Every cycle, I see well-intentioned white people decry the Democratic delegate selection process as unfair to their candidate. What they don’t realize is that it is a civil rights vehicle built out of the work of #FannieLouHamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.
Prior to 1964, party bosses picked the nominee. White delegates were often selected by party leaders despite black voters being a majority in various Democratic contests. Hamer and other black party members showed up in Atlantic City and insisted on being seated.
Their activism threatened the status quo to the point that President Johnson staged an impromptu press conference in the middle of Hamer’s testimony. When his stunt was made known, it backfired, and news outlets ran her testimony again and again.
Thanks to the work of Hamer & the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, our modern delegate selection process was established. It removed selection by party bosses & pegged delegates to votes of primary voters. Our current Democratic delegate selection process is built on that.
On its surface, it seems complex. This often leads to accusations of the process being “rigged” by some supporters of candidates. In actuality, its complexity (and equal transparency) ensures fairness and that the votes of marginalized groups are not falsely railroaded by others.
It’s a process which requires candidates to spend time with constituent communities - campaigning among them, organizing among them. It weds them to deeper work than simply showing up to a black church the Sunday before the primary (long a complaint of politicians).
It’s a complex system which ensures the votes of primary voters are honored, and which makes candidates organize among various constituencies of them Democratic Party. If they fail to do that, they suffer. To win a majority of voters, of delegates, your work must be deep.
I spent much of my career honoring the work of Hamer & the Mississippi Freedom Democrats by working to make the delegate selection process even more equitable - specifically shaping the rules in 2004 and 2008. It is a transparent process open to everyone. Take advantage of it.
Support your candidate. Vote for your candidate. Campaign for your candidate. Work your rear off for your candidate. Run for delegate. Shake some sh*t up. That’s what the process is there for. That’s what Hamer and others fought for.
I look back on the delegate campaign trainings I did for local advocates starting in 2003. Many were empassioned, but timid, local advocates. Their run for delegate was their first foray into politics. Now, some are state legislators, Members of Congress, and progressive leaders.
I don’t dissuade those working for candidates whom I may not support or favor. I encourage them. Democracy isn’t a passive sport. It is an active engagement.
It’s 2020. Honor Fannie Lou Hamer, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and all those before you, and get involved.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Someone wrote that Judge Amy Coney Barrett would bring “heart” to ‘special needs’ if confirmed to the #SupremeCourt. After showing my respect for the person who wrote that, and understanding of where they were coming from, this was my response:
“Disabled people don’t need lawmakers or jurors to bring “heart” to ‘special needs’. That’s what has led to patronizing policy which has f%¥ked over the exercise of our equality and marginalized our full participation in society over-and-over-and-over again...
It’s one of the greatest things we organize and fight against and we will continue to fight against it until the law and policy makers recognize that we are just like everyone else...
The whole #BobWoodward thing reminds me that our better politicians understand the press will try to ‘get’ them, and that’s a good, healthy thing for our democracy. They respect and welcome that.
—> It’s a BS check.
Bad politicians think the press is there to serve them.
*I should say it’s not as much that the press tries to “get” politicians, but that they don’t regard a politician’s messaging priorities when they are reporting stories. That’s an amazing thing, and when I was a press officer it drove me up the wall.
I hated it, but I loved it.
And the #BobWoodward tapes remind me of #LouChibarro of the @WashBlade. When I was a press officer, he was so masterful in asking a question, letting you answer, then NOT SAYING ANYTHING.
The subject felt compelled to fill the silence with more information.
👨🍳💋
So, while I very much *feel* #SpoonTheory in my being, it all falls apart when trying to use it as a metaphor with others (or as an accommodation strategy for myself). I constantly miscount and lose them.
When speaking, or in meetings, I’m often asked by folks to explain spoon theory. I usually just turn to someone I trust and ask “Could you explain it?”
For myself, I’ve learned to just make myself stop, slow down, or turn down requests when needed — and to be ok with that.
I mean, I’m a huge supporter of spoon theory as a metaphor to explain things to others and as an accomodation peoole can use themselves. It just all gets tangled and anxiety-inducing for me.
I love to laugh at that, though. You kind of gotta.
I often think on how research, medicine, and psychiatry approach and ‘treat’ autistic people today in the exact same manner they approached and ‘treated’ homosexuality until 1972.
Then, thanks to #LGBTQ advocates, homosexuality was suddenly ‘cured’ by @APAPsychiatric overnight.
Where are the endless research papers about the genetics and epigenetics of gay people?
Where are the warnings of “risk factors” for lesbians?
Where’s the pleading for “early intervention” for bisexuals?
What about environmental factors?!?!
We probably know less about gay people now than autistic people. But, we know enough not to funnel everything about LGBTQ people through a pathological frame.
All the questions we ask about autism are still there (and largely unanswered) for LGBTQ people.