>On Behalf Of Dennis R Redmond
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > Give it at least one or two election cycles before
> > you piss on other peoples strategies.
>
> Ye Gods. Nathan, think about the title of the party: "working families".
> Doesn't that alone imply a deeply reactionary politics? As if everyone in
> the family ought to work, as if we already agreed on what this family even
> looked like, and most importantly of all, as if the bonds of solidarity
> between people were limited to family structures. Hell, the Gambino,
> Medellin and Walton families work hard, too.
Or maybe you are assuming reactionary meanings for both working and families?
As in everyone in most families works, including a mom on welfare working to raise her kids, doing the same work we pay (poorly) child care providers to do. And we are talking about families ranging from gay, blended, single mom, extended and communal.
A party that supports all of the above and is aggressively named Working Families is a strong rebuke to those who assume that the only working family is the two parent suburban straight couple.
Norman Thomas once had an observation about symbols like the flag that are used for reactionary purposes. You can burn it, but it is often more powerful to wash it and reclaim it based on progressive principles.
-- Nathan Newman