Remember: our rules allow pointed disagreement, but require respectful discussion.
--
The poll specific, particularly about how liberals and convervatives
break down, are interesting and baffling, assuming they are accurate.
"Assumption" is a signficant aspect since the Star Tribune has a poor
track record of assessing the Mayoral race. (Everyone will recall that
it reported that SSB had the DFL convention in the bag). Another
problem with the poll is the vagueness and broadness of terms such as
"liberal" and "conservative." The terms do not differentiate social
issues, economic policy, police issues, etc. The terms do not
differentiate the wide range of people who are forced to put themselves
in on of those two categories. "Conservative" could range from Barrett
Lane to Pat Buchanan. "Liberal" would have to include old-time DFLers,
Greens, and leftists of various persuasions.
Notwithstanding the limitations of the poll, I still find it surprising
that most liberals support the Mayor and most conservatives support RT.
This is contrary to my own personal experience where most "liberal"
(using the ridiculously broad definition) activists think that the Mayor
has totally sold out to big business interests, and RT is a some degree
more liberal alternatives. Out of the fewer "conservative" activists
who i observe, it seems that most do not like the Mayor but would also
think that RT is too liberal.
I have two hypotheses from the poll results: 1) there is a disconnect
the views of activists and political junkies and the broader local
electorate. 2) "Race" is a big factor. As too the latter factor, I
suggest that many "liberals" and "conservatives" as reflected in the
poll are basing their opinions more an race than on substance. There
does not seem to be such reason for so many conservatives to be so
opposed to the Mayor. She has supported whatever business interests
want, and has placed a great emphasis on "law and order" ranging from
policies such as CODEFOR to making her own drug busts. Although there
are some substantive "conservative" grounds for criticizing the Mayor
such as her positions on social issues or irresponsible spending, even
though the spending consists of business subsidies, on the whole she has
been a "conservative" Mayor. My hypothesis is that at least a
substantial percentage of "conservatives" dislike the Mayor because she
is African American rather than her policies. As for "liberals", it
really does not make sense that there would be a lot of support for the
Mayor's policies. Besides the aforementioned huge corporate welfare
handouts and abusive police programs, there is a horrible affordable
housing crises. My hypothesis is that many "liberals" support the Mayor
primarily because she is African American rather than her policies.
I will also take this opportunity to weight in on the much-discussed
issue of the importance of having diverse representation in elective
office. I believe that this is very important. But it is even more
important to have representative committed challenging racism and other
inequality. The problem with the Mayor is that she was sold to liberals
based on her race, while being beholden to big business interests from
the beginning. This is a demonstration of the pitfalls of such the
often superficial liberal view of diversity that is limited to
representation in visible positions of power, without analysis of whose
interests they support. It is time for higher standards both on
diversity and in substantive politics.
Jordan Kushner
Ward 8
List Manager wrote:
>
> Remember: our rules allow pointed disagreement, but require respectful discussion.
> --
>
> Strib does a September election poll, with the mayor leading the
> challenger by 2:
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/707625.html
>
>
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
