Colorado Senator Lucia Guzman and the death of accountability, 2016 version

Lucía Guzmán represents me in the Colorado State Senate. She is likewise, on paper a minimum of, among the leaders of the Democratic celebration in Colorado, acting as Minority Leader. As an openly out lesbian Latino chosen authorities, she is, definitionally, part of a very little minority, one which has couple of noticeable leaders.

She is likewise a woman who survived tough starts in South Texas, a Reverend, and is generally regarded as characterful. In some political circles in Denver, she is referred to as St. Lucia. I promoted and worked for her election to the State Senate, when she defeated in a primary Representative Joel Judd, which a few considered an upset, but cleverer folks realized as the most likely result.

Guzman is likewise an ardent advocate of Hillary Clinton, and has actually sought making that support reliable and noticeable, most recently in a Facebook post, but likewise on Twitter.

When she did so I asked her three basic concerns, based upon Hillary's record. They were not particularly pointed, they simply represented events where Hillary Clinton's public record were in sharp contrast to the most likely held positions of Guzman (this exercise got me unfriended on Facebook, so that appears the political and social price paid nowadays for asking difficult questions). The concerns:

Guzman: I support Hillary

Do you then support her vote in favor of the war on Iraq?

Do you then support her on Libya, where the she was the designer of a policy that left us with another failed Arab state?

Do you promote her taking millions from the same some people who wrecked our economy, and continue to gamble recklessly, backstopped by the taxpayers? (previously referenced Clinton's million dollar Wall Street paydays *).

These are concerns with which you should respond to honestly for your constituents and advocates. It isn't a video game. Trillions have actually been lost, and tens of countless your fellow Americans have actually shed blood based upon these judgements. If you support Hillary, do you stand with her, too?

I didn't get an response. Well, I sort of gotten one: "I Support Hillary.".

Unanswered, of course, are the policy matters. We do not know whether Clinton's disgraceful dump trucks loaded with Wall Street money trouble her. We have no idea if there is a more nuanced view on Libya. Same on Iraq.

And these aren't just unclear, rhetorical workouts. One of the respectful fictions of our current, damaged democracy is that we plebeians should have to know where our elected stand on problems, when there appears to be such sharp dissonance, why. The exact same precise matters are being played out in numerous jurisdictions, where Democratic Party superdelegates are supporting Hillary are, in the main, not attending to the harshness that promote creates with their positions.

However those failures indicate that there is no responsibility for these politicians and celebration leaders. And without accountability, the fundamental social agreement of democracy fails. Not that it already hasn't. However it is excellent to be reminded again.

In Guzman's defense, she has situationally valid reasons for supporting Hillary. As a legal leader, she might believe that Sanders as a candidate would trigger her democratic associates to lose seats. It is a colorable point, as Dems throughout the country have actually lost countless seats throughout the Obama years, and have in Colorado too.

There are likewise the now tired and threadbare canards of identity politics, which augur that the mere election of a lady to the White House would have a lot of favorable impacts that her real actions in workplace do not matter. That's one of those points that it is hard to argue empirically, but we do know that the mere election of a black guy to the presidency corresponds with historically low levels of black males in the workforce, the shrinkage of black-held wealth as a fraction on the nation's wealth, and proliferation in the imprisonment of blacks proportionally and the evident highly visible variety of black deaths at the hands of law enforcement. On its face, identity politics seems a non-starter. That doesn't interrupt the charming view of it; however democracy should be hung on reasonable premises, no?

But moreover, while situationally legitimate, they are morally void. Clinton's actions are ethically suspicious at best-- taking millions from the Wall Street she has actually promised in rein is no less than venally corrupt.

On this, Lucia Guzman is no different from countless politically effective Hillary acolytes. But in refusing to resolve genuine questions, the Senator Lucia Guzman Reverend Guzman is presiding at the funeral of accountability in our little corner of the world.

* Since she stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013, Hillary Clinton has actually been making equivalent charges from the very same sources. Of the almost $10 million she earned in lecture fees in 2013 alone, almost $1.6 million from significant Wall Street banks, including $675,000 from Goldman Sachs (the payments described by Bernie Sanders in the January 17 2016 dispute), and $225,000 each from UBS, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Comments on “Colorado Senator Lucia Guzman and the death of accountability, 2016 version”

Leave a Reply