"Bruh, can you not?"

May 6, 2016 10:48 AM

Are you an overly confident, underqualified white guy who wants to run for office? Jack Teter and Kyle Huelsman want you not to, and have set up the Can You Not PAC to discourage you and any other "handsome upwardly mobile upper-middle class white dude who is well intentioned and 'super progressive'".

Can You Not PAC is a political action project that aims to dis/empower and dis/incline people in positions of privilege, specifically straight white men, from ambitions of running for office in progressive urban districts. We challenge brogressives and others to reject any notion that they are uniquely qualified or positioned to seek political office in districts that don’t need them. As well-represented white dudes, we feel it is our obligation to know when to shut up and Not.

Teter, who is trans, says "People are accusing me of becoming a man to blow up the white male stratosphere," and that the PAC is part of "Figuring out how to continue being a feminist now that I'm a man."

posted by Etrigan (111 comments total)

So if I'm ugly and poor but white and male can I still run a Hunter Thompson style campaign for sheriff in Texas?
posted by cmoj at 11:03 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Maybe us white dudes can work our asses off to support women & minorities running for office, instead of running ourselves. I can hang with that.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:05 AM on May 6, 2016 [58 favorites]

At least part of being successful in politics is the ability to speak the language of one's target constituency.

That said, I am hard pressed to envision ANYONE who would see "brogressive" and say, "Oh yes! That's me!"

Othering is Othering, regardless of who does it.
posted by gsh at 11:05 AM on May 6, 2016 [28 favorites]

Yeah, that neologism/portmanteau isn't exactly winning my heart. I get the point, but we don't need to belittle one another.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:06 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

This seems like fair criticism to me. There are lots of white dudes around who think they outta run, especially where the pickings are good, irrespective of who else may be thinking of running.
posted by No Robots at 11:11 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

What is there to gain from discouraging progressive involvement in the political process?

Along with gerrymandering, shaming people out of moving policies in a progressive direction that benefits everyone is a way for entrenched interests to use the cover of various populist movements currently in vogue to game the system even further.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 AM on May 6, 2016 [22 favorites]

I get the point (I'd love to see more people who look like me in office), but this just seems like a really unhealthy way of achieving it.
posted by kyp at 11:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

What is there to gain from discouraging progressive involvement in the political process?

Along with gerrymandering, shaming people out of moving policies in a progressive direction that benefits everyone is a way for entrenched interests to use the cover of various populist movements currently in vogue to game the system even further.

The idea that having a few white guys step aside in favor of someone else is "discouraging progressive involvement" or "shaming people out of moving policies in a progressive direction" is the exact problem they're trying to push back against.
posted by Etrigan at 11:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]

This campaign is so profoundly unhelpful and exemplifies some of the crab-bucket thinking around these issues. We should be putting our effort into recruiting and empowering underrepresented groups, not discouraging allies. If every dollar that was donated to this group went to Donna Edwards' campaign for Senate in Maryland instead, it would have been much better spent. Maybe it would have helped her overcome the profound lack of support she had from the Democratic party establishment, including opposition from most elected officials, scant support even from the CBC (much less its lobbyist PAC), and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that major Democratic donors spent to defeat her and elevate the white male candidate instead.
posted by dialetheia at 11:20 AM on May 6, 2016 [45 favorites]

Setting this up as a PAC is just a jokey way of making the point.
posted by No Robots at 11:22 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Are you an overly confident, underqualified white guy who wants to run for office?

What if I'm an overly confident, underqualified white guy who doesn't want to run for office. Can I get in on this by continuing to not want to?
posted by octobersurprise at 11:23 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

The only problem I have with this is that it obscures the question of actual politics. Women, queer and trans and gender non-conforming people, and people of color don't necessarily have politics that I want to support just because of their fixed personal characteristics. Nikki Haley is an American woman of Indian descent and current governor of South Carolina) whose politics I disagree with very strongly; it would be perverse to suggest that she's more fit for office, to me, than a straight White man who's pro-choice, for example. This is a key way to implement neoliberal policies in America: put them in the mouths of people who aren't straight White men, and by seeming to decouple policies that mostly benefit straight White men from the people pushing for them, you can get a lot of awful things done (like the privatization of schools that mostly serve Black communities).

Our various layers of government (state, local, national) and discrete branches should be diverse, for at least two reasons: first, we do not want Herrenvolk democracy to be the way America runs forever; second, the best person for the job is just not always going to be a straight White guy, obviously! But it seems extremely careless to talk about the color and sex of candidates as reasons for support without talking about their actual politics.
posted by clockzero at 11:24 AM on May 6, 2016 [45 favorites]

I once participated in a program intended to prepare women to eventually run for public office. One of the memories that stands out the strongest was a quip by a trainer from EMILY's List (paraphrasing): "When a woman runs for office, she usually starts out in the school board or county council, and works her way up. With men, the way it usually goes is that a 40-something lawyer wakes up one morning and decides he should run for the Senate."

I see Can You Not as intending to do just a little bit to deflate the pervasive cultural narratives that encourage mediocre white men to assume they are the best person for any given job, but especially for public office. They are very specific that they are talking about white men who live in progressive urban districts, where whoever wins is likely to be a progressive Democrat anyway. Why does that progressive Democrat need to be a white man? Aren't these the very districts that should be leading the way in terms of women and people of color holding office?

Probably the hardest part of being a good ally is not just recognizing your privilege, but refusing the unfair advantage it gives you sometimes.
posted by lunasol at 11:25 AM on May 6, 2016 [42 favorites]

Ideally, in a perfect democratic system unqualified candidates would fall away like chaff from wheat, but it would be the understatement of the century to say our system is perfect. OTOH, this just feels crappy, if progressives are supposed to be inclusive, then even if it's tongue in cheek, I think more people are going to misconstrue it than understand the point. But really tho my privilege is hurting right now, I think I'm gonna take the afternoon off and go watch Wolf of Wall Street until I'm rock hard.
posted by dudemanlives at 11:25 AM on May 6, 2016

Why would any other attributes matter when you're dealing with, by definition underqualified people. If you can't do the job, I could not possibly care any less what other boxes you can check-off.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:26 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is the kind of "progressivism" that turns people into conservatives.
posted by Kevin Street at 11:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [44 favorites]

because my privilege is hurting right now.

fify
posted by No Robots at 11:28 AM on May 6, 2016

Well, I'm certainly concerned that this PAC (which could not possibly be a combination of fund-raiser, political comedy and awareness-raiser) is going to use its political muscle to discourage white men from running for office. It sure would be a shame if some white guy who was, let's say, a soft socialist, were to devote his fund-raising/writing/publicity/policy skills to supporting the campaign of a woman socialist. That would really, really suck. Ditto if he were to spend his time supporting a socialist of color. Or maybe this powerful, well-funded PAC would just force him out of politics entirely.

Also, you have to be really, really careful with progressive white men, because if they don't get to lead, they will just go vote for Trump, that's the other thing this PAC might lead to, more Trump voting.
posted by Frowner at 11:30 AM on May 6, 2016 [37 favorites]

Isn't the point of this that if you're white and a male and under qualified you're probably taking the chance away from a P/WoC who IS qualified? It's basically saying "there are plenty of qualified P/WoC that need a chance."
posted by gucci mane at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

mediocre white men

Hey, I resemble that remark.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

White men refraining from running does absolutely nothing to change the fundamental problem, which is that people from underrepresented groups underestimate and downplay their own abilities and chances of success. That's not even to mention the structural problems they face: not being as tied into local business networks, having to overcome greater skepticism from voters & funders, not being seen as "team players" (which is how they beat Donna Edwards), etc.

Founding a program to mentor people from underrepresented groups through the process, identify funding sources, tie into DNC recruitment efforts, and help them build their campaigns would be orders of magnitude more helpful than this, which mostly strikes me as a clueless attempt at performative wokeness.
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [36 favorites]

Everyone keeps overlooking the "unqualified" part.
posted by avalonian at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

This is the kind of "progressivism" that turns people into conservatives.

Yep, I bet there are all kinds of butthurt former brogressives who can't let go of the idea of women getting ahead of them in the candidate queue. Quel dommage.
posted by No Robots at 11:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

These folks would not like Justin Trudeau
posted by Hoopo at 11:33 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is about Urban districts, not the prime minister of Canada.
posted by avalonian at 11:35 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

What is there to gain from discouraging progressive involvement in the political process?

Page clicks?
posted by Beholder at 11:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

a clueless attempt at performative wokeness.

New favorite Dave Eggers title.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:38 AM on May 6, 2016 [21 favorites]

Everyone keeps overlooking the "unqualified" part.

No kidding. Lately I have been really, really struck by how much people will see a certain kind of white, educated man as someone who "just sort of seems like he knows what he's talking about." It's really something. And I can't help but think that same phenomenon is maybe just a little bit at work here.
posted by lunasol at 11:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [27 favorites]

On a serious note, my fellow white people and my almost-fellow-masculine people: let's not identify in our heads with some imaginary sad white dude who feels hurt and unwanted and has! what America needs! but does not get to run for office. Let's identify in our heads with white and POC women candidates and with male candidates of color - people who could use the support of talented political activists and who also bring lived experience of being a woman and/or person of color, something that white men generally do not have.

The moral of this story is not "well, better to vote for Sarah Palin than Bernie Sanders, after all she is a woman"; the moral of this story is "you can almost certainly find a woman/POC candidate whose politics you support rather than running yourself".

It's like the difference between saying "our schools really need more teachers of color and I want to support policies that recruit and develop them" and "our schools are in trouble, I think we need more left-leaning white Main Line teachers because they got a great education and really care about kids!"
posted by Frowner at 11:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [36 favorites]

Are you an overly confident, underqualified white guy who wants to run for office?

Since the number of people who would answer "yes" to this question is zero, there's not much point to this exercise.
posted by rocket88 at 11:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

avalonian: Everyone keeps overlooking the "unqualified" part.

Ah, but everyone who needs to hear that part will also overlook it.

(When I was a kid, I read a book about Prime Ministers and became convinced that I'd become one. Then in my teens I saw an actual politician - former PM Joe Clark - in action, doing retail politics, and realized I had none of the skills required. But even now, every once in a while, there's a little voice in my head that says, "Maybe I could do politics...")
posted by clawsoon at 11:42 AM on May 6, 2016

I see Can You Not as intending to do just a little bit to deflate the pervasive cultural narratives that encourage mediocre white men to assume they are the best person for any given job, but especially for public office.

We live in a patriarchal culture. It's entirely reasonable and appropriate to deflate the cultural mythologies that contribute to male supremacy. But I find this "mediocre White man" meme to be frustrating. The problem with White male supremacy isn't that the wrong White men, the mediocre ones, are accorded unearned privilege that they often use in ways both subtle and overt to maintain their social position. We don't really want 'outstanding' White men to be enjoying their unearned privilege, either.

But I also get where it's coming from, I think: women experience lifetimes of being pushed around, talked over, overshadowed, and silenced by White men who have unrealistically high self-regard, who think all of their thoughts and opinions are inherently valuable and important.
posted by clockzero at 11:43 AM on May 6, 2016

Is the brogressives running for office in urban districts a thing? The charts presented on the webpage show the problem that should be obvious - white dudes run for office more than anyone - but those are for everyone, not just progressives, so they're not that helpful on this particular point. I'm just asking since I haven't actually seen this in my area or heard about it (but it sounds like similar complaints in other areas of the progressive movement so its definitely believable) and the website doesn't elaborate much on that particular point. I do understand and agree with the idea, though (a white dude running for council in my district would definitely get the side-eye).
posted by charred husk at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2016

Everyone keeps overlooking the "unqualified" part.

Well, what makes someone qualified to hold office, though? I doubt that they're just thinking of something like educational attainment, but what are we talking about?
posted by clockzero at 11:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Something that depresses me: the minute you say to white people "hey, maybe you could just.....hold back from doing one of the things you might conceivably want to do and do one of the other things instead, leaving more space for previously under-represented groups" we all flip out.

And we all have all these reasons every time. It would totally change nothing if white people didn't do this thing! The problem isn't white people, it's the system! But what about passionate, qualified white people who really want to do the thing? What if the best person is a white person after all and we lose out, did you ever think of that? Isn't this just more of the leftist circular firing squad, why must we eat our own, Stalin, etc etc?

And the thing can be anything - wearing native regalia, running for office, teaching white privilege workshops, selling "authentic" banh mi, getting scholarships to workshops focusing on authors of color, whatever. Doesn't matter what it is - if there is even the faintest ghost of a hint of a suggestion that white people just sorta refrain, you would think someone had announced that the planet was going to get obliterated by a comet tomorrow.
posted by Frowner at 11:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [47 favorites]

This is about Urban districts, not the prime minister of Canada.

(I am aware this is about the USA but Trudeau is a Member of Parliament for a riding in Montreal with something like a 40% immigrant population FWIW)
posted by Hoopo at 11:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just a note, my overly worded comment is meant to be a "wait, people actually do that?" question, not a "I've never seen it so I don't believe it without proof" question.
posted by charred husk at 11:53 AM on May 6, 2016

If you care about universal healthcare, maternal leave, equal pay, etc. consider voting for people who will move policies towards those goals. Because there just aren't many people out there who are doing that, at the moment.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:55 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Well, what makes someone qualified to hold office, though?

To start... being representative of your constituents, history of civic engagement and political activism, history of community organizing.
posted by avalonian at 11:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

wearing native regalia, running for office, teaching white privilege workshops, selling "authentic" banh mi, getting scholarships to workshops focusing on authors of color ... just sorta refrain ...

Check. Check. Check. Check. Checkerooni. I have successfully refrained from all of those. But then my cultural traditions are more drinking, buying records, and taking long walks on the beach.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:57 AM on May 6, 2016

But I also get where it's coming from, I think: women experience lifetimes of being pushed around, talked over, overshadowed, and silenced by White men who have unrealistically high self-regard, who think all of their thoughts and opinions are inherently valuable and important.

Yeah, there's that. But there's also the fact that other people, and the structures of our society, will often support said white man over people who are not white men. It's not just that women are mad about being treated poorly, it's that white men can often get farther in our society on less (talent, hard work) than other people get on more (talent, hard work). That sucks for everyone.

teaching white privilege workshops

I do think there's value to white people teaching these workshops, from the perspective of not making POC do all the work, and owning white privilege as a problem white people have.
posted by lunasol at 12:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

avalonian: To start... being representative of your constituents, history of civic engagement and political activism, history of community organizing.

Rob Ford, IOW.
posted by clawsoon at 12:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I am a cis white male in a hetero marriage. (I'm bi, but this is something not widely known by my constituents.)

I'm pretty qualified for the office I hold, Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor in a fairly liberal city, and I have been seriously considering stepping back and helping recruit and elect a qualified candidate who would be starting off with less privilege than I started off with rather than running for re-election myself. I love this PAC idea.
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

Well, what makes someone qualified to hold office, though?

To start... being representative of your constituents, history of civic engagement and political activism, history of community organizing.

That's a very good point, and it's not hard to see that many if not most of our best progressive politicians in recent memory who were White men had such histories. I wish they'd put that somewhere on the page linked in the post (if they did, I guess I carelessly missed it).
posted by clockzero at 12:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, there's that. But there's also the fact that other people, and the structures of our society, will often support said white man over people who are not white men. It's not just that women are mad about being treated poorly, it's that white men can often get farther in our society on less (talent, hard work) than other people get on more (talent, hard work). That sucks for everyone.

That's also a good point, lunasol. I was thinking in biased terms there, I see.
posted by clockzero at 12:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I do think there's value to white people teaching these workshops, from the perspective of not making POC do all the work, and owning white privilege as a problem white people have.

The most recent conversation I had with a multiracial group of people about this, someone pointed out that white folks should pay POC trainers to run workshops (assuming this is possible, of course - but many groups have at least enough funds to offer a modest honorarium) - that paying and supporting people's careers is important, and groups should do their best to fund-raise to make this happen. I found this very persuasive, and it resulted in a lot of white hurt feelings.
posted by Frowner at 12:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]

Is the brogressives running for office in urban districts a thing?

It would be nice if the web site gave some actual examples, rather than J. Crew catalog models with jokes overlaid upon them.
posted by ejs at 12:05 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Rob Ford, IOW.

You got me. If we follow the logic of this satirical website all we get are Rob Fords.
posted by avalonian at 12:07 PM on May 6, 2016

Yeah, that was cheap satire on my part. Egh.
posted by clawsoon at 12:09 PM on May 6, 2016

Is the brogressives running for office in urban districts a thing?


Interesting. While the data shows this is a national trend, I don't know where they got the urban part from.
posted by avalonian at 12:13 PM on May 6, 2016

Founding a program to mentor people from underrepresented groups through the process, identify funding sources, tie into DNC recruitment efforts, and help them build their campaigns would be orders of magnitude more helpful than this ...

To be serious, I think dialetheia gets it exactly right. As satire, this is not quite Onion-level. As an actual political tool, I can't imagine that it won't produce more heat than light and I can't imagine that devoting the same amount of effort to nurturing candidates and campaigns instead of trying to prevent them wouldn't have much better results.

(It also occurs to me that it would be hilarious (not really!) if all of this were either a con or a right-wing ratfuck.)
posted by octobersurprise at 12:18 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Jesus, fuck. These dudes should've taken their own advice, and instead of making a superPAC to talk about white men, they should've actually gone out and supported women and POC candidates.

It would be nice if the web site gave some actual examples, rather than J. Crew catalog models with jokes overlaid upon them.

Yes, it would be nice. But that would require actual engagement with reality, and actual work to actually change things, which isn't what these dudes wanted. The guys who made this PAC want commendations for their wokeness, and they want to feel like they're "good guys" who are "on the right side," and they want to be talked about.

This PAC, in no way, looks like something that grows out of any sort of movement or community that's actually progressive. It 100% looks like something that grew out of some dudes who want to be well known, but with "cool, edgy, lefty cred." This is the definition of White Dudes crowding Women and POC out of a FUCKING CONVERSATION THAT'S EXPLICITLY ABOUT WOMEN AND POC!

Like, how the fuck do you ask yourself: "how do we get more focus on women and POC running for office" and answer it: "by talking about white dudes, and how we, as white dudes, can make good jokes about white dudes taking up space."
posted by DGStieber at 12:18 PM on May 6, 2016 [26 favorites]

Judging from the sheer, raw number of offended white men who are very, very upset by this little political comedy project, I think Can You Not is onto a pretty significant cultural sore spot for white men, actually. The site itself? Eh, perhaps only Onionish. The angry white men who are trying to explain how it's Very Bad Indeed? Priceless, if by priceless you mean "predictable and depressing while also comic".
posted by Frowner at 12:21 PM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

how we, as white dudes, can make good jokes about white dudes taking up space.

Maybe it's a "white dudes all the way down" self-parody.
posted by No Robots at 12:21 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also, it's "White guys don't run" not "white guys don't support women and POCs who are running for office.
posted by Gygesringtone at 12:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

As an actual political tool, I can't imagine that it won't produce more heat than light

It did generate a vigorous debate on metafilter...uh...crap.
posted by happyroach at 12:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Back in the day, Maine had an excellent state attorney general, Andrew Ketterer. As his wikipedia entry notes, "he made civil rights enforcement a priority of his office as well as fighting fraud and elder abuse", and he was quite good at it. Under his leadership, the state attorney general's office pursued a number of important and consequential cases.

Upon retiring as state governor, Steve Rowe ran against Ketterer for the state attorney general position. Due in part to stronger fundraising networks from his earlier political career, Rowe won, and became state attorney general instead.

Now, both of these guys were white men. To the best of my knowledge, both straight. I think Rowe was from a more economically priviledged background by one or three socioeconomic steps, but I haven't heard that Ketterer was from a particularly poor background. Both were Democrats, and to the left of, say, the Clintons.

But Ketterer was really passionate about civil rights and using the attorney general's office to improve the lives of Mainers of all socioeconomic strata, genders, races, sexualities, ages, abilities, etc. And Rowe, well, he wasn't bad, but he was a career politician. His reasoning process in running for attorney general seemed to go along the lines of, I think I can do this job, and it's a reasonable next career step for me; without considering that him winning the position meant removing Ketterer from that position, and he wasn't going to/didn't do an exceptional job at it as Ketterer had.

That is, Rowe wasn't bad per se, but Maine would have been significantly better off if someone, or some PAC, had told him, "Can you just not?". Had Rowe been running against a more conservative candidate, he would have been the better choice. But as it was, his decision to run against Ketterer was a negative outcome for many Mainers.

As I see it, that's the sort of situation this PAC is (tongue in cheek) addressing.
posted by eviemath at 12:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Priceless, if by priceless you mean "predictable and depressing while also comic".

So you're quite content to cheer an ineffective political joke by white dudes so long as you think it pisses off some other white dudes? With tactics like that it's a wonder the revolution isn't here already.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:30 PM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Soo I thought it was clear enough from the front page that they're talking about progressive districts - districts where any serious candidate is going to be a progressive. I think there is real value in asking white straight cis men to stand back IN THAT SPECIFIC SCENARIO, but if that makes you want to take your ball and go home, well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Someone blew my mind in one of the election threads recently by pointing out that only three women of color have ever been elected to the United States Senate. I'm not going to say that that situation would necessarily be HELPED by this specific approach, but still, just sit and think about that for a few minutes. Here is an article about a progressive black woman running for Senate against a progressive white man. (The white candidate's campaign has criticized NOW and Emily's List for throwing their support behind the black candidate, because they're "opposing a progressive leader." How many steps from here to there?)

All things being equal and if I had to choose only one, yeah, I would choose active support for women candidates, queer candidates, and candidates of color. (The program lunasol mentions about preparing women to run for public office sounds intriguing.) And I get that it's hard to be told to stand back, but you know, this particular instance of being told to stand back doesn't carry much political weight, unlike a lot of what women/queer/POC candidates for political office have to deal with.
posted by sunset in snow country at 12:31 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

I feel like the LL Bean dudes pretty clearly establish this as a thought exercise and not a thing to get all hurfy about.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:34 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

So you're quite content to cheer an ineffective political joke by white dudes so long as you think it pisses off some other white dudes? With tactics like that it's a wonder the revolution isn't here already.

Good point! Perhaps if I had some....political strategy...that was - something different from satire on the internet? My goodness, all along I've thought that political humor in itself would bring the revolution, but now I see that this is not enough. It also occurs to me that only the SJW/tumblr left has ever used political humor, which just shows what a bankrupt form it is. Well, thank goodness I've got that sorted. What if I had inadvertently upset a white man so that he didn't run for office? We might never have had the revolution then, and it would all be the fault of little old me.
posted by Frowner at 12:34 PM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]

Well, thank goodness I've got that sorted. What if I had inadvertently upset a white man so that he didn't run for office?

Look! Another pissed off person on the internet! This PAC is making a difference already!
posted by octobersurprise at 12:39 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

I guess I'm one of those guys they're talking about - a white urban progressive who ran for office in a district that is 80% non-white - so I feel uniquely qualified to offer a rebuttal.

1. It's a fascinating process. Everyone on the left should run once.

2. I would guess that three quarters of the people holding office in my state are spectacularly unqualified and incompetent. No one seems to buy into the idea that someone should be 'qualified' to run for office.

3. Every year there are a few independents who take a stab at challenging the powers that be. One year, for this seat, it was a Japanese punk rock singer. One year it was a Hawaiian sovereignty activist. One year it was a Latino vet. One year it was me, the white dude. Saying that I should have passed, and rather helped someone less privileged than I am, is patronizing as fuck.

4. People will vote for who they vote for. In my district the Japanese guy with political connections always wins.


This more or less covers my next point:

Jesus, fuck. These dudes should've taken their own advice, and instead of making a superPAC to talk about white men, they should've actually gone out and supported women and POC candidates.

(For the record, I beat the homeless guy, the conspiracy theorist, the eccentric professor who runs for everything, and the drunk lady ... myself and two other progressives finished in the middle (both were not white, for the record) ... and none of us came close to matching the votes of the two candidates from old political families.)
posted by kanewai at 12:41 PM on May 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

I dunno, man. I think I would've gotten behind the Japanese punk rock singer for a second chance.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:44 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

This is the kind of "progressivism" that turns people into conservatives.

don't piss off brogressive Johnny or he'll take away your right to choose, ladies!
posted by sallybrown at 12:45 PM on May 6, 2016 [27 favorites]

I dunno, man. I think I would've gotten behind the Japanese punk rock singer for a second chance.

Keiko Bonk. She had the best slogan, ever.
posted by kanewai at 12:49 PM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

kanewai, this is really about contested nominations for competitive parties in winnable ridings. Of course anyone is welcome to run as an independent.
posted by No Robots at 1:01 PM on May 6, 2016

I'm a straight cis white man. I'm not offended by this, but I'm also not sure if I am behind this idea. If I were considering running for local office, it would be because I felt that there were some important policy issues that nobody else was championing in a way that I felt I could get behind, and because I felt qualified to do the job and push those issues in the direction I wanted them to go.

(Obviously unqualified people of whatever stripe shouldn't run for office, that's kind of a tautology so I'll leave it to the side. I'm assuming that most people who run for office self-identify as being qualified for the job. I also get that this is comedy, but it's obviously comedy with a point so I think it's fair to critique that underlying point. I'm leaving aside the question of whether or not it's funny.)

If there were already another candidate in the field who I felt I could support based on their policy positions and qualifications or if I didn't feel like I was a good person to do the job, then obviously I wouldn't run. I feel like that's kinda how people should always approach the idea of running for office?

I'm always happier when I get to vote for someone who's not a straight cis white male, but policies and qualifications come first for me. I get that in some situations a candidate's identity can itself be a qualification, and I take that into account. I do want government to represent the populace, both in terms of the composition of its membership and in terms of making sure that there are people in positions of power who share the experiences of marginalized people and can stand up for them.

My larger point though is that nobody should be running for local office just because they feel like they should be in charge, they should be doing it because they want to see specific changes and there's nobody else out there who also wants to make those changes. Maybe that's just my personal philosophy, though?

When I want to get something done, I first look for an existing leader who I can support. It's only when I can't find someone to follow that I reluctantly step up and take the leadership role. If I'm out in front, it's by definition because I didn't see anybody else who I thought could do a reasonably good job in that position. I see leadership as a burden, not a prize to be fought over.

Maybe I'm strange, though. Is there really a problem of straight cis white guys with progressive politics stealing the air from candidates who have similar politics but who are queer/female/PoC? I'm totally willing to accept that this is the case and that I've just led a sheltered life, but it's not something I've seen. If others are seeing it, I'd like to hear more about that.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 1:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

If this is a joke, why does it have an Act Blue link?

If this isn't a joke, it some kind of weird reverse stereotyping.

Hate to tell you this folks, but not every woman or person of color is more qualified than every white dude. You know what else? It's really hard to tell.

Also, running for office takes a good amount of ego and overconfidence, qualified or not.

Just now in Pennsylvania, a woman who might be less qualified for the job of US Senator beat a man who is probably more qualified for the job than she. Saving grace, she is more qualified than Pat Toomey, but then so is an eighth grader, of any sex or color.
posted by tommyD at 1:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Are you an overly confident,

YUP

underqualified

SURE

white

ABSOLUTELY

guy

NO DOUBT

who wants to run for office?

NO! nononononoNO NONO NO NO!

NO!
posted by crazylegs at 1:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Now that I have a little more time allow me to explain why I think it's not horrible to ask white guys in particular to not run for office:

Our view point and needs will still get considered. Like, a lot. We probably won't even have to do anything to advertise them, people will come to us and ask. That's one of the big things about privilege.

Other groups have to constantly actively remind society that they in fact have unique views and needs that aren't the same as ours. We (white guys) should make things easier for them by leaving space for them to run for office and get a little amplification from that. Heck, we should HELP them run for office, but at the very least, we shouldn't stand in their way.

If you want a world where white guys don't have to be told to shut up so that we can hear from other people, you should be working for a world where white guys aren't talking all the time.
posted by Gygesringtone at 1:26 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

Also, running for office takes a good amount of ego and overconfidence, qualified or not.

I think this is precisely the point - that that ego and overconfidence are in far larger supply among white, straight, cis men, making it more difficult to generate candidates that reflect other demographics.

kanewai, I think I voted for your rough counterpart out here in San Francisco's last mayoral race. The incumbent was/is San Francisco's first Asian American mayor, I am Asian American and care deeply about Asian American issues and representation, but man, fuck that guy forever. It was kind of an interesting situation: a white woman and a Latino man were also in the race, and none of them had a ghost of a chance (the white woman had the most of a ghost of a chance, I guess), but all three of them were telling voters to vote for one of them, they didn't even CARE which one, to send a message to Ed Lee. Ultimately I felt the white guy represented me best, so I voted for him.

That was one of only a couple of times I have voted for a white man over other choices - I also voted for Jerry Brown over Neel Kashkari, because, hahahahaha. (So everyone being all "YA KNOW THE MINORITY CANDIDATE ISN'T ALWAYS THE BEST ONE?!", consider that it's possible that we KNOW THAT ALREADY.) But I've generally been blessed with a wide range of candidates here in San Francisco - memorable past choices for state Senate have included a moderately progressive Chinese American man vs a super duper progressive queer Latino man, and it's looking like I'll get to choose between two supremely qualified Democratic women of color for this year's U.S. Senate race, which is AWESOME. But I think the way we get there is by generally reducing the sheer inevitability of white men on the ballot.
posted by sunset in snow country at 1:26 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

qualified is really a funny term honestly on this score.
posted by corb at 1:27 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is hilarious and a very fun project. In reality, nothing every changes by asking nicely. Average white dudes have had an incredible run, we're talking centuries of good fortune, they're not going to stop because you ask them to. But that's exactly what I like about this project! It's hilarious and gets what would once be considered poisonous ideas into the mainstream.
posted by cell divide at 1:29 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

If this is a joke, why does it have an Act Blue link?

It's not just a joke. They're actually soliciting donations and it looks like 65 donors have already given them a little over 2000 dollars. As to where that money is going, you'll have to trust these white dudes that it's going to "women, LGBT, and POC candidates, approved by our advisory board, who are NOT straight white men." (That's if you can trust white dudes.)

I did lol at "As well-represented white dudes, we feel it is our obligation to know when to shut up and Not." And also at this paragraph from the MSNBC story on the PAC:

"So does that mean they wish Bernie Sanders, who is not giving up a race against a woman, had just not? They demurred. (Teter is a Hillary Clinton supporter; Huelsman declined to state his preference.) “That’s not really what this PAC is about,” said Teter."

posted by octobersurprise at 1:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Maybe I'm strange, though. Is there really a problem of straight cis white guys with progressive politics stealing the air from candidates who have similar politics but who are queer/female/PoC? I'm totally willing to accept that this is the case and that I've just led a sheltered life, but it's not something I've seen. If others are seeing it, I'd like to hear more about that.

Again, one of the key angles here is "qualification." The trend they're describing is White dudes who are not necessarily unsuccessful, but maybe haven't been involved in the things that give you the experience and perspective (and demonstrate the right commitments) relevant to being a good public servant, like community organizing, civic and political engagement, a proven interest in representing the interests of your constituents, etc.

qualified is really a funny term honestly on this score.

All else being equal, someone who has never been involved in local politics or been active in civic engagement is, I would say, less qualified than someone who has, if for no other reason than that experience is very helpful in knowing how to do the work of being an elected official. People might be good in various roles despite a lack of political experience, but it's a very reasonable standard for qualification.
posted by clockzero at 1:38 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

If I were considering running for local office, it would be because I felt that there were some important policy issues that nobody else was championing in a way that I felt I could get behind, and because I felt qualified to do the job and push those issues in the direction I wanted them to go.

But why does it have to be you? You could also find someone else and ask them to run, and support their campaign by fundraising, volunteering, etc. for them. If you don't know anyone else who really cares about that issue, then either there isn't a constituency for that issue and you're not going to find a lot of success even as an elected official, or you're not plugged into the local efforts on that issue and then you probably don't have the knowledge/relationships necessary to make progress on it.
posted by lunasol at 1:42 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

Actually, more on asking: this is a key principle of many organizations that work on advancing women's leadership. Because of the patriarchy, women are often reluctant to go for leadership positions unless they are asked. So a lot of these organizations will make a practice out of asking women to, say, run for office. This is a big part of what EMILY's List has traditionally done. I think it would be really cool if men who were thinking of running for office instead looked around to find women who they think would be great in public office and asked them.
posted by lunasol at 1:46 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

This needs to be translated in multiple languages and disseminated worldwide. Just imagine the multilingual chorus of dismay and "this is exactly why the [local populist right wing] get so many votes!" (that’s like the 2016 version of "PC gone mad!!" by now, right?)

Cue all the debates ever had in different countries of the world about gender quotas, wasn’t that a bundle of fun.

The problem with White male supremacy isn't that the wrong White men, the mediocre ones, are accorded unearned privilege that they often use in ways both subtle and overt to maintain their social position. We don't really want 'outstanding' White men to be enjoying their unearned privilege, either.

Er, in theory maybe, but no in practice that really is the thing, or rather, it is all one and the same thing.

That "underqualified" in combination with "overly confident", eh, just reading that made me instantly think of soooo many examples from so many different contexts, not just politics, business, media, academia, you name it.

If you as a theoretical exercise removed that excessive confidence, and all the networks and pathways and contexts and assumptions and connections and resources that fuelled that sense of excessive confidence and propelled those guys forwards more than they would have ever got if they hadn’t had those props, you’d find the truly "outstanding" ones may be fewer than we normally assume, because so so often, any guy with an inflated enough ego and well-connected enough is deemed "outstanding".

But that’s a really crude way of putting it anyway, there are like a million published research studies and essays and inter-parliamentary committes and data crunching reports across the world that have examined these very same issues, maybe in more academic and less entertaining language than the one used on the "Can You Not PAC" web page, but really a lot of it boils down to the same thing.
Seriously this is not too dissimilar from the idea of quotas, except this comes as a suggestion in satirical form, and yet, interesting how it tends to provoke similar reactions as if it was a mandated legal requirement.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:50 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean, contrary to what Frowner may wish to believe, I'm not all HULK SMASH on this. If it gets a little money to some unknown candidate who might not otherwise had an opportunity to run, then good, right? But the satire—if it is satire—is basically "U MAD BRO?"—and if it's genuine principle, not satire, then there's really no reason why these white guys—especially white guys who like to brag about knowing when to shut up—shouldn't have stepped back and let someone else do it.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:51 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

We actually had a race locally where there was a woman of color left candidate and a post-Occupy young white guy candidate, plus the regulation mainstream white dude candidate, and the post-Occupy guy supporters said a bunch of kind of nasty dog-whistle racist stuff about the WOC candidate. It was not nice, and that is precisely what I bet Can You Not is talking about.

The WOC candidate won. Subsequently there has been a low hum of racist garbage about her from white "progressive" men in the political scene.

I think she's doing a pretty good job, and she certainly had directly advocated for constituents of color and used an explicitly racial justice framework in doing so. Honestly, she is a shit-ton better than the Green who holds another position (who a lot of white leftists like to point to as so wonderful), who has sold us out time and again and who I will never trust, ever, after he knifed us on some police brutality stuff.

The post-Occupy guy - he was slightly to the left of her economically, but did not have a racial justice framework, and Minnesota has huge, awful racism problems. And when I saw how there was racism around his campaign, I absolutely decided not to vote for him.

My point being that this stuff does happen, and that unfortunately, a lot of white men who want to elect white men on economic issues immediately turn to racist slurs when challenged by progressives of color.
posted by Frowner at 1:52 PM on May 6, 2016 [30 favorites]

[precisely the kind of thing that Can You Not is talking about - they are not from around here]
posted by Frowner at 1:56 PM on May 6, 2016

But the satire—if it is satire—is basically "U MAD BRO?"—and if it's genuine principle, not satire, then there's really no reason why these white guys—especially white guys who like to brag about knowing when to shut up—shouldn't have stepped back and let someone else do it.

Right, these are essentially my feelings as well. I guess I don't see why they couldn't have recruited PoC to join them in running a PAC explicitly centered around supporting/mentoring progressive PoC candidates and/or candidates with a demonstrated commitment to racial justice? There is an element of praise us *good* white dudes hidden under the appearance of satire that rubs me the wrong way.
posted by black_lizard at 2:05 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

It was not nice, and that is precisely what I bet Can You Not is talking about.

Yeah, I think that's the point too - even if it seems jokey, because jokey is not a terrible entry-level position for an idea. It's a sticky wicket: we have all these problematic white guys, and nobody can fix this but other white guys because that's how y'all built the system! I think forcing men to actually take a stand on whether they are okay with bullshit behavior is a great start.
posted by Lyn Never at 2:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

But why does it have to be you? You could also find someone else and ask them to run, and support their campaign by fundraising, volunteering, etc. for them.

Take up the white man's burden, and all that.
posted by kanewai at 2:06 PM on May 6, 2016

Re: asking somebody else to run, that sounds like a fine possibility as well. If I were thinking about championing some cause as a political candidate and I knew of somebody else with a different background than me who was on the same wavelength, who I thought could do a good job, and who I thought might be interested, I'd probably talk to them about it. All else being equal I'd rather somebody else step up, and all else being equal I'd rather see someone in power with a less well-represented background than mine. So I think we're on the same page there, as far as that goes.

I think the "qualified" aspect of this is kind of a red herring though, a distraction. I think there's a good conversation to be had about whether being from a politically-underrepresented group can itself serve as a qualification for office (I think it absolutely can, as I mentioned above) but it's obviously not the only qualification, nor do I think it is ever either totally necessary or totally sufficient in terms of making someone fit for office. It's a good thing, but not the only thing. This is what I'm hearing from both white people and people of color here, so I daresay we're all pretty much on the same page there too.

As for unqualified people, it seems equally obvious to me that they shouldn't be running for jobs they're not qualified to do! Being able to effectively represent your constituents, especially your more marginalized constituents, is something that I think is a key qualification for office. If the job involves representing a broad group of constituents (as almost all political jobs do) then you had damn well better have a deep understanding of the concerns and experiences of your constituency and you had better be prepared to put that understanding into action. That goes double for marginalized groups within your constituency, and if you happen to come from one of those marginalized groups then that may well give you a big leg up in that area. It's not the only way to get there, but it's one way, and all else being equal I'm generally going to have an easier time believing a Black candidate (for example) when they say they understand the needs of marginalized people in their community than I am when it's a white one. You have to take candidates on an individual basis of course (like everybody else here is already saying, yes) but it's something to be taken into account when deciding who to vote for.

The fact that most political candidates are totally unqualified for their jobs on that basis is something that I think is a shame and needs to change, and I totally agree that putting forward more candidates from less-well-represented backgrounds is an important part of that. My sole point is that I haven't personally seen progressive straight cis white males drowning out progressive non straight cis white males, and that personally it would seem really weird to me, a progressive straight cis white male, to think about running for a race where there was already a candidate whose positions I broadly supported and who was from a different background from me. I agree that when that happens (and I'm starting to see people here putting up examples of it happening) it's shitty, and it's certainly doubly shitty if supposed progressives start using dog-whistle racism (or sexism, or homophobia, or transphobia) to attempt to discredit a candidate of color (or a female candidate, or a gay one, or a trans one).

So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with y'all, I just hadn't personally noticed it as a real-life problem? People are pointing out now that yes, this is a thing that happens sometimes and it sucks, so yeah I agree that it does happen sometimes and that it sucks.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:22 PM on May 6, 2016

Argh, I forgot for a second in there that we're not just talking about racial issues. My bad; I wish I had a more concise way to say "people who aren't straight, white, cis, and male". All the alternatives I've been coming up with (some of which I've been using) are just as much of a mouthful, and I don't like saying "minorities" because a) it leaves an opening for the "BUT WAHT ABOUT WOMEN, THEY'RE TECHNICALLY THE MAJORITY" gotcha, and b) I feel like "minority" is sort of a dog-whistle term in some circles, so using it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would love some suggestions, since it would make talking about this stuff somewhat less unwieldy.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:30 PM on May 6, 2016

But why does it have to be you? You could also find someone else and ask them to run, and support their campaign by fundraising, volunteering, etc. for them.

Take up the white man's burden, and all that.

No, the white man's burden would be to say "I see you poor benighted women and people of color are facing problems. I will run for office and fix those problems!" What I'm talking about is looking around your community and identifying people who are already leaders in some way, and providing encouragement and support, as a friend/ally.
posted by lunasol at 2:37 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with y'all, I just hadn't personally noticed it as a real-life problem? People are pointing out now that yes, this is a thing that happens sometimes and it sucks, so yeah I agree that it does happen sometimes and that it sucks.

The way I have observed this to go, both when people are running for office and when people are in competition in some other way, is that very often (often enough that I've seen it many times over my activist career) the white guy will totally dismiss the idea that being female or being a person of color has any value. Like, he will assert that he can totally represent women as well as a woman candidate, represent Black people as well as a Black candidate, etc. They don't have his awesome economic ideas, and he can do as good a job on race/gender stuff as they can, so of course he is the better candidate.

When I encounter a white guy who thinks that he not only can but obviously will absorb all the knowledge and priorities of a female and/or POC candidate and just tack them on to his existing positions - automatically! - I am reminded of the terrible tale of Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett. Garrett positioned himself as a huge advocate for indigenous Australian people, but ended up as an advocate for the horrible Stronger Futures policy, which was very much counter to the interests of actually existing indigenous people and was passed without consultation. This was so bad and tainted my perception of him and Midnight Oil (a band I absolutely loved to death when I was younger) that I couldn't even bring myself to talk about it in that Midnight Oil thread the other day because I didn't want to spoil other people's happy memories if they didn't know. But it was unbelievably shitty, and it is not an uncommon thing to happen when privileged people position themselves as able to absorb the interests of marginalized people.

This is just as true, of course, of white women representing people of color, straight people representing queer ones, etc.
posted by Frowner at 2:38 PM on May 6, 2016 [16 favorites]

I am also, for that matter, reminded of the incredibly shitty panel that I put together on prison issues once, where (and it was not totally my fault, but it was certainly partly on me) I had only white people speaking, and which went totally, hideously off the rails, shattered some important relationships between the hosting space and various people and just made a lot of people feel really bad and angry. It was a giant fuck-up, and it went really badly in large part because we organizers assumed that white people could readily represent the interests and concerns of POC around prison issues. The more I have learned, subsequently, about the local groups working on this issue, the more I realize that I made a clown of myself in front of some really serious activists. Luckily, it was years ago now and I look pretty different, so I don't automatically want to hide in the bathroom at related activist events. And yet, prior to that event, I really thought I knew what I was talking about, and so did all the other people who worked on that event.

It is really, really fucking hard and specialized work to be the voice for a marginalized group when you are privileged. It's not impossible, but is it very, very hard to do well, and it is very easy to screw up in a big way. When I meet a white person who wants to represent communities of color, or a man who wants to take up women's issues, I know, from bitter bitter experience of my own fuck-ups, that I need to see real, serious, significant evidence that this person has connections, knows what they are doing and has a track record of follow-through.

Very, very often, privileged people do not understand what that would look like and are offended that anyone would even expect it.
posted by Frowner at 2:44 PM on May 6, 2016 [20 favorites]

Maybe you have to see something of yourself in what they are attacking in order to find it apt and humorous.
posted by No Robots at 2:44 PM on May 6, 2016

Can I just say that I really appreciate the respectful conversation that we're having here? I've learned a lot!

I'd also be interested in more real-life examples, Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The (talk about a mouthful!), but want to add that the way I see it, the problem is not necessarily progressive straight cis white males competing against other existing progressive candidates. It's women and people of color and queer people removing themselves from the conversation pre-emptively due to any of a number of obstacles (internalized racism/sexism, not wanting to put themselves through a barrage of racist/sexist comments or threats, economic disadvantage...), and straight white men thinking that this is the natural order of things. Again, this project may not, as proposed, be THE #1 BEST way of fixing this, but we're having this conversation as a result of it, at least.
posted by sunset in snow country at 2:45 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

I hear what you're saying Frowner, and I think that sort of behavior beautifully exemplifies the "overconfident and unqualified" aspect of the problem. If you're a male candidate who is trying to bill himself as being good on women-centric issues, you'd better have done the work necessary to bring yourself up to speed on those issues. As a voter I'm going to tend to assume that a female candidate is familiar with that stuff just as a consequence of existing, but a male candidate is going to have to work hard to establish his bona fides in that area.

Just saying "I'll do all the stuff she'll do, plus I'll address economic inequality" isn't nearly enough. I want to know what feminist causes you've worked with, what female leaders in your area support you, what you've had to say in the past about women's issues (leaving aside for a moment the problematic nature of the term "women's issues"), what women in your life have to say about you as a person, that sort of thing. Just saying "I'm a smart progressive guy, of COURSE I'll be good for women" is laughable. I may still vote for you depending on how everything else stands in the race (i.e. you might still be the least bad candidate overall) but I'm not going to do so with a happy heart.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:48 PM on May 6, 2016

Only Republicans want to keep even nominally liberal people from running for office. Because they don't run is why the Tea Party holds so many offices.
As for Teter being trans and supposedly that makes him all liberal and stuff - let's remember that Caitlin Jenner is still toxically conservative.
posted by Docrailgun at 2:56 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Maybe you have to see something of yourself in what they are attacking in order to find it apt and humorous.

You're probably right, but it's also the tone and style. Maybe those are intertwined.
posted by cell divide at 3:11 PM on May 6, 2016

In the world of White Fragility, a viable idea cannot ever be one that involves any discretion or leeway whatsoever. I mean, what if the only candidates were a black woman NAZI, and JOHN THE BAPTIST, what then
posted by threeants at 3:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [16 favorites]

I agree with the criticisms from dialetheia, clockzero, and DGStieber, but I really appreciated Frowner's comments about Minnesota electoral politics where this seems to have occurred.

I think this PAC should have more teeth instead of the self-congratulation and name and shame the candidates who did this or are doing this in their opinion. It's obviously true that white men dominate in this white supremacist, patriarchal country, but this is about how that distorts left-wing* electoral campaigns (and movements more broadly) and I feel like that is a specific area where negative attention forcing white male left-wing candidates to politically justify why they are running instead of supporting another campaign in the race could actually have an effect.

* I'm using "left-wing" since I feel like "progressive" is an even emptier term, which might be another political difference from this PAC, and there's an unavoidable context this year.
posted by Gnatcho at 4:01 PM on May 6, 2016

There should be groups like this for all professions where cis white men are overrepresented. Oh, you want to be an astronomer? A novelist? No. Teach middle school. Try us back in 5000 years.
posted by officer_fred at 4:13 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Only Republicans want to keep even nominally liberal people from running for office. Because they don't run is why the Tea Party holds so many offices.

Well, it's a good thing that we're not talking about keeping anyone from doing so. But there are many people in this thread giving solid reasons why it might be a good idea for white men to think twice before running. Do you think these people are, like, secret Republicans or something? I can assure you I am not! And it's also pretty toxic to have this sort of "you're with or against us" kind of attitude towards women and people of color who talk honestly about these issues.
posted by lunasol at 4:19 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Try us back in 5000 years.

Yeah because a six year old boy today should definitely be the one to pay for past oppression.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:18 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

I agree with the criticisms from dialetheia, clockzero, and DGStieber, but I really appreciated Frowner's comments about Minnesota electoral politics where this seems to have occurred.

I appreciated those comments as well. Thank you for your clarity, too, lunasol and avalonian.
posted by clockzero at 9:25 PM on May 6, 2016

this proposal sounds like bourgeois identity politics and i can't say i'm a fan.
posted by thug unicorn at 9:26 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

...the way I see it, the problem is not necessarily progressive straight cis white males competing against other existing progressive candidates. It's women and people of color and queer people removing themselves from the conversation pre-emptively due to any of a number of obstacles (internalized racism/sexism, not wanting to put themselves through a barrage of racist/sexist comments or threats, economic disadvantage...), and straight white men thinking that this is the natural order of things.

Exactly, and that is one of the things that remind me of the debate about gender quotas, and sure that was only applying to women in politics, but still very telling for the purpose of highlighting that problem - here’s a quote from a report from the IPU’s Atlas of Electoral Gender Quotas (PDF) that basically says the same thing you wrote:

In the global survey of parliamentarians conducted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 2008, women parliamentarians identified the following factors as the most significant obstacles in pursuing successful political careers: domestic responsibilities; prevailing cultural attitudes regarding the roles of women in society; lack of support from the family; lack of confidence; lack of finances; and lack of support from political parties. Male parliamentarians surveyed identified the lack of support from the electorate as the single most important deterrent, followed by a lack of financial resources and saw the prevailing cultural attitudes as one of the least important factors influencing their participation in politics.

In other words, the men did think that was the natural order of things!
If it’s just a case of "lack of support from the electorate" ie. people are not ready, what can you do about it? nothing! but... "cultural attitudes" are not such a big factor? Apparently that didn’t strike them as a contradiction either. See "overly confident"...
posted by bitteschoen at 2:20 AM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Frowner: "I am reminded of the terrible tale of Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett. Garrett positioned himself as a huge advocate for indigenous Australian people, but ended up as an advocate for the horrible Stronger Futures policy,"

I think that highlights a slightly subtler point though. My recollection of that policy is that it came out of Jenny Macklin's office (though maybe I'm remembering it wrong). Peter Garrett was one among many people involved, but - as women - many (most?) of the big names associated with that policy would not have fallen within the scope of the Can You Not initiative if it were applied in Australia. Addressing the problems with Stronger Futures and the like requires indigenous representation in parliament specifically, not just fewer white dudes generally.

I guess that's why I'm sort of uneasy about an approach that draws a bright line between "straight white cis man" and "everyone else". Politics being what it is, I'm pretty sure that you'd probably end up replacing a bunch of straight white cis middle class middle aged white guys with straight white cis middle class middle aged white women, or other folks who are quite frankly just as clueless about indigenous matters. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders make up a very tiny very marginalised proportion of the population, and tend to have far fewer opportunities to be elected than white women, or gay men, or basically any other segment of Australian society. My guess is that they are very unlikely to be the beneficiaries of an approach that focuses solely on discouraging white men from applying to political office. My impression is that getting indigenous representation requires an approach that actively encourages or selects for indigenous people. Just getting white guys to hold back doesn't actually do much to address that.
posted by langtonsant at 3:28 AM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

(Not that I'm suggesting that Frowner - or anyone one else - was proposing that getting the white guys out is a magic solution. I'm only saying that I can see shortcomings to an approach based solely on that idea.)
posted by langtonsant at 3:34 AM on May 7, 2016

The point about Peter Garrett is not that everything would be great if he weren't in office - it's that he thought he was an awesome ally and in fact achieved a lot of his political position from his reputation as an awesome ally, and then he goes and does this thing which, to me, shows that he had no fucking clue. To me this is a terrible warning to every progressive who thinks that they can easily represent marginalized groups based on good intentions and the ability to talk a good line.

I guess, for me, identity politics is a heuristic measure. My immediate assumption is that - when nothing else is in play - a woman knows more about women's issues than a man, and is less likely to make policy that actually overlooks major aspects of women's experiences. This doesn't mean that every woman candidate is either politically better or more competent than a man, but it does mean that - given two people whose politics are both acceptable - the man has to do a lot of work to show me that he can represent women. Whereas I think the default assumption is that of course anyone can represent anyone by virtue of being an awesome progressive, etc.

The unknown-unknowns problem is huge for progressives. That's why we get really dumb things like "oh, we'll have a $1 copay on medication for low income people, that's so low it's virtually giving it away and it will help offset costs" and then we're all "OMG, why did people stop using this program" and don't understand that it's because a $1 copay is a lot if you're literally broke or if you're really sick and need ten prescriptions a month.

And it is really, really hard to hack the unknown-unknowns problem. For me, what gets dismissed as "identity politics" is one of the hacks - you can't totally solve the problem, of course, and it's not like merely being e.g.g queer politician makes you awesome, but trying to get people into office who have lived experience of the problems at hand is one way to minimize the unknown-unknowns risk.

Remember that we're not just talking about being president here - we're talking about city council and school board and state senate, etc etc, the very places where boring, day-to-day policy proposals get written by ordinary politicians. To me, that is very much where the unknown-unknowns bite you, because the policies are about little, everyday stuff.

I mean, for many years I have been watching progressives around here either betray their more vulnerable constituents or else make policy that is so fucking idiotic that I want to cry. I think that would be at least a little better if we didn't have rich people who have no experience of economic marginalization writing policy that purports to help low income people, and I think it would be at least a little better if we didn't have, e.g., white people writing policy that purports to help Native people. Could we have terrible, corrupt working class or Native politicians? Sure we could. But at the moment, we've got rich white people, some of whom are also terrible and corrupt. The key issue is that these are nominally "progressive" politicians - they really, really think they know what's best for marginalized groups (just like Peter Garrett did). They're not sitting here thinking "how can I screw minorities". They're just screwing minorities out of ignorance, laziness and lack of being beholden to those communities.

For me, I think self-doubt is important. I think it's important to say "hm, I don't have lived experience with this complex situation, that means that not only do I know less about it but I am very, very likely to fuck up on the unknown-unknowns front. I am likely not even to realize the depth and significance of the things I don't know. I am likely to be really resistant to doing things that are actually important, because I don't understand that they are important." That's just...a condition of ignorance for everyone, of course, but in particular a condition of ignorance for privileged people. Where we are privileged, we are far more likely to blithely race along messing things up for others and thinking we're being heroes.

Despite the fact that I run my mouth here plenty, one thing I have learned from doing out in the world is that self-doubt and stepping back are good when you're in a privileged position. And one crude, immediate heuristic for identifying whether it's good to step back is "am I in a privileged position here"?

In the world of electoral politics, the people who are far and away the most privileged are white, straight, cis men from upper middle class families. Those are precisely the people who should look hard at themselves and try to imagine whether just maybe they are not the experts that the world needs. This is, of course, absolutely the opposite of what straight white cis men learn to do (and I would argue the opposite of what white people generally learn to do) so there's naturally a lot of hand-flapping when anyone suggests it.
posted by Frowner at 6:51 AM on May 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

Stronger Futures was the Labor renewal of the 2007 Coalition Intervention. Strange to blame Garrett for having anything to do with it, beyond the collective blame all Cabinet Ministers have for decisions of the day. Maybe politics is hard and complicated to a degree not appreciated by a musician; plenty of Indigeous Australians were (and still are) highly vocal and supportive of both the NTER and the renewals.
posted by kithrater at 7:23 AM on May 7, 2016

The better criticism of Garrett is that he was willing to become a Labor hack in exchange for being parachuted into a safe seat and a spot on the shadow front bench. And that means you support the party position. Nothing to do with overconfidence matched with a lack of qualifications, at least not beyond what you expect from party hacks.
posted by kithrater at 7:42 AM on May 7, 2016

Well, looking at a photo of the City Council candidates this year where I live, every darned one of them is a white guy (I think, one of them is vaguely kinda hard to tell). And I live in a liberal hippie village. Where's the women? Where are the people of color? How come nobody's doing that any more? We used to have a more varied selection.

It kinda seems to me like this is up there with the whole "men will apply for a job if they have 60 percent of the qualifications but women won't do it unless they have 100%." Which I think is actually right when it comes to jobs because women are more likely to have to be really super perfect/outshine a dude because of what our culture is like. Women probably can't be all "Eh, I'm awesome, why don't I just do it?" because they'll get whopping amounts of shit compared to the dudes and if they're not the world's most perfect candidate, why go through all that drama? The standards are just higher for everyone who isn't a white guy.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:37 AM on May 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

I don't know about this particular initiative, which is a kind of humor that I don't always love, but I think that in general, representation really matters. I think there's something to be said for "nothing about us without us," for the idea that people can represent their own interests in a way that other people, no matter how sympathetic and well-meaning, can't, and that broadly diverse groups make better, more-inclusive decisions than even the most politically right-minded non-diverse groups. I think that people debate and discuss things differently when they know that there are affected people taking part in the discussion. I think those conversations are often harder, but they're much more productive than when you're all talking sympathetically about people who don't have a seat at the table. I want a city council that includes all kinds of people, not just one that includes straight, middle-class, white, cis, temporarily-able-bodied, etc. dudes who really care about all kinds of people.

I don't think this is just an issue with politics, for what it's worth. It's also a reason that decision-making bodies in all sorts of institutions need to be broadly diverse, and not just comprised of people who are politically committed to the goal of equality.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:58 AM on May 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

I just want to say that I misspoke earlier. There have not yet been three women senators of color in our nation's history. There have been two. Two.
posted by sunset in snow country at 4:56 PM on May 9, 2016