Why do you demand misery from someone who is trying to not be miserable?

This site published an article recently questioning ESPN's decision to award their Arthur Ashe Courage Award to Caitlyn Jenner (ESPN does not care about courage).  The editorial staff and the writer made it clear that we do not question the courage of Caitlyn Jenner, we question the integrity of ESPN.  What Jenner has done in normalizing the conversation surrounding the transgender community is miraculous. Most of the pop culture and political community have been supportive in Jenner's announcement. The ugly vitriol has come from the obvious non-surprising sources, I will not link to these comments here.  What is truly amazing is that within the hateful community, some Republican politicians have been supportive of Caitlyn Jenner. Maybe the Republicans are realizing that they need to create more votes? 

This week the story of Rachel Dolezal became public (see here for an explanation). The media predictably began to destroy Ms. Dolezal.  People were rending garments and wondering how could this privileged woman do something so horrible. There has been no room for debate, Rachel Dolezal is a racist and she must be brought down. The lazy media moved this story to the top of everyone's news feed. The internet hate machine was put into action, everyone had a negative opinion of the disaster that is named Rachel Dolezal.

What exactly did Rachel Dolezal do that was wrong? She may have lied on a federal form about race. That is a crime. When Caitlyn Jenner files her taxes (or more likely when she sets up her tax shelters) will she commit a crime if she checks the female box on the forms? Will people be up in arms if she is not allowed checks the female box?  Rachel Dolezal has spent her adult life being an advocate for African-american art and issues. By all accounts she was very good at her job. Being a successful advocate means one needs to remove themselves from the conversation. Ms. Dolezal has built a career being the voice behind the faces. Her work afforded the opportunity to serve on a committee where she could enhance the advocacy for African-american issues.

The relation between Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal is minor, except in how the media wants to cover personal identification.  The Huffington Post, once a valuable resource for liberal voices, has quickly become the poster child of clickbait (need to see the latest in celebrity side-boob, the good liberals at HuffPo have you covered). Huffington Post reliably had to weigh in with the pitchfork crowd, and they want to find every way to tear Rachel Dolezal down. The debate in the minds of HuffPo's professional liberals is one of Caitlyn Jenner's courage and Rachel Dolezal's institutional racism. I had never thought of comparing Jenner's and Dolezal"s issues, but thanks to HuffPo I will now look at the issues side by side. Caitlyn Jenner has been part of the zeitgeist for a very long time.  She was able to create relationships, and sympathy, in the liberal popular culture because of Bruce Jenner's treatment by the Kardashian machine.  Transgender issues have made positive strides in our popular culture, and thankfully we are becoming more accepting of people based on their personal identifications. Rachel Dolezal's race identification is an unknown issue in today's society.  New is never good for social liberals or conservatives.

We have thankfully started to accept people's personal identification, except for race. This is the ugly truth of the Rachel Dolezal story. Caitlyn Jenner can be born a man, identify as a woman, and we SHOULD accept it. There is outdated people who will direct hate towards the transgender community, but the good people will control the public acceptance. These same good liberals will not give the same courtesy to Rachel Dolezal.  What is the deal? I have seen some people accuse Ms. Dolezal of engaging in the disgusting practice of blackface. Many high profile white people have recently used blackface in some manner (Robert Downey Jr, Julianne Hough, Sarah Silverman, Billy Crystal, to name just a few). Some of these celebrities were questioned, others were given a pass, but in all cases it was wrong. Rachel Dolezal is not a large public figure, she is not playing a part, she is trying to be the person she is. I can not believe she is trying to cause a stir by being an African-american women. Why has she not sought fame for nearly twenty years of identifying as an African-american? Why does that bother anyone?

My belief is that the good liberals, and predictable social conservatives, fear anything that does not fit their basic narrative. Here is the common ground. The liberals push for acceptance, and fight for equality, but will not tolerate any change in the conversation on race. Social conservatives just want things to not change(I think their ideal year was sometime in the 1950's). Race relations has been on the front of social change conversation recently, and people are understandably touchy on what race means.  Rachel Dolezal is not choosing to identify as African-american because of recent events.  She has been identifying as an African American for years.

Rachel Dolezal has not hurt anyone, as a matter of fact she has helped a large amount of people.  She was already in a lesser power class by being a woman, identifying as an African-american women only gave her less social power. Why does anyone care? She has not been going out of her way maliciously deceiving people. She found out who she is. We celebrate Caitlyn Jenner and urge the public to let her live life in happiness.  Rachel Dolezal deserves to live life in happiness.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Head Editor of Seed Sing. We are looking for contributors and podcast guests. Contact us here.

The impotence of the Republican Party's national identity

The Republican Party has equipment that does not work.  Their national identity does not have the ability to bring excitement and stimulate the imagination of the national electorate.  There are a few of the little things they do right.  They can get some of the small things done adequately, get us mildly interested.  However when it comes to the big show, it will end in disaster with a lot of soul searching and finger pointing.

Tired of the impotency metaphor.  Let's move on.

The modern Republican Party has built a brand that works in carved out legislative districts, and states that have local Democratic parties who do not know how to win elections (see the reasons Democrats have failed in state elections here.) I want to address the issue of branding in the local districts. While the republicans worked to get majorities in state houses, and in turn created districts that look like a 4 year old was coloring way out of the lines, the Democratic Party worked on a national messaging and outreach programs.  The republicans created a brand that would cater to a slight majority of the people in these gerrymandered districts.  Their local brand became dependent on political rhetoric that would cause the majority to fear the minority.  Black lives matter, equal pay for women, transgender acceptance, gay marriage, and many more social issues became the fodder for republican attacks. Divide and hate were the core of republican rhetoric. 

While campaigning in the local districts, these wedge issues can help drive necessary voter turnout among certain segments of the white vote.  In addition to creating the majority fear, the local republicans worked very hard to create a narrative of Democratic party voter fraud.

Go ahead and look up cases of actual voter fraud over the last twenty years, I can wait.

Welcome back, I am sure you came across a few cases (the name Ann Coulter definitely came up) but for the most part there is an insignificantly small amount of voter fraud cases.  Why are the republicans so worried? It works in their narrative to protect the right to vote, and to deny the vote at the same time.

These dividing tactics have served the Republican Party very well in the local elections, and helped push their message through a lazy corporate media.  Why do they not work at the national level? The answer is quite simple. They cannot sell their majority fear to a large nation. The urban areas have actual power in the national election.  Very few big states, like New York and California, can give a candidate a sizable electoral advantage (plus Texas is clearly in the national Democratic Party sights, watch out).  The Democratic party has been less than desirable on their social messaging, just look at Hillary Clinton, but they are not publicly speaking out against these emerging minority groups.  When Caitlyn Jenner makes news, Mike Huckabee makes a moronic joke about dressing like a girl to shower with girls in high school. He completely gave up any chance to win a national election with that comment, and he does not care.  It is more important for Mike Huckabee to be appealing to an out of touch voting block who will vote republican no matter what a candidate says.  When the scion of the Duggar clan admits to molesting young girls, including his own sisters, most of the national republicans do not condemn.  Instead they spend their time pushing false equivalence narratives to again protect a voter base that will never abandon them.  I know the argument will arise that you need the out of touch hate groups of the party to win the primary.  Even if that is the case, what you say to appeal to the hate groups will live on through the election (see Romney and 47%).  

I want you to think about what I just explained, the republicans need the out of touch hate groups.  Regardless of what the Fox News pundits say, America has always been socially progressive.  We have a number of amendments giving people rights, and we have only one taking away rights (plus that amendment was repealed so chalk up one more to giving rights). The electorate has expanded for one group when we acknowledge the minority rights. The early Republican Party (Lincoln's party, not Reagan's) saw an influx of voters after the 15th amendment.  The republicans again saw a voter influx after the 19th amendment.  The USA is the melting pot, we want your huddle masses yearning to breathe free.  Where in the hell does intolerance fit into that narrative.  There is no law demanding that anyone get married, so why do you want to deny marriage? There is no law dictating ones gender, so why do you care what someone feels in their soul?  The Republican Party seems to care about these issues, and that is why they are always fighting uphill in the national elections.

This is where my impotence metaphor is valid.  The republicans have all the right equipment, and it works for the most part.  The issue lies in a very important action, the republicans cannot achieve the ultimate satisfaction (the Presidency I mean of course).  Their grass roots of intolerance does not allow for them to reach out to an audience that does not buy the social division.  The Democratic Party has been sleep walking for decades on governance and strategy.  Their greatest advantage is the disdain for the Republican Party. Social division will always drive the disenfranchised urban centers to turn out (usually barely enough) for the elections that matter to them.  Without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would have been the President. George W Bush needed that Democratic Party division in one particular state to win the election with his light hate. Time has moved forward, communication technology has improved, and the Republican Party has continued their policy of division and hate.  

The first Republican to learn that all Americans can vote will be the person the Democrats have not been prepared to face.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Head Editor for Seed Sing.  He is flabbergasted that people who openly hate other Americans will be featured on Meet the Press this Sunday.  Come write for us to express your ideas. Join us.