Lately I’m have trouble figuring out which past moments in our nation’s racial history we are trying to relive: Is it Reconstruction all over again? Or a replay of the fight against integration? Have some of us really hopped into a time-machine back to the Antebellum South? Scary stuff. Ugly reminders of where we’ve come from, and how far we still have to go. Like the news about election night activities at Ole Miss. This particular story took me back to 1981, when I spent a summer at Ole Miss as a participant in a program for undergraduate Sociology majors.
We're taking a moment to breathe a sigh of relief and to savor some of the gains we are seeing from yesterday's election. We'll bring on some serious analysis in the coming days. For now, here are our quick and joyful reflections on winners and losers.
I’ve been reading a lot of stuff over the weekend from progressive and left thinkers and activists whom I deeply admire, making the case that, in a safely blue state, it’s okay to vote for someone you really like, such as the Green Party candidate, instead of the lesser of two evils.
Now that a major shift in our nation’s demographics is just around the corner, with a future in which people of European descent are no longer a numerical majority, demography is taking center-stage among pundits and prognosticators across the political spectrum. The current discourse seems to suggest that demography is destiny; that it will drive major changes in politics and culture.
This time last year we were asking big questions about where all the energy unleashed by Occupy would go, how it was impacting the national conversation about inequality, and what impact, if any, it would have on electoral and legislative action. We noted then that Occupy had already achieved the seemingly impossible by shifting attention away from the Tea Party and a trumped-up debt crisis toward the concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the 1%.
Foreign policy debates are usually the hardest to watch. Any candidate who has gotten this far in the race to the White House goes out of his way to project toughness using un-nuanced, and often, hackneyed language.
Two areas that did not come up Tuesday night still need clarification: 1) how much does the President’s plans for Social Security differ from his opponent’s privatization plans? For example, does the President plan to make changes to the program in line with the Simpson-Bowles Commission’s recommendations, as some have speculated?
As many commentators have noted today, President Obama showed up to last night’s debate with an attitude. He was in command of the room, and he gave his supporters a much-needed boost in morale. He also drew important distinctions between his vision for economic stability and what is being offered by his opponent. He struck the right tone as he noted, time and again, the inconsistencies in Governor Romney’s ever-changing positions on taxes, health care, immigration, pay equity and access to contraceptives.
Licenced by Creative Commons. The documents on this site are free for all to use noncommercially, with attribution. In addition to giving us credit when you use or reproduce our materials, we also ask that you let us know how you are using them.