dishonest, call them a liar. If something is possible, tell that story. Wimpy politicians finish 2nd. Wimpy organizers don’t win. Sick of losing? Get sick of being timid.

   The dirty little secret is that this makes us more attractive to the debutantes everyone is courting: independents. Persuadable, undecided voters are more likely to vote for candidates/support parties that stand strongly for something. Shyness wins neither dates nor political victories.

3. Remember your supporters

   We neither win nor lose alone. The problem is that when we win we salute ourselves, and when we lose, we focus on our opponents. This must cease. Movements, like football teams, thrive on passion. Every player, coach, and representative of the New Orleans Saints thanked their fans first during every interview they gave. They know who propelled them to the top, and they didn’t forget them.

   The passion that drives us and keeps us working and organizing must never be aimed toward our opposition. To become sustainable and resilient, we must focus on and feed off of our supporters. Our fans. Our base.

   Progressives [sensibly] spewed venom towards the Bush Administration for years, but now we can’t quite articulate what we’re shooting at. What if we showered our fans with hope and a coherent worldview to organize around? Investments made in supporters are like spending time with your grandparents: always a good idea.

   Let’s invest in ourselves and our allies. Training. Networking. Leadership development. Technology infrastructure. You want donors of talent, time, and treasure? Invest in your fans. They’ll love you for it.

Congratulations New Orleans.

Thank you for showing me and the rest of the Progressive movement what it takes to win.

One Love. One II.

Photo credit: Chris LaBossiere

Participation, Inclusion, Equality

Democratic systems flourish when people participate. Having a voice changes people’s relationship with that system and the system’s relationship with the people.

When everyone can’t participate, the system no longer reflects the values and perspectives of the people it impacts. Barriers to entry create divisions, inequality and unfairness.

El Dorado

The Internet was designed as an egalitarian utopia: the El Dorado of the “good ideas win” ethos. Anyone with access to the net could connect with anyone else. Every idea had an equal opportunity to succeed.

When the Internet was taken hostage by telecommunications companies, they threatened this order. They limited participation online by pricing most low-income communities out of the market, creating the Digital Divide. This practice of exclusion reduced the diversity of thought online. It put the Internet on an identical path to becoming an echo chamber of pale, stale, male attitudes.

Next Stop: Poll Taxes

The redlining was round one, but the next round is more sinister. Telecoms are now considering crushing freedom of expression online by creating Jim Crow-esque poll taxes on content they consider unfit for higher-speed, higher-quality Internet connections. This assault on the freedom by private interests is as wrong now as it has ever been.

This should raise specific concern within the civil rights community. Civil rights organizations fought and won the war against poll taxes over 40 years ago. It’s alarming that they are willing to open the door for this type of discrimination in the 21st century. It’s up to us, the membership, the foot-soldiers of these organizations and of this 21st century civil rights movement, to take a stand against this disgusting discrimination.

Protecting Internet Freedom by ensuring Net Neutrality

The FCC is considering creating rules to protect Internet Freedom. Learn more about the process at Save The Internet. I testified at a hearing in December to voice my strong support of protecting Internet Freedom.

You can join the fight by demanding that Congress work alongside the FCC to protect Internet Freedom and outlaw discrimination by telecom companies.

Sign the petition today.

One Love. One II.

The same is true for political movements. Progressives are smarting now. Many on the left are disenchanted with the President, disappointed in the pending health care legislation and disillusioned about the 2010 mid-term elections. What’s a movement to do?

Real progress

We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our renewed focus is an opportunity to build a foundation for future success, resilience and empowerment. This means taking stock of the real progress being made in this moment while simultaneously fighting to transition society from its peppered past to a progressive future.

President Obama was mindful of this when he said in his Martin Luther King, Jr. address that:

…our predecessors were never so consumed with theoretical debates that they couldn’t see progress when it came…Let’s take a victory, he said, and then keep on marching. Forward steps, large and small, were recognized for what they were — which was progress.

What victories have we won? A few include:

• Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, bringing us a step closer to fully realizing equal pay for equal work.
• Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, an important step in providing health care for all of our nation’s children.
• Softened Federal restrictions on stem cell research, opening the door for potential cures to innumerable diseases.

Where do we go from here

Martha Coakley and others’ recent electoral defeats echo the sentiment of the 2008 Presidential election: candidates who proactively or passively represent a broken status quo will fail. Insiders can no longer combine tepid emotions and bland appeals with party machines and expect victory. They instead must take the hope demonstrated by the 2008 election and marry it to action.

The infinite hope that Dr. King spoke of us present within the progressive movement. Young people are organizing like never before in favor of comprehensive immigration reform reflective of America’s ideals, not its demons. Their hope is moving them to action.

That infinite hope is present in the hearts of millions of ambitious yet unemployed Americans. People are coming together to petition their government to work on their behalf to create jobs rather than give handouts to industries that have turned their backs on their employees. The hope of these workers is moving them to action.

That hope still exists in health care. Amidst the angst of the centrists, the exasperation of many Progressives and the perverse cynicism of corporate and conservative interests, the American people remain thirsty for quality, affordable health care. The current proposals have their differences and flaws, but our communities are speaking up in unison when they demand a health care system that works for them. Listening to the practical, conscientious voice of constituents would have led to a substantive debate that disregarded idiocy while embracing the courageous optimism of the American spirit.

How we’ll win

To win on elections and win on policy, we must combine passion, participation and performance. These traits characterize the promise of a progressive movement built on shared community values.

Passion

American’s care deeply about each other. Seeing our fellow man suffer activates our compassion. This principle is not Democratic so much as it is…

Participation

We are all in this together. When anyone who wants to work is working, everybody wins. When every person that comes to this country in search of the American dream has the right to be treated fairly and with respect, society as a whole benefits. We’ll get there by working together to achieve our shared goals.

President Obama articulated this the day before MLK Day:

Let us broaden our coalition, building a confederation not of liberals or conservatives, not of red states or blue states, but of all Americans who are hurting today, and searching for a better tomorrow. The urgency of the hour demands that we make common cause with all of America’s workers — white, black, brown — all of whom are being hammered by this recession, all of whom are yearning for that spring to come. It demands that we reach out to those who’ve been left out in the cold even when the economy is good, even when we’re not in recession — the youth in the inner cities, the youth here in Washington, D.C., people in rural communities who haven’t seen prosperity reach them for a very long time. It demands that we fight discrimination, whatever form it may come. That means we fight discrimination against gays and lesbians, and we make common cause to reform our immigration system.

Performance

These times call for bold actions. The time for incremental, strictly rhetoric responses to the challenges we face has long since passed. Under-girded by our community values and shared responsibility, we must boldly pursue the agenda that our communities clamor for. Community Jobs. Comprehensive immigration reform. A fair economy.

The surest path to under achievement is inaction. The guaranteed path to cynicism is exclusion. We are ready to work and ready to fight for the values we believe in. Let’s take action together and make the political ineptitude of timidity clearer than ever.

One Love. One II.

Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his light-skinned appearance and speaking patterns with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one…He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.

The comments and the response to the comments have been laughable, disconcerting and indicative of the broader race-related issues that our country continually kicks down the road.

I’m frustrated that the only tellers at the Bank of Apologizing to Black People are still Rev. Al Sharpton and/or Jesse Jackson. Many have used the fact that Rev. Sharpton accepted Reid’s apology as grounds for vindication. Rev. Sharpton is as much a proxy for Black America’s social consciousness as the CEO of Goldman Sachs is a proxy for the interests of community banks. Just like there’s a movement to move our money out of big banks, Black folks should be moving their representation away from Rev. Sharpton and to community voices.

It’s further frustrating to think about how the latent prejudice of our politics has contributed to structural inequity reinforced by public policy.

Take health care reform. Why is there disagreement between the House and Senate over the need for reform to narrow disparities in health care coverage? The House bill does this; the Senate bill does not.

Take unemployment. A community jobs program would work wonders for communities over-represented on unemployment roles: Black and Latino people. Yet the current debate on public job creation has shown little interest in this regard.

Perhaps there is more at work than the latent racism that leads to remarks that are at their best in poor taste and at their worst indicative of utter moral failure. The way to work through a controversy like today’s uproar is to put these incidents into a larger narrative about the consequences of entrenched racism and prejudice. Once that narrative is constructed, we can create a solution.

One Love. One II.