Author, scholar, and former independent presidential candidate Cornel West was recently a guest on The Katie Halper Show where he talked about his presidential campaign and the current state of U.S. politics. It’s a very informed, insightful and, in many ways, inspiring interview.
Cornel West – author, scholar, and Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary – announced in June that he was seeking the Green Party’s nomination for President of the United States in their primaries. (Earlier in June West had said he was running for president as a People’s Party candidate.)
As a third-party candidate, West is being accused by some on the left as being a “spoiler” candidate, one who will take votes away from Joe Biden and thus help secure a win for Donald Trump in November 2024. It’s a long-standing accusation leveled at third-party candidates, and one Meagan Day addressed back in 2017 when Democrats were accusing Green Party candidate Jill Stein of “stealing” votes from Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, thereby helping elect Trump. Day’s response to this charge remains as important tody as it did in 2017.
The fixation on the third-party vote is a decoy. Worse, it’s a fundamental miscalculation, especially for Democrats, who have a slightly better chance than Republicans of activating [the] dormant electorate [i.e., the roughly 40 percent of eligible American adults who declined to vote at all in the 2016 presidential election]. Or at least they could if they were willing to make material concessions to poor people of color at the expense of the donor class.
“Trump’s victory margin smaller than total Stein votes in key swing states,” carped a headline at The Hill in 2016, one of dozens or hundreds like it. But where are the headlines that read, “Trump’s margin of victory dwarfed by the number of poor non-voters in key swing states”? That’s the conversation we need to be having. Not which weight tipped the scale, but why the scale only holds half the weights to begin with.
More recently, Lucas Guzman addressed voting third-party in a counterpoint he wrote last October for The Daily Texan. Guzman writes in part:
Many people claim voting for third-party candidates is just as worthless as not voting at all, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth. In state-level races such as California or Alabama, two states known for their partisan views, the leading party isn’t likely to change anytime soon. However, your dissenting vote will allow you to support a candidate that fairly represents your views, and can even serve as an opposing voice holding the leading party accountable. Voting for third party candidates could also force competitive races to have an even greater focus on policy in general, leading to more open conversations.
West, of course, wants to do more than facilitate “more open conversation,” as important as this is.
“I am running for truth and justice and as a candidate for president of the United States in the Green Party,” West says on his campaign’s official website. “I want to reintroduce America to the best of itself – the dignity, courage, and creativity of precious everyday people. Join our movement for priceless poor and working people of all colors here and abroad.”
“The Democratic party is beyond redemption”
About a week ago, Cornel West appeared on The Hill’s Rising podcast and talked with hosts Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave about his third party presidential run.
I should say that I don’t care for how Rising often promotes it’s various segments, with tabloid-looking and -sounding headlines. That being said, these segments’ actual content is generally always insightful and worthwhile. Case in point: the following interview with Cornel West. . . . Now, even though at this stage I remain 100% supportive of Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, whose platform very much overlaps with West’s, I found Rising’s interview well worth watching as it elicits some very powerful and inspiring observations from Dr. West on the dismal state of the Democratic party and the political, economic and moral state of the U.S.
The Democratic party has no fundamental intention of speaking to the needs of poor people or working people. They are dominated by their corporate wing; they’re dominated by the militarists when it comes to foreign policy; and [progressives like] Bernie and AOC and others are, in a certain sense, window dressing at worst, and, at best, people to appeal to every four years. But the Democratic party is beyond redemption at this point when it comes to seriously speaking to the needs of poor and working people.
I think we’ve reached such a low point that . . . we [need to] go for broke and try in fact to reshape our political system. [Yet things like] rank choice voting and proportional representation [which] would be possible things . . . the Democratic party has no interest in whatsoever. It’s clear that Biden and company have no serious interest in trying to scale back on the militarism abroad; they have no serious interest in trying to make poor and working people a priority. . . . And part of the paradox here is that the neo-fascism that’s escalating in predicated on the rottenness of the system in which the Democratic party facilitates that frustration and desperation because it can’t present an alternative [to the current status quo of the GOP’s neo-fascism and it own neoliberalism]. And if the system – if America – is unable to present an alternative to the Democratic party’s [neoliberalism] then we’re going fascist. We just need to acknowledge that. We’re going to go sooner or later. . . . So we’ve got to have some kind of break [from the status quo] or at least raise our voice and [speak to] the truth about our condition.
– Cornel West August 29, 2023
A “legitimate and sensible alternative” . . . but not the only one
Thanks to my friend William D. Lindsay, I recently became aware of an insightful article about Cornel West and his candidacy by Wendell Griffen, Pastor at New Millennium Church in Little Rock, Arkansas. Following is an excerpt from Griffen’s August 29 piece, "We Should Not Disregard or Disrespect Cornel West’s Candidacy for President of the United States."
Why shouldn’t [we] treat Cornel West as a legitimate and sensible alternative to any of the other people who are announced candidates for the highest elective office in the United States? Whether you agree with West or not, why should you refuse to consider his candidacy as a prophetic and politically sensible alternative to any of the other candidates?
Why not weigh his values, vision, and commitment to democracy, inclusion, justice, peace, and global well-being alongside what the other candidates believe? Isn’t that essential for sound decision-making?
I’ve heard people – including those I deeply respect – say that West’s candidacy benefits Donald Trump. They admit that West has taught, written, lectured, advocated, and agitated for decades about matters and issues they care about.
They have a more favorable view of West than Joe Biden. However, these serious-minded people say that West’s Green Party candidacy will benefit Donald Trump by siphoning likely Democratic voters from Biden in the November 2024 presidential election.
I find that viewpoint unsound.
Biden’s approval rating among Black, Latino, Asian, Indigenous, women, the LGBTQ+ community, elderly, and working-class voters has been lukewarm, at best, for most of his presidency. Cornel West is not responsible for Biden’s low approval rating among likely Democratic voters.
It is fanciful to think that those voters will vote for Biden in large numbers if West is not on their ballot as the Green Party presidential candidate in 2024. A convenient fanciful notion is – wait for it – fanciful, no matter how much we might enjoy it. The fact that it is convenient, or even desirable, does not make the notion credible, let alone persuasive.
Voters who hold lukewarm views about Biden’s presidency have several options. Some will vote for him anyway. Others might vote for a third-party candidate (such as Cornel West) with whom they more strongly agree. Some voters might decide to “stay home.”
People concerned about Cornel West’s Green Party campaign for the U.S. presidency do not think that disgruntled and lukewarm Democratic voters are likely to vote for Donald Trump, or for any of the other politicians currently campaigning to be chosen as the Republican Party nominee in 2024. They fear that Trump’s right-wing base of white religious nationalists, neofascist imperialists, military adventurists, and free market capitalists will vote Trump back into power unless disgruntled and lukewarm Democratic voters re-elect Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
But if Joe Biden cannot persuade voters that he deserves their votes, no one should blame Cornel West. Instead, we should admit that those voters are free to vote for a presidential candidate whose record squares with their views and values.
They owe Biden no political fealty and are not required to serve the interests of the neoliberal capitalists who run the Democratic Party, whether West runs for president or not. Their voting preferences should be based on their realities, their histories, and their hopes.
A major critique I have of Wendell Griffen’s article on Cornel West is that towards the end of it he incorrectly writes that, “West should not be blamed because the Democratic and Republican Parties have offered no comparable candidates.”
I wonder: is it because Williamson’s a woman that she’s ignored?
Is it because she openly integrates spiritual and moral themes into her politics?
Or is it because the type of spirituality she emphasizes and embodies is often (and erroneously) labeled and dismissed as “New Age” that she’s routinely invisibilized?
I don’t have the answers, but the fact that these questions are present in the midst of Williamson’s genuinely progressive and refreshingly hope-filled presidential campaign is both disappointing and frustrating.
My friend David Weiss had the same critique, and I’ll close this post by sharing what he recently wrote on my Facebook page.
I had the *same* reaction in reading Wendell Griffen’s piece. Very appreciative of his amplifying Cornel West’s core and compelling vision, but caught off guard by the quick pivot to suggest he was the *only* candidate with such a transformative vision. Although West’s and Williamson’s visions (and temperaments) are not identical, they BOTH present a searing critique of a Democratic party establishment that seems satisfied to be “not-Republican,” rather than socially transformative. That party satisfaction with a merely mediocre vision of social well-being is perhaps the single biggest threat to our democracy, because it will invite the disenchanted and disempowered to simply stay home (or vote Green) because neither major party makes a credible claim to their vote.
Opening image: Philosopher Dr. Cornel West speaks onstage during the “Black America Since MLK: And Still I Rise” panel discussion at the PBS portion of the 2016 Television Critics Association Summer Tour at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on July 29, 2016, in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)
Right: Friends and I with Medea Benjamin in Minneapolis – Sunday, May 21, 2023. From left: Sue Ann Martinson and Carol Masters of Women Against Military Madness (WAMM), Medea, and me.
The first of Medea’s Twin Cities speaking engagements was marred by violence from a small group of people protesting Medea and her perspective on the conflict involving Ukraine, Russia, and many of the member nations of NATO. Following is the Star Tribune’s Randy Furst’s reporting on the incident.
The division [in the Twin Cities justice and peace community] over U.S. policy [on Ukraine] came to a head three weeks ago in south Minneapolis, when a scuffle erupted outside a meeting hall where Medea Benjamin was appearing in a forum sponsored by WAMM and the local chapter of Veterans for Peace. Benjamin is a co-founder of Code Pink, a national peace group that’s calling for an immediate cease-fire in Ukraine.
. . . Outside the meeting hall, Benjamin used her cell phone to shoot video of Kieran Knutson, an activist protesting her appearance. When someone took Benjamin’s phone, Veterans for Peace activist Craig Wood said, he waded into the crowd to retrieve it and was pushed or fell to the ground, where he was pummeled by two individuals. His arm was dislocated and will require surgery, he said. Police were called but there were no arrests.
“I have never experienced the level of aggressiveness and violence that I experienced in Minneapolis, and I have been to 70 cities [as part of my current book tour],” said Benjamin in an interview.
During the Q & A of the event I attended, I asked Medea why she thought some are protesting her and the book she’s co-written with Nicolas Davies.
In response, Medea shared that, from her perspective, most of those protesting are ultra-nationalists and seem to think that her call for peace negotiations denies or undermines the sovereignty of Ukraine. Medea’s also been accused of being a “Putin apologist,” primarily because she talks about the role of NATO and the U.S. in escalating tensions in the region in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. She’s correct, of course, to talk about these tensions and the entities that instigate them. They are players in this ongoing conflict.
Highlighing such a fundamental truth and facilitating informed discussions about it in an effort to advance justice and peace does not justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, an accusation and smear that one hears ad nauseam from those in opposition to anyone who believes that the role of the U.S. should be, first and foremost, to push for a cease-fire and subsequent peace talks rather than supplying a constant and seemingly neverending stream of weapons to Ukraine.
As a longtime justice and peace activist, Medea believes that individuals and governments should advocate and strategize for peace above planning for and fueling war. And again, one can hold such values and do such peace-building and still denounce the Russian government’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. For her part, Medea Benjamin is crystal clear: neither she or the book she’s co-authored attempt to justify or excuse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And the reason for this is simple: Russia’s invasion cannot be justified or excused.
With this as a foundation, one can recognize and declare the situation in Ukraine as both a proxy war between the modern-day “empires” of Russia and the U.S. and a heroic battle for survival from Russian imperialism on the part of the people of Ukraine. That some can’t hold these two realities in tension and must therefore resort to name-calling, aggressiveness and violence is pathetic.
Medea’s primary goal, in both her book and the talks she’s been giving across the nation, is to inform people of “the context, the background, and the actions of all the parties” that led to terrible crisis being experienced in Ukraine.
Medea starts each of her presentations by sharing an 18-minute video, one that serves as an invaluable primer to understanding the war in Ukraine. I share this video below. It’s followed by additional thoughts on the crisis in Ukraine by two 2024 presidential candidates: Green Party candidate Cornel West and Democratic Party candidate Marianne Williamson.
[In the crisis in Ukraine we] have the clash of two empires. The Russian empire is a deeply wounded empire. It’s had its territory cut back. Of course, its economy is shrinking. And then you’ve got the American empire, which is the most powerful empire in the history of the world. . . . And so, on the one hand, you have the promise of the American empire to the elites in the Russian empire: “We will not move an inch.” And within decades, fourteen of the satellite countries of the former Soviet Union are part of NATO. [There are now] missiles right on the borders and boundaries of the Russian empire.
Now, we know empires behave like empires. I mean, if there’s missiles in Canada and Mexico, the U.S. government would blow them to smithereens quickly. We saw it in Cuba in 1962. . . . [E]mpires behave like empires. They’re greedy. They’re driven by predatory capitalist dispositions. They’re obsessed with hierarchy. They’re concerned with domination and conquests. . . . So in that regard, there’s no doubt in my mind that the expansion of NATO has played a crucial role in the wounded Russian empire, with all of its repression, all of its regimentation.
Let us never forget about the thousands of Russian brothers and sisters who are going to jail in opposition to gangster Putin’s criminal invasion. But he’s pushed against a wall, and he responds. That’s how heads of empire respond. So we’ve got to be in solidarity with the suffering of our Ukrainian brothers and sisters, but we have to recognize NATO is a instrument of American imperial foreign policy. We’ve seen it over and over again.
And so we’re witnessing a proxy war. There must be a ceasefire. There must be a stopping of that war. Why? We’re on the road to nuclear war. That’s the last thing we want to see.
[As president] I would pull back on the U.S. military support. I would sit down with the elites from the Chinese empire, given all of their forms of regimentation and repression in their own context. Think about our precious Muslim brothers and sisters in China, the Uyghurs. But I would sit down with the Chinese. I would sit down with the Ukrainians. I would sit down with the Russians [and] say, “We’re going to stop this war, and we’re going to come up with a plan, a process, with a variety of voices heard, to make sure that the suffering stops and [that] we understand and we’re honest about the larger context of the war.
For those of us who have spent years opposing the influence of the military industrial complex on U.S. foreign policy, the war in Ukraine poses a peculiar challenge. It’s possible to believe the undue influence of the U.S. war machine is very real, and at the same time believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a criminal venture that cannot be tolerated by the world.
The United States has perpetrated its own imperialistic ventures, to be sure. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions have died because of our own misguided actions. But a position of anti-imperialism should be consistent, whether it be ours or anyone else’s. Did American foreign policy contribute to the germination of the war in Ukraine? Yes. Did our actions regarding NATO, and putting Aegis missiles in Poland, only exacerbate the situation? Yes. But that does not mean we are ultimately responsible for Putin’s atrocious invasion, nor does it mean that our larger interests, the interests of the people of Ukraine or the interests of the rest of the world, are best served by our withholding support from Ukraine now.
The people of Ukraine are putting up a heroic battle for the survival of their country, and many Americans are divided here in the United States over how much, if any, support they should receive from the United States. I have heard it said that support for them at this time is “pro-war,” as though withdrawing such support is somehow “pro-peace.” But such a notion is disingenuous. A withdrawal of US support from Ukraine at this point would not lead to peace; it would lead to the most horrifying climax of the war. Russia would simply deliver its final brutal blow to Ukraine, pummeling it to the point where it would no longer exist as a separate nation.
. . . Both Russia and Ukraine are intent on winning this war. Diplomatic options are severely limited until the war begins to break one way or the other. Regardless how we got here, our only choice at this point is to either support Ukraine or to not. While the United States should do everything possible to support a negotiated settlement, our goal should also be a negotiated settlement in which Ukraine still has a chance to exist.
Denmark has offered to host peace talks in July, insisting that for such talks to be effective they must include more than Ukraine’s allies; China, Brazil and India must participate as well. The United States should enthusiastically embrace any such overtures for diplomatic efforts to end the war.
The best way to solve conflicts is to prevent them from occurring to begin with, and if I had had the choice, I would have made very different foreign policy decisions related to Russia over the last 40 years. We must set an entirely new and different trajectory of military involvement in the world, one in which we are not the world’s policeman but rather the world’s collaborator in creating a world in which war is no more.
In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, “We must end the beginnings of all wars.” And I would seek to do that.
The United States needs to be on a decidedly different path when it comes to our military posture, a subject I will be talking about in some detail over the next few months. America has over 800 military installations in over 80 countries; as president, I would exercise my unilateral authority to close those which represent nothing more than a continuation of the excessive militarization of American foreign policy. The military industrial complex has led to an obscenely bloated military budget, more of a cash cow for the defense industry than a righteous, appropriate, and sober arm of American foreign policy. I support a serious reduction of our military budget, plus I would audit every penny of the Pentagon in response to recent revelations of serious price gauging by defense contractors. I would also establish a U.S. Department of Peace to lift peace-building to the front of our foreign policy agenda. We must do more than know how to wage war. As a country, and as a species, we must learn to wage peace.
I have self-identifying progressive friends who are so focused on being critical of U.S. foreign policy and its detrimental effects on other countries that they don’t seem able to cast this same critical eye onto other nations that engage in similar imperialistic behavior. In particular, I’m thinking of the actions of the authoritarian governments of Iran and Russia.
For these particular friends of mine, the U.S. government is the one and only “enemy.” Accordingly, they have uncritically taken to heart the adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s insane, I know.
I, on the other hand, take to heart the wise words of Dr. Cornel West: “I stand on the highest moral ground I can gain access to, which is in opposition to imperialism – be it China, be it India, be it America, be it Britain, be it France, be it Russia. Across the board, our anti-imperialism must be consistent.” Amen, brother! (For a good definition of imperialism and how it is different from yet related to colonialism, see the image below.)
Dr. West shared his perspective on anti-imperialism earlier today, when part of a round-table discussion on the daily independent news hour, Democracy Now! He and others were discussing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s one-day visit to Washington, D.C., where he called on the Biden administration and lawmakers to provide more military and financial aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia. It’s been just over ten months since Russian leader Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine.
I would hope we accent both the American empire, that set the context for this situation with the expansion of NATO and pushing the gangster Putin with his wounded Russian empire against the wall, and [Putin’s] wrong, illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of our precious Ukrainian brothers and sisters. . . . We have to be willing to have a moral witness that keeps track of the organized greed, the routinized hatred, the manipulated fear and the chronic hypocrisy of [both] the wounded Russian empire and the American empire. [The latter] has 800 military [bases] around the world and doesn’t want to be honest about its own role. We know that if there were missiles in Canada or Mexico or Venezuela or Cuba, the U.S. military would blow them to smithereens. So we have no moral authority when it comes to dealing with the gangster activity of Putin. We have American gangster activity in our military-industrial complex tied to the White House. . . . I stand on the highest moral ground I can gain access to, which is in opposition to imperialism – be it China, be it India, be it America, be it Britain, be it France, be it Russia. Across the board, our anti-imperialism must be consistent.
There is no trust on any side at this point. But there is a need for negotiations. Both sides have staked out their positions, maximalist positions on each side – Zelensky now saying they want every inch of Donbas and all of Crimea back, and the Russians saying they now control and own these four regions of Ukraine that they can’t even control on the battlefield. But these are positions for negotiations. But the call for negotiations has to come from Biden. And it is not happening. We see that after he met with Macron, the head of France, Macron said there are legitimate security interests of Russia that have to be taken into account. So that all has to be dealt with at the peace table. And so, what we are saying with this Christmas truce call is let’s be realistic with the American people. We keep pouring more money [into this war] – another $45 billion will be approved by the end of this week. That’s over $100 billion, without a year going by, that could have been used for so many essential needs here in this country, and instead poured into a war that is not winnable on the battlefield. So, we need to be honest about this. . . . The U.S., unfortunately, and the Biden administration, has been against negotiations, nixed the negotiations that were going on in late March, early April, and told the Ukrainians, basically, “You don’t have to negotiate, because we’re going to keep pouring more weapons in.” This is only helping the weapons companies, who actually were the sponsors of a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C., on December 8th, brought to you by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. They are the ones who are getting rich in this. The Ukrainians are suffering. The whole world is suffering from this. And we have to get Congress – all of Congress – to recognize this is not in the best interest of the American people or of the entire world.
In an age of mendacity and criminality, which is our own, just telling the truth and having integrity is revolutionary. It’s subversive. It’s counter-cultural. James Baldwin . . . [brings] the rich tradition of eloquence, of truth-telling, witness-bearing, soul-stirring writing. . . . [Baldwin] is someone who refused to allow his fire to be dampened by overwhelming bleakness and darkness. And that’s a beautiful thing.
– Dr. Cornel West
This past Tuesday, August 2, was the 98th anniversary of the late American writer and activist James Baldwin.
To (belatedly) mark the occasion I share the following 2017 video of Dr. Cornel West discussing Baldwin’s legacy.
Journalist and novelist Vinson Cunningham recently interviewed Cornel West, who for over three decades has been “one of the preëminent public philosophers in America.”
The following words and insights of West really speak to me. Perhaps they will to you as well.
____________________
When you have a vocation, as opposed to just a profession, and a calling as opposed to a career, then you’re really trying to proceed in the spirit of integrity, and you’re going to find persons who also have that same sense of vocation, no matter what color they are. And you form some genuine relations and friendships and brotherhoods and sisterhoods and siblinghoods, as my nonbinary folk would say.
But the problem is that, these days, everybody wants their brand to be so commodified, rather than to find their cause and be so courageous that they’re willing to pay a cost and take a risk for their cause, not just their careers. That’s a spiritual decay right there, and that cuts across region, race, class, gender, sexual orientation – across the board. We see gangsterization and thuggishness, every color, every gender, every sexual orientation, and we see it in every class, but those at the top see the élites unaccountable. Say anything, do everything: no answerability at all.
That’s not just brother Trump, even though he’s a neo-Fascist one. He’s on the continuum with so much of the professional-managerial class in terms of their lack of accountability to working people and poor people. Once you have that kind of spiritual decay and moral decrepitude . . . then it’s just gangsterization on steroids, man. That’s where America’s headed. I tried to say the same thing in Democracy Matters, but it was hard for that book to gain visibility, partly because of what I said about the Middle East. I talked about the gangsterization. Through what? Militarism, free-market fundamentalism, and increasing authoritarianism that’s become neo-Fascism in its expressions. And that’s eighteen years ago.
. . . The Democratic Party is in deep trouble. The neoliberal vision of brother Biden, which, in his own individual case, is predicated on crimes against humanity in terms of mass incarceration, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the Wall Street bailout that led toward the collapse of so many poor and working people’s life chances – to me those are crimes against humanity, just as a person that’s trying to be decent in the world, the crushing of lives of so many folk, the killing of so many folk in Iraq and so on. But he’s still better than Trump. Now, good God almighty, we wonder why we are so desperate.
It’s very clear he turns out to be milquetoast, and the only way he can deliver is the opposing posture, as if you put a Black sister on the Supreme Court and you satisfy the Black women who voted. You’re going to tell me that Black women voted solely to have a representative on the Supreme Court, and not to deal with Black people, Black children, and other folk who are suffering economically and socially? All you need is just a Black woman on the Court, and you’re satisfied now? Most Black sisters out there that I know did not go out for that. But, of course, we want a Black progressive on the court, and a Black woman, fine. But he can’t fight for voting rights for a whole year, can’t hardly engage in any courageous action for that for a whole year? [After Biden announced his selection of Ketanji Brown Jackson, I asked West what he thought of the choice. “It’s a beautiful thing,” he said. “I applaud Black success. The challenge is: how do we sustain Black moral greatness?”]
[Biden’s] not dealing with deportation. [He’s] still locked into a very knee-jerk defense of NATO so that the militarism still goes on – everybody knows if Russia had troops in Mexico or Canada there would be invasions [of those countries] tomorrow. He sends the Secretary of State, telling Russia, “You have no right to have a sphere of influence,” after the Monroe Doctrine, after the overthrowing of democratic regimes in Latin America [by the U.S.] for the last hundred-and-some years. Come on, America, do you think people are stupid? What kind of hypocrisy can anybody stand?
That doesn’t mean that Putin is not still a gangster – of course he is. But so were the folk promoting the Monroe Doctrine that had the U.S. sphere of influence for decade after decade after decade after decade, and anybody critical of you, you would demonize. Yet here are you, right at the door of Russia, and can’t see yourself in the mirror. That’s spiritual decay right there, brother, it really is.
. . . The sad thing is that neither the neo-Fascists nor the neoliberals have too much deep love of poor and working people across race, gender, and nation, and very few of them are committed to democratic processes all the way down. And so things really begin to get very confusing on a surface level. But when you really scratch beneath that surface, you can still see just how empty and decrepit, spiritually and morally, both the neo-Fascists are, with all of their ugliness, and the neoliberals, with all of their hypocrisy. Because if we can’t provide an alternative vision between neoliberalism and neo-Fascism, then, as neoliberalism goes under, America will go neo-Fascist. Period.
. . . Certain kinds of democratic processes are precious and fragile. That’s why we try to hold on to them. We’re losing those, too. And that’s why these days are so grim and dim. And that’s why we have to be committed to being certain kinds of persons, no matter what the possibilities are for triumph. We have a chance of a snowball in Hell of fighting for freedom. We fight anyway, because it’s right and because it’s just. And we just get crushed when we get crushed, but we get crushed with a smile.
Here’s a good follow-up to my recent post on systemic racism in the U.S. . . .
It’s philosopher, intellectual, and activist Dr. Cornel West being interviewed by Charles Blow on how leading Democrats, including President Biden and Vice-president Harris, are falling over themselves to agree with members of the now neo-fascist Republican party in insisting that “America is not a racist country.”
Cornel West, however, is having none of this nonsense. “Of course America is a racist country,” he tells Charles Blow, before clearly explaining why. He also takes to task Democratic strategist James Carville, who recently declared that the Democratic party has a “'wokeness' problem.” West’s response and his clear defining of what “wokeness” actually means, is spot-on.
I get it that for many white people West’s statement is both confrontational and uncomfortable. After all, that’s how truth often first strikes us – as confrontational and uncomfortable. Yet we shouldn’t allow this truth – or the reactions it can generate – to polarize and paralyze us. Instead, I think we should allow it to motivate us. After all, it’s only when we acknowledge our shortcomings and failures as a society that we can begin the corrective work of justice and healing; begin to create a world where all are valued and all can thrive.
The sad thing is that if [Biden had said that America was a racist country] then the same [Democrats now siding with Republicans] would go with Biden because they’re not fundamentally committed to truth; they’re concerned about the camaraderie within the party. . . . We have to say unequivocally that we’re here to tell the truth, [and] the condition of truth is to allow the suffering to speak. Of course America is a racist country. Of course, after 244 years of white supremacist barbaric slavery and another 100 years of neo-slavery and American apartheid, would we be surprised if America were not a racist country? The point is that we’re less racist [now] . . . But we [still] have to tell the truth.
. . . By “wokeness” all we mean is the sensitivity to the suffering of those people who have been terrorized, traumatized, and hated – that’s Indigenous peoples, Black peoples, Brown peoples, poor peoples, and so forth. And so in that sense, wokeness is just a positive step in trying to keep track with people’s suffering. Now I don’t believe in just staying woke, because if we stay woke we’re going to suffer from insomnia. I believe in being fortified so that wokeness is a moment in our attempt to fortify ourselves to be love-warriors, to be wounded-healers, to be freedom-fighters – all three at the same time. Now for me it’s tied to Jesus running the money-changers out of the Temple, and it’s tied to Shiloh Baptist Church. That’s where I’m coming from. . . . My wokeness is tied to being fortified, because I’m in this for the long run.
The rot is the [political/economic] system’s embracing of the neofascist wing of the ruling class, which is Donald Trump and company, and the neoliberal wing of the ruling class, which is Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The reason some of us argue against Trump, in the form of a vote for a milquetoast, mediocre, centrist Biden – who’s head of a rotten Democratic establishment – is because we’re trying to stop the American march toward fascism.
. . . Fascism calls into question the very possibility of any kind of radical Democratic politics, across the board. But there is still a difference between a neofascist catastrophe and a neoliberal disaster. Now, it looks as if we’ll be wrestling with a neoliberal disaster. That’s another way of saying that the rot is there, it’s just that with Biden, the rot proceeds much more slowly. And so we still have to have mass mobilization, we still have to have serious social movement, motion and momentum. . . . pressures on Democrats in the House and certain kinds of alliances with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But I think we can conclude that the Democratic Party is simply unable to serve as an institutional vehicle for serious struggles for truth and justice. That’s the conclusion right now I think we have to draw.
That’s why I’m spending a lot of time with Brother Nick Brana and Sister Nina Turner and with Marianne Williamson and the others with the People’s Party. But I think the crucial point here is that we’ve got to be able to have a politics of solidarity. What I mean by that is that all the talk about identity – racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation identity – is crucial, it is indispensable, but in the end, it must be connected to a moral integrity and deep political solidarity that hones in on a financialized form of predatory capitalism. A capitalism that is killing the planet, poor people, working people here and abroad.
The neoliberal versions of identity politics are exactly what Brother Adolph Reed has taught us for the last thirty years; it’s a form of class politics. And if we don’t understand that, we fall right in the trap of what we underwent with Barack Obama. And we can’t fall in that trap again.
I established The Wild Reed in 2006 as a sign of solidarity with all who are dedicated to living lives of integrity – though, in particular, with gay people seeking to be true to both the gift of their sexuality and their Catholic faith. The Wild Reed's original by-line read, “Thoughts and reflections from a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective.” As you can see, it reads differently now. This is because my journey has, in many ways, taken me beyond, or perhaps better still, deeper into the realities that the words “progressive,” “gay,” and “Catholic” seek to describe.
Even though reeds can symbolize frailty, they may also represent the strength found in flexibility. Popular wisdom says that the green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm. Tall green reeds are associated with water, fertility, abundance, wealth, and rebirth. The sound of a reed pipe is often considered the voice of a soul pining for God or a lost love.
On September 24, 2012,Michael BaylyofCatholics for Marriage Equality MNwas interviewed by Suzanne Linton of Our World Today about same-sex relationships and why Catholics can vote 'no' on the proposed Minnesota anti-marriage equality amendment.
"I believe your blog to be of utmost importance for all people regardless of their orientation. . . . Thank you for your blog and the care and dedication that you give in bringing the TRUTH to everyone."– William
"Michael, if there is ever a moment in your day or in your life when you feel low and despondent and wonder whether what you are doing is anything worthwhile, think of this: thanks to your writing on the internet, a young man miles away is now willing to embrace life completely and use his talents and passions unashamedly to celebrate God and his creation. Any success I face in the future and any lives I touch would have been made possible thanks to you and your honesty and wisdom."– AB
"Since I discovered your blog I have felt so much more encouraged and inspired knowing that I'm not the only gay guy in the Catholic Church trying to balance my Faith and my sexuality. Continue being a beacon of hope and a guide to the future within our Church!"– Phillip
"Your posts about Catholic issues are always informative and well researched, and I especially appreciate your photography and the personal posts about your own experience. I'm very glad I found your blog and that I've had the chance to get to know you."– Crystal
"Thank you for taking the time to create this fantastic blog. It is so inspiring!"– George
"I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholic blogs, but from what I've seen, The Wild Reed ranks among the very best."– Kevin
"Reading your blog leaves me with the consolation of knowing that the words Catholic, gay and progressive are not mutually exclusive.."– Patrick
"I grieve for the Roman institution’s betrayal of God’s invitation to change. I fear that somewhere in the midst of this denial is a great sin that rests on the shoulders of those who lead and those who passively follow. But knowing that there are voices, voices of the prophets out there gives me hope. Please keep up the good work."– Peter
"I ran across your blog the other day looking for something else. I stopped to look at it and then bookmarked it because you have written some excellent articles that I want to read. I find your writing to be insightful and interesting and I'm looking forward to reading more of it. Keep up the good work. We really, really need sane people with a voice these days."– Jane Gael
"Michael, your site is like water in the desert."– Jayden
