When I saw the recent Monmouth University poll that put Joe Biden at only 19 percent and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both at 20 percent, I was a little giddy — but only for a moment.
I quickly reminded myself that it was only one poll and the only poll showing such numbers. And then I looked at the sample size: only 298 respondents, giving the poll a margin of error of a whopping plus or minus 6 percentage points.
Even the Monmouth University pollsters — after the mainstream “news” media widely announced a huge shake-up in the Democratic Party presidential race, which has been rather stagnant for some time now — released a statement declaring what we already knew: that the poll was (still is…) an “outlier.” (“Outlier” is putting it quite gently…)
Still, Biden appears to be slipping gradually, and both Bernie and Warren appear to be gaining gradually.
Of course, Biden, Bernie and Warren have been in the top three for a long time now, and Harris and Buttigieg have rounded out the top five for a long time now (this New York Times headline might make you think that this is new).
But with candidates dropping like flies — including, as of late, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Seth Moulton “Who?” and the insufferable Kirsten Gillibrand — it will be interesting to see where their support goes (not that those four had much support, even combined, but still…).
Thankfully, next month there should be only one debate night (instead of two debate nights in a row, as was the case in June and July) because only 10 candidates have qualified, via fundraising and via polling, to appear in next month’s debate via the Democratic National Committee’s rules.
The 10 candidates whose spots on the debate stage in Houston [on September 12] are assured are (from top-to-bottom of their unofficial DNC polling average): [Joe] Biden (37 percent), Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (21 percent), [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren [of Massachusetts] (20 percent), [Sen. Kamala] Harris [of California] (17 percent), South Bend [Indiana] Mayor Pete Buttigieg (7 percent), Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey (3 percent), Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (3 percent), entrepreneur Andrew Yang (3 percent), former HUD Secretary Julián Castro (3 percent) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas (3 percent).
The September debate will be the first in which all five front-runners will share the stage at the same time. Might be interesting, and I’ll probably watch this one; truth be told, I watched only portions of the first two debates, because with an overcrowded field, it was too much; I think I wanted those with a snowball’s chance in hell to melt first before I invested my time into a long debate.
Seriously, though, to have had the likes of John Delaney, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell (and even Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, who both have a rather small but rather devoted cult following) on the same debate stage with the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (and even Joe Biden) was too painful for me to watch, kind of like watching a junior-high-school flag-football team play against an NFL team…
Team Biden’s message in 2020 is a carbon copy of Team Billary’s message in 2016: We must settle for Biden because he’s the only one who can beat Pussygrabber. That’s entirely untrue, and because it’s untrue, it’s a campaign centerpiece that probably will doom Biden’s quest for the presidency for the third time.
The jokesters apparently were responding to the fact that although Queen Billary widely stupidly was viewed as the front-runner and the only Democratic Party candidate who could win the White House, no one seemed to be excited about her — but was settling for her.
“You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win. … Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election. And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I sort of personally like so-and-so better.’ But your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”
“Swallow it for Joe” — should that be on the next T-shirt?
“As the Democratic primary campaign trundles on, Biden is winning polite applause from audiences that respect him but clearly are not as fired up by his presence as are crowds for other candidates,” notes The Washington Post, adding, “He has made verbal miscues nearly daily as his more disciplined opponents hew closely to their chosen messages.”
PROLE, Iowa — Joseph R. Biden Jr. is coasting in the national polls. Surveys show him ahead of his Democratic rivals in hypothetical match-ups against President Trump. He has maintained a lead in Iowa all summer, despite facing months of controversies over his record and his campaign missteps.
But less than two weeks before Labor Day, when presidential campaigns traditionally kick into high gear, there are signs of a disconnect between his relatively rosy poll numbers and excitement for his campaign on the ground here, in the state that begins the presidential nominating process.
In conversations with county chairs, party strategists and dozens of voters this week at Biden’s events, many Democrats in Iowa described a case for Biden, the former vice president, that reflected shades of the one his wife, Jill Biden, bluntly sketched out on Monday. “You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win,” she said, citing Biden’s consistent lead in early surveys.
The first ad of Biden’s campaign, released this week in Iowa, flashed some of his positive poll results against Trump on screen, and voter after voter cited those numbers in outlining their support for him, saying that defeating the president was their most urgent priority. …
So hold your nose and vote for Joe Biden (out of the fear that he’s the best that we can do to rid ourselves of Pussygrabber).Not exactly a compelling campaign message, any more than was Settle for Billary. And we see how it turned out in November 2016 when we were told that the level of enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidatesomehow didn’t fucking matter.
We probably can kiss Marianne Williamson’s presidential campaign good-bye, which sucks but which is what it is. In the meantime, my position is becoming that Elizabeth Warren is splitting the progressive vote, which is only helping centrist, corporatist sellout Joe Biden and taking us further away from the possibility of having a progressive president come January 2021.
So it looks like Marianne Williamson will not make it into September’s Democratic Party presidential debate. Indeed, because it’s harder to get into the September debate than it was the June and July debates, because of the stricter September debate requirements, the Democratic presidential field will be winnowed significantly.
Williamson’s campaign has reported that she has met the required number of individual donors to her campaign in order to participate in the September debate, but she has only one week from today to make it to 2 percent in at least four qualifying polls, and I haven’t seen even one poll in which she has exceeded 1 percent.
I just don’t see it happening for her.
Not that Williamson has accomplished nothing; she got her message out there.
That said, my No. 1 choice for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination remains U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. I see him as the candidate most likely to actually enact a progressive agenda should he make it to the Oval Office.
Why Bernie over Elizabeth Warren? Because, as I have noted, as late as the 1990s she was a registered Repugnican, she apparently believes that capitalism can be redeemed (it cannot), and because she’s much more of a Democratic Party establishment suck-up than Bernie ever could imagine being. (Bernie’s independence and distancing of himself from the “Democratic” sellouts for me always has been a huge plus, not a minus.)
I’ve indicated that I’m not mad at Liz for splitting the progressive vote, but that’s starting to change. She was too pussy to take on DINO Queen Billary in 2016 but now apparently is A-OK with splitting the progressive vote for 2020. (Yes, on this my view is evolving…)
Still, as I’ve noted, I’m loathe to state that someone shouldn’t run for office or should drop out of a race. But I’m still becoming less happy with Warren over time. Again, she cowardly sat out 2016 but now apparently doesn’t care if she fucks it up for Bernie, our best shot at having an actually progressive president.
At any rate, the 2020 Democratic presidential field needs thinning, and while I’m sad to see Williamson go (without her being able to participate in future debates, I just don’t see her campaign succeeding*), I’ll be happy when the likes of Cory Booker, Julian Castro, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Verrated, Tom Steyer and Tim Ryan finally drop out. (We’re just not that into you, guys! Take a hint!)
*If Williamson hangs in there and manages to get 2 percent in at least four qualifying polls — perhaps because she gains the support of the supporters of those candidates who drop out — then she can make it into the October debate, but that would be a tough job, a job made tougher by her absence from the September debate.
Not to come off too much as a shark excited by some blood in the water, but what the fuck is wrong with Joe Biden?
I disagree with ageism, that is, in this case, the idea that there is a magical age cap at which one could serve well as president.
Bernie Sanders is a bit older than is Biden (Sanders is 77 and turns 78 next month, and Biden is 76 and turns 77 in November), but Bernie doesn’t get addled or tripped over his own words when he speaks publicly; he’s always quite lucid (if repetitive [which I take as a good sign that he’s consistent and devoted and not an opportunistic fucking flip-flopper]).
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised eyebrows [yesterday] during a speech in Iowa when he said that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids,” an apparent gaffe for a Democratic presidential candidate whose record on race has come under intense scrutiny during the primary.
Biden was speaking on education and the need to challenge students at a town hall hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition in Des Moines when he made the remark, and then quickly sought to recover from it.
“We should challenge students in these schools,” Biden said. “We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”
He paused, then added: “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids — no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” …
How “we” think about it? No, methinks that we need to think about how “Uncle Joe” thinks about it.
Biden’s “save” was, for me, anyway, confusing at best, and I believe that his initial utterance revealed his core belief: that if you’re poor, you’re probably not white, and that if you’re white, you’re probably not poor.
In the United States there is indeed a correlation between poverty and race — you are more likely to be poor if you are black or Latino or Native American than if you are white, for example (and Asians and whites are at about the same poverty rate) — but given that not even a full one in four Native Americans, the most impoverished racial group in the United States, lives in poverty, we really have to look at people as individuals, not as a monolithic group.
There are plenty of non-whites who don’t live in poverty and plenty of whites who do.
I have to suspect that Joe Biden has some racism in his core. This isn’t his first race-related gaffe. Probably his most famous one is when he said in January 2007, during his second failed run for the Democratic presidential nomination, that his competitor Barack Obama was “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
What else can we take away from that stream-of-consciousness remark but that Biden’s core belief was (still is?) that it’s quite unusual for a “mainstream African American” (what, exactly, is a “mainstream” African American? what’s a non-“mainstream” African African?) to be “articulate and bright and clean” and “nice-looking”?
Jesus fuck, Joe Biden is a walking, talking Rorschach test spewing core racist beliefs right and left, yet black voters apparently still love him, apparently only or at least chiefly because Obama actually went on to make him his vice president (despite his remarks of January 2007).
That’s pretty fucking shallow, but that’s where we are in the age of identity politics.*
I suppose that if you are a Biden supporter, your cognitive dissonance between who you want him to be and who he actually is will induce you to defend his indefensible bullshit no matter fucking what. Whatever.
But Joe Biden isn’t mentally fit to be president. Not that the current occupant-usurper is fit, but do we really need two addle-brained presidents in a row?
Because billionaires care so much about black poverty and other problems of black Americans, you see. It wouldn’t — couldn’t — be that billionaires would support only those candidates they deem to pose the least threat to the socioeconomic status quo that benefits themselves so much.No!!!That’s crazy talk!
I have this crazy notion that you should vote in your best interests,notvote by skin color.
Candidates indeed go up and down in the polls, so much so that if you watch the polls over time, you know that a bump or a slump could reverse itself, and thus it’s often a bad idea to write a candidate’s political obituary, as is done for Bernie Sanders probably more than for any other candidate (as I’ve noted before, this is wishful thinking on the part of center-right sellouts).
I’m glad that it was Tulsi Gabbard who (fairly and squarely) went off on Harris in the second debate. It’s always nice when a candidate who has a snowball’s chance does the dirty (but necessary) work so that your viable candidate (in my case, Bernie Sanders) doesn’t have to and thus doesn’t get his or her hands dirty (and isn’t accused of being “racist” or “sexist” for daring to do what you’re supposed to do in a political campaign: point out your opponents’ weaknesses as well as your own strengths).
Harris, like most of the 2020 Democratic contenders, in my book is not qualified and/or is not ready to be president, and, a la Ted Kennedy, has yet to enunciate a clear reason as to why she should be president, so I’m not surprised to see that she has sunk below 10 percent again.
My feeling about both Buttigieg and Harris is that both already have shot their wads. I don’t think that there’s much more to either one of them, because neither is courageous. At the end of the day, they’re both just pro-corporate party hacks, like Biden; all three of them try to walk the line between pretending to be progressive and not daring to piss off any of their big corporate donors. This makes for a message that is milquetoast at best.
Both Buttigieg and Harris, in fact, court billionaire donors. Forbes.com recently reported that Buttigieg has the most billionaire sugar daddies (23 of them), followed by Cory Booker (18 billionaire patrons) at No. 2 and Kamala Harris at No. 3 (17 billionaires for her). Biden comes in at fifth place, with 13 billionaires supporting him.
“True to his campaign promise to take on the top 1 percent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has not received any donations from billionaires,” forbes.com reports.
When I call someone a “corporate whore,” it’s for a reason, and I count Buttigieg, Booker, Harris and Biden all as corporate whores, and I don’t vote for (or otherwise support) corporate whores.
Joe Biden continues to poll nationwide at No. 1; his average nationwide polling right now is 30.1 percent, which is enough to earn him the title of front-runner, I suppose, but I still surmise that right now the bulk of Biden’s support in polls comes from name recognition because not enough voters are really paying attention at this point.
Biden is a shitty campaigner, as evidenced by the fact that this is his third time campaigning for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, and I give him the title of Most Likely to Implode. History usually is a guide.
For a while now, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have been neck and neck at second and third places. Right now Bernie’s nationwide polling average is 16.8 percent and Warren’s is 17.2 percent. Again, I have to suspect that Warren is siphoning off a significant chunk of progressive/actually Democratic support that otherwise would be Bernie’s right now, but, again, it’s her right to run; it’s only the Democrats in name only (and others who despise the democratic process) who proclaim that a candidate (usually Bernie) shouldn’t even be running.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has a huge lead over other Democratic presidential candidates in the number of individual donors they have each accumulated so far.
This is the first time since the primary race began in earnest that we can estimate how many individual donors each candidate has attracted — a key indicator of how much they are catching on with voters.
Sanders is relying heavily on small donors to power his campaign, and he entered the 2020 race with a huge network of online donors who supported his 2016 presidential bid. The map above shows the breadth of Sanders’s roster of donors across the United States. …
Here is that map, with Bernie’s support in blue:
While the other candidates apparently draw most donations from their home states, Bernie clearly is popular nationwide. In fact, Bernie so dominates the map that the Times, in order to show how the other candidates are doing, published a second map, this one excluding Bernie in order to show his competitors’ geographic bases of support:
It might seem unfair and bizarre that Iowa and New Hampshire have such an outsize influence on the nomination, but that’s how the system is set up. If people weren’t such sheeple, then Iowa and New Hampshire’s influence would be much less than it is. But people are sheeple and thus are highly influenced by those states that already have held a primary election or caucus.
So, in a nutshell: If you’re not consistently in the double digits in the nationwide polling (as limited an indicator that nationwide polling might be right now), I think you’re probably toast. I would be shocked if the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee were not Biden, Warren or Bernie.
As I’ve noted before, I think that Harris has a great shot at being the veep candidate, if she’ll accept it. (And that might have been her game plan all along: to one day become president via the vice presidency.)
And again: It seems to me that Harris and Buttigieg have stalled and that neither has anything more to offer up, so there is no reason to believe that either will spike in the polls again. With both of them what you see is what you get, I’m confident.
And: If Biden implodes again, it’s then going to be between Bernie and Warren.
P.S.Nate Silver calculates how candidates’ nationwide polling changed after the first and second Democratic presidential debates.
He calculates that Bernie went up by 1.8 percentage points, more than did any other candidate; that Warren went up by 1.6 percent; that Biden went down by 1.9 percent; and that Harris went down more than anyone else: by 2.8 percent.
Gee, could it be that the voters are truly sick and tired of the Repugnican Lite bullshit that was foisted upon us by Bill Clinton, Billary Clinton and Barack Obama, and continued by Biden and Harris (and by Buttigieg, whose polling went up by only 0.7 percent)?
Could it be that the more the voters hear actually Democratic candidates (that is, actually progressive candidates) speak, the more they like them, and that the more they hear the corporate whores speak, the less they like them?
If so, expect the corporate whores (already enumerated above) to pretend, more and more, suddenly to be progressive, when of course if elected as president they would have all of those favors to have to pay back to the billionaires who funded them.
Individuals try out see-saws on the border between the United States and Mexico that recently were installed by two California professors. Many if not most Americans don’t even know that Mexicans didn’t cross the border; the border crossed them.
I can’t — or at least don’t or won’t — write about every mass shooting that takes place here in the United States of America. One simply cannot keep up. I will remark, however, that, as I indicated in my last blog post, the root cause of America’s gun violence is, yes, a lack of love.
We can talk infinitely about the need for better gun control, the lack of mental health services, ignorant and hateful (and thus even dangerous) messages posted on social media platforms, etc., etc., but until we peel back all of the layers and just acknowledge that the No. 1 thing that we lack in the U.S.A. is love — here in the U.S. it has been, for a very long time, every individual out only for himself — the massacres will continue.
The massacres continue because we don’t want to change our selfish, unloving ways. The ugly fact is that at least on some level we are OK with that “collateral damage” as long as we still keep getting “ours.” If some people we don’t know have to die in order for us to be able to continue our selfish, willfully blind bullshit, so be it.
That said, of the three recent most-publicized gun massacres — the one in Gilroy, California, on July 28, the one in El Paso, Texas, on August 3, and the one in Dayton, Ohio, on August 4 — the one I find the most interesting is the El Paso massacre.
Not only did the El Paso massacre have the largest body count of the recent gun massacres — 22, the largest gun-massacre body count in the U.S. thus far this year — but the shooter’s apparent woeful ignorance of the history of Texas (and, indeed, of the entire U.S. Southwest), coupled, of course, with the blatant white nationalist and xenophobic rhetoric of “President” Pussygrabber & Co., apparently were factors.
This is what Mexico looked like before the United States strong-armed Mexico into giving up its land claims after the Mexican-American War of 1846 through 1848 (which was started when white American settlers — dare I call them invaders? — just decided that Texas no longer was Mexico’s, but was theirs):
After the U.S. won the war with Mexico — a war the U.S. very probably wouldn’t have started if it wasn’t sure that it would win it — Mexico, militarily unable to fend off the hordes of white invaders fulfilling their “manifest destiny,” was forced to hand over to the U.S. control of the land indicated in white in this map (from Wikipedia):
The entire states of Texas, California, Nevada and Utah; most of the states of Arizona and New Mexico; much of Colorado; and pieces of what today are Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma essentially were stolen from Mexico, with two small pieces of Arizona and New Mexico, shown in brown in the map above, later purchased from Mexico.
I’m sure that only a minority of Americans even know that a huge chunk of the United States — about a third of it — used to be Mexico. It was populated, although sparsely in many places, by Mexicans. As it has been said, the Mexicans didn’t cross the border; the border crossed them!
It is so ironic, yet so indicative of American hypocrisy and ignorance, for Americans today to be calling those of Mexican descent “invaders.”
At campaign rallies before last year’s midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the [southern] border. “You look at what is marching up, that is an invasion!” he declared at one rally. “That is an invasion!”
Nine months later, a 21-year-old white man is accused of opening fire in a Walmart in El Paso, killing 20 people [the count is now 22] and injuring dozens more after writing a manifesto railing against immigration and announcing that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
The suspect wrote that his views “predate Trump,” as if anticipating the political debate that would follow the blood bath. But if Trump did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.
While other leaders have expressed concern about border security and the costs of illegal immigration, Trump has filled his public speeches and Twitter feed with sometimes false, fear-stoking language even as he welcomed to the White House a corps of hard-liners, demonizers and conspiracy theorists shunned by past presidents of both parties.
Because of this, Trump is ill equipped to provide the kind of unifying, healing force that other presidents projected in times of national tragedy. …
My entire life I (a white man) have lived entirely in Arizona and in California — both states that wholly used to be part of Mexico.
I’ve been surrounded by Latinos my entire lifetime and never considered them to be “invaders” or “outsiders” or otherwise felt that they don’t belong. They are part and parcel of the Southwest, and will remain so for a very long time to come.
It blows my mind that after whites forcibly took over what used to be northern Mexico — in much the same style that they stole so much of the land of the United States from Native Americans only because the Native Americans also militarily could not prevent the invasion of the whites* — American whites today would take the stance of the victim: They’re taking over our land!
Beyond pathetic. White “supremacy”? People who don’t even know the basic fucking history of their own nation (yet, of course, who nonetheless call themselves “patriots”) hardly are “supreme.” They are abject fucking morons.
Fact is, I’d rather be surrounded by Latinos, the vast majority of whom are accepting and kind and hard-working and generous, than by right-wing white people, who, by definition, are evil and destructive.
Latinos don’t owe me a debt of gratitude; I owe them one, because their numbers to at least some degree buffer and soften the influence of evil white people. Therefore, I am fine with Latinos’ numbers growing in the U.S., as much as I do believe in birth control for a better quality of life for everyone.**
And the Latinos aren’t taking over “my” land; I’m quite clear that my race took over theirs.
If Spanish one day becomes the official language of the United States of America, as the wingnuts tell us to be very afraid of, so be it. It’s a wonderful language, much easier to learn than is English, as it contains far fewer irregularities and idiosyncrasies.
And it — the Latin Americanization of the United States of America — would be a peaceful, gradual change over time; future generations of Americans would speak Spanish (or maybe a Spanish-English hybrid), but it would have come naturally to them, as a natural evolution of language, as would all of the other cultural changes, such as with food and music and clothing, changes that have been underway for a long time now anyway.
White Americans have nothing to fear; the Latin Americanization of the United States, if it materializes, wouldn’t have come at the barrel of a gun.
That, you see, is how white people do it.
P.S. I stumbled across a letter that Walt Whitman wrote way back in 1883 on the occasion of the anniversary of the founding of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He wrote that he couldn’t attend the anniversary observation to which he’d been invited, but he said these things about it:
… We Americans have yet to really learn our own antecedents, and sort them, to unify them. They will be found ampler than has been supposed and in widely different sources. Thus far, impressed by New England writers and schoolmasters, we tacitly abandon ourselves to the notion that our United States have been fashioned from the British Islands only, and essentially form a second England only — which is a great mistake. Many leading traits for our future national personality, and some of the best ones, will certainly prove to have originated from other than British stock. As it is, the British and German, valuable as they are in the concrete, already threaten excess. Or rather, I should say, they have certainly reach’d that excess. To-day, something outside of them, and to counterbalance them, is seriously needed.
Thus seething materialistic and business vortices of the United States, in their present devouring relations, controlling and belittling everything else, are, in my opinion, but a vast and indispensable stage in the new world’s development, and are certainly to be follow’d by something entirely different — at least by immense modifications. Character, literature, a society worthy the name, are yet to be establish’d, through a nationality of noblest spiritual, heroic and democratic attributes — not one of which at present definitely exists — entirely different from the past, though unerringly founded on it, and to justify it.
To that composite American identity of the future, Spanish character will supply some of the most needed parts. No stock shows a grander historic retrospect — grander in religiousness and loyalty, or for patriotism, courage, decorum, gravity and honor. (It is time to dismiss utterly the illusion-compound, half raw-head-and-bloody-bones and half Mysteries-of-Udolpho, inherited from the English writers of the past 200 years. It is time to realize — for it is certainly true — that there will not be found any more cruelty, tyranny, superstition, etc., in the résumé of past Spanish history than in the corresponding résumé of Anglo-Norman history. Nay, I think there will not be found so much.)
Then another point, relating to American ethnology, past and to come, I will here touch upon at a venture. As to our aboriginal or Indian population — the Aztec in the South, and many a tribe in the North and West — I know it seems to be agreed that they must gradually dwindle as time rolls on, and in a few generations more leave only a reminiscence, a blank. But I am not at all clear about that. As America, from its many far-back sources and current supplies, develops, adapts, entwines, faithfully identifies its own — are we to see it cheerfully accepting and using all the contributions of foreign lands from the whole outside globe — and then rejecting the only ones distinctively its own — the autochthonic ones?
As to the Spanish stock of our Southwest, it is certain to me that we do not begin to appreciate the splendor and sterling value of its race element. Who knows but that element, like the course of some subterranean river, dipping invisibly for a hundred or two years, is now to emerge in broadest flow and permanent action?
If I might assume to do so, I would like to send you the most cordial, heart-felt congratulations of your American fellow-countrymen here. You have more friends in the Northern and Atlantic regions than you suppose, and they are deeply interested in development of the great Southwestern interior, and in what your festival would arouse to public attention. …
Whitman was (is?) timeless.
Indeed, Anglo America needs the “counterbalance” that the Latino culture (and other cultures) provide. And, as Whitman apparently saw all of those decades ago, Latinos aren’t going anywhere, and that “subterranean river” has emerged now, methinks. And thank Goddess.
*To be fair, the Spanish conquered the natives in today’s United States, Central America and South America, and Mexico’s creation sprang from the Spanish conquest of the natives.
That said, while the Spanish conquered largely by intermarrying with the natives — thus the “mestizo” — European whites usually conquered by force, including by forcible displacement and by massacre. (Although, of course, a huge percentage of the natives died from the communicable diseases that both the Spanish and the white European conquerors brought with them.)
**About the only fault that I can find with so many Latinos is their blind deference to Catholicism, which they should have thrown off their backs a long, long time ago. (It was and is, after all, the religion of the conqueror…)
It strikes me that a huge reason that so many Latin Americans are poor and desperate to find a better life in the United States is because of the Catholic Church’s official, age-old stance against contraception. If you cannot care for the child or the children that you already have, you shouldn’t have any more, regardless of your race or nationality.