Observations re article by Carlos Munoz and other comments: By Nativo Lopez

Gracias ~ Posting to make sure this Mensaje/Message got out to others by Hermano Nativo.

~ Peta

Nativo Lopez <nlopez@hermandadmexicana.org> wrote:

Brothers Peter and Guillermo:

For some reason my emails to the Network are bouncing back. It's probably due to our internal server and the Network not recognizing my email address - nlopez@hermandadmexicana.org.

I wanted to contribute to the discussion about Carlos Munoz's article and Rosalio Munoz's comments. Here goes....

Companeros of the Network:

Carlos Munoz makes the most compelling argument for not supporting either Obama or Clinton. A focus on the issues and continued organizing of our independent forces would put us in a much better position to contend with whoever takes the White House and the U.S. Congress. The fact of the matter is that the Obama and Clinton voting record is almost identical on all issues of major concern to voters, and that includes Latinos. What good is affirmative action if the new master, or puppet of the master, is brown, black, or female continues to perpetuate the same policies, or modified or moderated versions of the same. The boot still feels the same, but only adds insult to injury. The insult comes from the fact that the newly elected politician does exactly as his corporate backers dictate, and not as one of the same group, race, or gender would invest in him or her with one's own aspirations for change. And, what's more, we insult ourselves when we harbor the silly illusion that the color or gender of the politician necessarily makes them more sensitive, progressive, malleable, or responsive to the needs and desires of those from whence they come. History has demonstrated that this is not the case, with very few exceptions. Or, it has been othewise when the local electorate is sufficiently organized to hold such a politician to account.

One could argue that we required such a period of political development and sophistication (the masses) when such an illusion was general and necessary (the narrow nationalist period), before our electorate came to take the social dimension more into consideration and looked beyond race, ethnicity, and gender. Today, we have the largest number of Latinos, blacks, and females elected to political office at all levels of government than any other time in the history of the U.S. Yet, our electorate (Latino) has a diversity of experiences, multi-generational in terms of immigration, and spreading social polarization, and I believe that this accounts for a continuation of relevance and importance of race, ethnicity, and gender in the mind of still large enough segments of the Latino electorate. Where Jews and blacks vote in greater similarity, Latinos are still spread out - less homogeneous. With the greater corporatization of state and federal elections (and even local in many cases) and the increasingly expensiveness of races, and the further monopolization of the media, the local electorate becomes less and less relevant. This speaks to the case of candidate Dennis Kucinich. He has the most progressive positions (and record) on all major issues of concern, yet, his poll numbers remain flat, no corporate contributions to his campaign, censured by the media and excluded from the debates. His message is not resonating with the electorate because he can't get his message to that electorate.

We are required to be honest with the electorate of our community as leaders and experienced political fighters. It does us little justice to imbue in the candidates qualities that they do not possess merely because we desire change as much as the next guy, or due to a particular partisan ideology that permanently or temporarily aligns itself with the party out of power - the Democratic. The honest fact of the matter is that Obama and Clinton talk about an end to the war from the perspective of re-deployment (not an immediate return of U.S. troops to their loved ones); they talk about universal healthcare from the perspective of ensuring the integrity of the insurance companies interests (not excluding the 30 percent take by the private insurance companies, which results in inflating the true cost of service, exclusions, and denials of service); they support continued aggressive immigration enforcement in the interior and on the border, and both voted for the constuction of the border wall, while supporting the vague call for a "path to legalization," split on the driver's license issue, advocate in favor of employer sanctions, raids, and deportations, and I could go on. The record speaks for itself.

Race and gender should not be a factor in our consideration for endorsement. It should be the content of their character as reflected in their political trajectory, voting record, and policy initiatives as these address our material and spiritual needs. Shame on those political activists who continue to use these factors as a consideration for their recommendation to others less politically astute, active, or conscious who honesetly search for leadership and look to others for such recommendation. We need to get beyond these factors. We are required to move forward in our thinking and analyze the issues that affect our constituency and honestly lay out which of the candidates best address these issues and merit our support. On the other hand, we have a greater obligation to continue building independent political organization amongst our people to hold those who govern accountable, which inevitably translates into them obeying the governed. This is where our greatest strength lies.

Saludos,

Nativo V. Lopez

+++++++++++++++++++++
Come Together and Create!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka:Peta
Sacramento, California, Aztlan
Email: sacranative@yahoo.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NetworkAztlan_News/

http://www.networkaztlan.com/
C/S

---

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.