We Can Stop Ducking the Waves of Misogyny -- Our Democracy Teeters on the Brink.

Wake up America. We are so close to losing any semblance of democracy in our country. Yes our country. America. Think I exaggerate? Take a moment and think over the last eight years and then, think again.

In a recent blog I wrote about the election situation in Zimbabwe and the United States lack of action in a country that is violating human rights every moment of every day. A place so emotionally mutilated by a syphilitic dictator that Zimbabwe has bled an estimated one quarter of its population to neighboring countries. I kept asking why the world is standing still as this crisis unfolds: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michealene-cristini-risley/the-estimated-cost-of-hum_b_103772.html

When I posted my recent blog, I received a comment from a reader that really stuck me. It made me stop and think again about the meaning of democracy, and the current application of it in our country. The comments from mgloraine read:

"The US will not be in a position to help anyone conduct fair and honest elections if we cannot have a fair and honest election here. This is a source of tremendous frustration for liberals/progressives confronted with the dozens of active human rights horror shows taking place today. We want to urge our Congress and our government as a whole to take action against the brutality and we want the common people to have a voice in the running of their own country. But if we take our eyes off of the US elections for an instant, we can be robbed of our own voice - again!! And how can we point at Zimbabwean politicians beating the opposition into submission and cry "foul!" when the Maliki regime in Iraq -which the US installed - is doing the very same thing, brutalizing and killing Sadrist Shi'ites in Basra and Sadr City in order to rig their upcoming election results?

I'm not suggesting that American's shouldn't take action, but it's really difficult to see how we can intervene in Zimbabwe when our own democracy teeters on the brink."

Wow! Mgloraine, you are right. Our Democracy has been unraveling for some time...and so many of us like tiny ostriches stick our heads in the proverbial sand and chant "all is okay, all is okay" Well, it's not.

I looked up the origin of the word Democratic in the dictionary -- just in case the definition had changed. I read this: "Democratic is characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization."

So my first question is directed to the Democratic National Committee. How could you possibly have made a decision-especially after the 2004 election-that would prohibit a single vote from being counted? Where does that arrogance come from? In Florida, how could you not take into consideration that the vote was set by the Republican dominated legislature? Sound familiar? Hmmm.

Once again Florida is part of a "potential situation" in the Presidential election. Only the Republicans didn't to push their own agenda, the Democratic National Committee did it for them! Can you imagine the glee echoing down the hallways of the Republican National headquarters on Our Democratic strategy? Yes, there is an "s" word involved with the DNC and it rhymes with cupid.

After Saturdays decision to give both Michigan and Florida's votes a ½ vote, many people are unhappy. For me, it is not about Obama or Clinton right now, it is about our system and how we are failing to operate as a Democracy. I have read that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want the process to be over. So what. Who are they? Elected officials. We have forgotten what the word "elected" means.

Frankly, I am so tired of the word "feminism" used as a derogatory smear. The fact that I support Senator Clinton -- can I not be a supporter without being brandished as a feminist. Frankly, I could care less what sexual organs are attached to her being. To me she is the best candidate, period.

In the dictionary feminism is defined as attributed to women, considered to be a characteristic of, or in grammar it is used to represent a class of words or forms that refer to being female. That's it. How did it become such a repugnant slam against a gender? I am happily married women with three young, terrific boys. I don't burn my bras; I care about my husband, my family and my community. I care about issues having to do with all of us; women and men.

In fact I just celebrated my 15th wedding anniversary. My husband has been written about often in my blog and is a terrific man. We have had our ups and downs but have had the grace and the courage to work through issues. Golly -- we even talk about the issues. He is a Republican by voting record and I am a Democrat on paper. We have many a "lively" discussion on how he could have possibly voted for President Bush twice. And we laugh. He many not support my candidate but he never invalidates it as a feminist choice.

I went to the Democratic Party's website: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html
The Democratic Party boasts "A national vision-based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans. - our Party's founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule." Silly me, and I thought wealth was a prerequisite to running for President!"

And if that is not enough for you to cough up your last meal, the website continues with "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream."

Wow. Sign me up! Our founders decided that wealth and status was not an entitlement to rule-that each of us can earn a piece of the American Dream, that all of us have a voice. So when did the Democratic Party lose site of that initial charter? Who decided that wealth and status and power-were the way to operate within the party? Who changed the rules? I wonder how long ago did this country lost it way? How truly different are we than Zimbabwe or South Africa or even Russia? I am scared of the answer.

Remember the Disney movie, Mulan, where a young girl disguises herself as a man to save her father from going back to the Chinese Army to fight against the Huns. She realizes that her father is old and weak. Her fear is if he goes to war, he will never return alive. Mulan decides to put her life at risk and pretend to be a man. Chi Fu, a cabinet member of the Emperor discovers that Mulan is a woman-This is after she has saved the whole battalion from certain death.

Never mind her heroism, Chi fu drags her out of the tent and throws the wounded girl into the snow saying, she is a "Woooman". Oh my God! As Mulan lies in the snow, Chi Fu goes over her crimes, and speaks as if he is looking at the most vile, poisonous snake in existence. A snake that betrayed them and nothing short of death would ease her transgressions.

I would have given up on this race 1,000 times -- but not Senator Clinton. I see her push forward with steely resolve and commitment -- with a focus on the end goal. Traits that for me define women in our history that have risked their lives to create a better country. Isn't it time that 51% of Americans voices get heard? Frankly, no matter what candidate you vote for, all Americans should be heard.

So why do I care so much about Zimbabwe? The situation there is horrific and overwhelming. I care about another country, because I can have impact. I have more impact halfway around the world than I do in my own country. Teetering on the brink-indeed. Chi fu must have had a lot of sons.

Follow Michealene Cristini Risley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@mcrisley

Comments

[alienufo]

This is how I see it from a white male perspective. If you vote for someone because of racial or gender pride, ignoring the issues and character of the person, then you shouldn't be surprised that people think negatively of your choice.

As for democracy in action, the democratic party is able to conduct its business like any other private organization. Whether or not you agree, its well within their rights to not count your vote, or not allow you to vote in their elections. Some states don't allow independants or republicans to vote in their primary elections, and I never heard anyone complain about that. If they wanted to, they could just nominate a candidate without any voting from the public at all.

[gulopartisan]

Thank you for making this point. It's not a coincidence that HRC's "victories" were in states where people who are not part of the Democratic Party had a say in selecting OUR candidate. Voting in the GE is a right. Voting in the primary should require some commitment to the party you crashed.

[BADEN]

"I would have given up on this race 1,000 times-but not Senator Clinton. I see her push forward with steely resolve and commitment-with a focus on the end goal. Traits that for me define women in our history that have risked their lives to create a better country."

You have GOT to be kidding.

Really.

[burnt]

bitter... bitter... oh, WHY are these grapes of wrath so bitter?!

She LOST.

She lost a long time ago.

She did it to herself.

If you want to blame someone for her failure, do a 180 degree spin and ask: "Hillary, how could you have screwed up this campaign so badly? Didn't you know that Republicans can't pose as Democrats and expect to win?"

Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992

[BitJam]

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~
For me, it is not about Obama or Clinton right now, it is about our system and how we are failing to operate as a Democracy.
~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~

H'mm. Really?

[jrg]

No kidding. If seating Michigan and Florida is a matter of principle to Clinton supporters, why were they not up in arms when the DNC initially stripped these states of their delegates?

Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. What kind of "democracy" are Clinton supporters talking about, anyway? A "democracy" where Clinton is the only one on the ticket?

Yeah, sounds a lot like a democracy to me.

What's really beyond the pale (even for Clinton supporters) is to cite sexism as the reason for her defeat (yes, she was defeated, get over it), while in the next breath claiming that racism is a legitimate reason to not vote for Obama. Vile, vile, vile.

[Michale32086]

How anyone can support Clinton is beyond me.

After all her lies, all her machinations, all her victim-pla­ying.... It would seem to me that the TRUE feminists are the ones who run away from Hillary as fast as they can...

Hillary supporters remind me of spouse abusers who blame everyone but themselves for their dishonest and evil actions...

Michale...­.

[OrangeSam]

Certainly the DNC should count the votes that were cast in accordance with DNC rules. The nominating process, the rules governing it and the power of enforcement of those rules belong to the party. Why should the legislatures and governors of MI and FL be permitted to substitute their wisdom for that of the DNC?

I want someone to make an argument for counting electoral votes from, say Florida, if a state law were enacted changing the Presidential vote to October.

[tedbear]

The only problem with the Rules Committee decision was that Mi. and Fla. got any delegates at all!

They broke the rules, you know what rules are and why they exist, don't you? This was a concession made for the almighty Hillary Clinton, and this concession made the country look like fools to the world. It made it appear as if people were robbed of their vote and that is not what happend. The people of Mi. and Fla. relinquished their votes because they broke the rules of the DNC. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or misogny. It has to do with something we seem to have lost along the way, honesty. The Clintons have been helping us lose it for years. The Rules Committee should have kept the rules and denied those states any votes.

Consequences are a part of real life, and this "concession" to Hilllary Clinton is the outrage, not people losing their vote. They lost their vote by breaking the rules and they should have been enforced.

[Lon]

It is hard to see how one could do more to diminish the situations in Iraq and Zimbabwe than to pretend that they are somehow matched anything going on in the democratic primary in the US.

It is true that we call ourselves a democracy, and pedants then complain that we are actually a Republic, or a democratic republic. And usually they are being silly because people understand that one cannot understand out system of government by looking up the word "democracy" in the dictionary. But that seemingly obvious principle apparently runs out with the author of the above post.

Any country our size is going to have to rely on systems to determine the will of the people. For example it makes a difference whether states vote earlier or late to how much influence they have, and what form it takes. That is why the parties have rules. And it is nothing at all like beating supporters of ones opponents to insist that all parties to the election abide by the rules they have agreed on.

You rather cheapen your support for Zimbabwe by suggesting there are similarities between what is happening there and the fact that Clinton is losing because she has not attracted as many delegates in sanctioned primaries and caususes as Obama has despite entering the raise with all of the advantages of a party insider with connections.

[Paulitik]

Party nominations do not have to be elected democratically. They can have a arm-wrestling match to decide if they want. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, they are lucky to have any votes. If this were the general election, I would be outraged, but it's not. If the Democratiic Nominee loses, there is no concilation prize like the vice-presidency or some other office. Hillary has every right to run as a third party candidate (I hope she doesn't) if she wants. These myths such as the "Popular Vote" and "half votes" need to stop. It's about delegate distribution, plain and simple and the state parties compromised and found a solution. It's an imperfect system that needs an overhaul, in 2012. You can't change the rules just because the candidate you like lost.

[zaneblue]

Oh good Lord, I'm ashamed to be a feminist sometimes.

[blueraven]

I quite agree. From the completely fatuous definition of feminism to the utter chutzpah of comparing Zimbabwe's corruption to the Democratic Party's chosen rules being followed and then argued against by the very same candidate, I can't believe Ms. Risley thinks we should take this post at all seriously.

Satire, perhaps? Or is the dying gasp of a campaign that now looks to be hanging up its suit jacket tomorrow night? Time to unite the party, Ms. Risley. Ditch the divisive rhetoric and let's all gather up to whomp McCain in November.

[XME]

Ditto!