During the past weeks volunteering for Barack Obama in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, I have been focused on the "race issue" -- not because of South Carolina, but because of an outrageous email campaign waged against Sen. Obama by a person who claims to "represent" Asian Americans. Essentially, he is a virtual activist with Democratic leanings who amplifies his opinions with the help of a gigantic email list he has accumulated by gobbling up addresses from tangible Asian American community org's with actual boots on the ground (and claiming credit for the work we do but that's another story). Recently, he came up with a storyline that goes "Obama refused to answer my questionaire, therefore he is 'dissing' all Asian Americans, therefore all Asian Americans should vote for Hillary Clinton." Of course, we find out later that the Obama campaign had asked for clarifications and revisions on some of the questions, that this guy had refused, and that he granted revisions and clarifications when the Clinton campaign made similar requests. This detail was left out of course, when a columnist for AsianWeek ran with the "story" and began to attack Obama using the same baseless conclusion as a foundation.
Of course thousands of Asian Americans were already volunteering for Obama when we received an email saying we should vote for Clinton. And, Keith Kamisugi's stiff response has already done an excellent job debunking the email campaign and its claim to represent all Asian Amerians. But I wanted to share my perspective on this relatively minor squabble inside the Asian American community because it is related to the decision that all Americans must make about the type of leadership and the level of discourse we want to see in our democracy....
My Take on Obama and the 80/20 Mess
80/20's embarrassing misinformation campaign against Barack Obama is precisely the kind of political stunt we need to remove from political discourse if our country is to turn itself around. Partisan insiders rely on exaggerated and misleading campaigns like this because they assume We the People wouldn't otherwise pay attention. But it's a vicious circle. We are turned-off by politics because we're tired of thin slogans and unfounded accusations from entrenched partisans. And entrenched partisans continue to resort to such tactics because they see the public as apathetic and deserving of no better.
Obama has more faith in the American people. He wants to see more Americans participate, not just by voting, but by holding an on-going conversation with our leaders. He is the leader who can best conduct that conversation. He knows that our democratic process cannot function as it should unless we reject partisans on both sides whose idea of political discourse is sloganeering, dishonesty, and division. As a nation, we cannot afford to proceed with choices limited between Democratic and Republican versions of the same old story.
Barack Obama is the first leader in a generation to inspire Americans to become more involved, more aware, and more active in the democratic process. He symbolizes a cultural shift, fueled by our hunger to be heard, and our willingness to contribute something to society. This movement will reduce the relevance and the influence of partisans who rely on mass-distributed misinformation. I can understand why many of the old-style partisans are still resisting this change. But for everyone else in America, and everyone else in the APA community, this change is a change for the better.
PS: I'm planning a new post in response to all the focus that has (unduly) been placed on African American voters in South Carolina. In it I will make a case for why Asian Americans and Latinos actually NEED Obama's leadership in the White House MORE than African Americans do. In sum, we are more vulnerable to "angry mob" politics -- the kind of politics that Annabel and I have witnessed with regard to the immigration issue in Virginia, and the kind of politics, sadly, that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Obama has shown the courage and fortitude to stand up to the "angry mob" in both cases. While African Americans have historically been a target for wedge politics, the community has reached a level of influence that makes the targeting of African Americans for political gain a less popular strategy. In the coming decade, minorities who are less numerous or less empowered, such as Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, and Latinos, who will need a leader like Obama.
More than 40 people responded, from Denver, Chicago, Austin, Tuscon, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC. Among those that gathered in Las Vegas were seven Board Members of Asian Pacific Americans for Progress (APAP) including Eric and Annabel, actress Kelly Hu (Scorpion King), and independent filmmakers Mora Stephens, Amyn Kaderali, Joel Viertel and Catherine Park. After making connections and fostering friendships in Nevada, we returned to our home states. We are we are making plans to go to San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco for the California Primary Feb. 5th.
Even if this virtual activist feels he was slighted by the Obama campaign, and even if he can convince some people that he could justifiable have felt slighted, this is not a valid by which we should choose our President.
"Has the Clinton Campaign Successfully Marginalized Barack Hussein Obama as the "Black Candidate?"
I wrote to him to express my concern:
I think you're taking it a bit too far using the anti-Arab and the "Barack is too black" approach in the same email. We all want our candidate to win, but let's remember we have principles to uphold as Asian Americans and as Americans. Better to win with principles in tact, no?
He wrote back that "I am more pro-Black and pro-Arab than a large majority of Americans. These racist ads by Republicans do not affect me at all." And explained that he was not trying to expose a Republican trap -- use the media to cause Barack to be our nominee, and then use racist tactics to turn out the racist vote and beat us in November.
My reply included this:
"...just pointing out that in quoting Republican talking points it looks as if you so want your candidate to win you'd be willing to take advantage of prejudice in order to win -- not saying that you feel prejudice or would ever act on it. But there is some moral ambiguity in using prejudice for political advantage. We are more comfortable associating that with Republicans, and frankly Caucasians, so it gave me pause to see an email from you with "Hussein" meant as a scare tactic. The nuance you're speaking of -- Republicans use race to scare people, but I am using the tactic itself, not race itself, to scare people -- will get lost on most people, I think. Which would make it seem you are a Democrat who so wants to win you don't mind using Republican tactics."
I'll let you know what he says next!
Here is an explanation from 80-20's Initiative Director, published in AsianWeek as a leter to the editor, about how 80-20 decided to endorse Hillary Clinton and attack Barack Obama:
Some Asian Americans think we have a hidden agenda against Barack Obama ("Obama and That Questionnaire," Emil Amok, Jan. 18). Nothing could be further from the truth. If Obama had also answered yes to the 80-20 questionnaire, 80-20 would have remained neutral and not endorsed Hillary Clinton.
However, since Obama refused to work with us, and he is an unsupportive competing candidate, we have no choice but to protect the leading candidate who is committed to us. If it had been Clinton who refused to sign our letter and Obama did, 80-20 would have worked just as hard for Obama to defeat Clinton.
Achieving political power for Asian Americans is a daunting challenge. It would be ideal to be able to educate and persuade everyone along the way. However, we would rather focus our energies on doing the hard work that leads to results, than to engage in a popularity contest by trying to butt heads in blogs.
After Keith Kamisugi dispatched with the 80-20 argument on the AsianWeek website's comments section, I added some thoughts including this:
I agree with Keith. 80/20's misinformation campaign against Barack Obama is an embarrassment. Even if Dr. Lin's depiction of "questionnaire-gate" is accurate, which campaign filled out what paperwork is no way for a nation to choose its next President. According to Dr. Lin, 80/20 essentially flipped a coin and then told us all how we should vote. I am very skeptical that this is the process by which they decided who to endorse. But honestly, I don't know which is worse. Either they were as inane and arbitrary as they claim, or they decided on a candidate for other (hopefully substantive) reasons, but decided these reasons were insufficiently convincing and that "Obama dissed our questionnaire" was the best way to manipulate us into feeling "dissed" as well.
Now comes the really crazy part. An email sent out by an 80-20 member repeats the same questionnaire arguement for casting a vote of Clinton, and then concludes with this astonishingly ignorant statement:
(Just between you and me, my personal experience tells me that often times African Americans are not supportive of Asian Americans' causes. Senator Obama has a large number of African American advisers around him. I have my suspicion that is where the resistance comes from.)
This is the reply that Oiyan Poon, a UCLA Ph.D. Candidate wrote to the 80-20 member:
I fear that underlying 80-20's campaign is the manipulation of anti-Black prejudice among many Asian Americans. You mention your perception that many of Barack's advisers are Black. I did a little research. In addition to his Washington staff being very diverse and including Asian Americans, here is a Washington Post article on who is in Barack's inner circle: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/the_obama_inner_circle.html
You'll see that if you look up who these people are, your assumption that his advisers are mainly Black is actually incorrect.
I would be very sad if Asian American prejudices against African Americans are being agitated by 80-20.
-----------------------------
Meanwhile, I got another email from my friend who wants to scare up votes for Clinton by pointing out Republicans will fire up the racists in order to defeat Obama. He repeated the explanation that his strategy in pointing to the racicm that an African American person faces is to convince us that one cannot be elected President -- it is not to denigrate Obama for being Black and having a foreign sounding name, rather his aim is to point out others might do so. He mentioned that he has experienced prejudice as a Japaense American. He also wondered if my criticsm of his approach to supporting Clinton was due to his Japanese ancestry and WWII.
Here is my reply:
Oh gosh no, it has nothing to do with Japanese Americans or Japan. JA's are my people, having grown up in Hawai'i -- all my friends and role models, seriously. Also, I'm Chinese not Korean, but I'm 5th generation so I have no genetic scars from WWII. No, no, not at all. I know there is a distinction between being racist and playing to racism for political gain. And, I understand the fine point you put on the distinction between this tactic, and warning that such a tactic will be used by others. I'm just saying that I doubt that this distinction will be clear to all. And personally, I would try to avoid both of these approaches because I, like you, am sensitive to prejudice, so much so that even the perception of prejudice causes me concern.
When Larry Craig was caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom, many progressives celebrated because anti-gay sentiment would work agaist the Republican party (same with Mark Foley). But deep down many of us realized that celebrating the plight of a closeted gay man, and celebrating the anger and hatred being directed at him by his party and by Americans at large, is not in keeping with our principles, even if it does help advance our agenda in some small way. By the same token, prejudice toward African Americans may ultimately help the Clinton candidacy. But playing into such prejudice (not saying you are) as a political tactic would not be in keeping of the principles that the Clintons and their supporters, by and large, endeavor to uphold.
http://www.asianweek.com/2008/...
As a formerly active 80-20 member who attended meetings in the Los Angeles area with my dad and other members of our Chinese School community when the organization first started, I'm QUITE disappointed to see the organization's actively negative attack on a presidential candidate.
I admired the Democratic candidates' initial attempt to keep debates positive and issue-oriented. However, of late, it seems that a certain candidate has opted to allow negative bashing of opponents. This is off-putting and exactly what has turned most Americans off from politics.
-Michelle on Jan 28, 2008
While I respect some of the individuals in 80-20, the organization's questionnaire reflected a very blatentattempt to assert itself as the political broker/gatekeeper for all Asian Americans. Along with each set of questions, 80-20 demanded each candidate agree to meet with 80-20 on policy issues (see questions below). In other words, 80-20 was threatening candidates to either recognize 80-20 as the representative of all Asian America or be smeared for disregarding the entire community.
This is a very unfortunate abuse of 80-20 position. No organization should leverage its own organizational needs as a litmus test for all of our concerns. Our democracy deserves better.
Excerpts from 80-20's 'questionnaire':
"Question 3: Two years after you have issued the directive described in item 2, will you meet with a group of Asian American national organizations, put together by 80-20 and the Labor Department, to review the progress in extending equal opportunity to Asian Americans?"
"Question 6: If elected, will you consider nominating a qualified Asian America to the Supreme Court, when a vacancy occurs? Two years upon your taking the office, will you meet with a group of Asian American leaders, put together jointly by 80-20 and other Asian American national organizations to review the progress in adding Asian American Federal judges?"
-Gen Fujioka on Jan 28, 2008
Gen, you're analysis has made me realize what this is all about. They are peddling Asian American empowerment. We are the targeted market. And the Presidential candidates are the suppliers. Meanwhile, the nation is discovering paths to empowerment beyond email blasts. As Obama says, it really is "the past vs. the future."
-Eric Byler (Charlotte Sometimes, Tre, Americanese) on Jan 28, 2008
What's wrong with selling us empowerment? At least the price is right - zero dollars and a few annoying emails here and there.
-Harrison Pham on Jan 29, 2008
What's WRONG WITH THAT is this. When you're selling something, your aim is to corner the market. If 80-20 achieves the monopoly they speak of in their emails (if we allow them to tell us how to vote), it is 80-20 who will be empowered, not us. This really goes back to the fundamental choice we are facing in this election. 80-20 decided who to endorse based on who gave them access - who promised to have a meeting with them in their self-absorbed, self-promoting questionnaire (did you read it?). That's how the old political process works. Quid pro quo. That's why we have to change it. That's why so many Asian Americans were already out on the streets volunteering for Obama when we received that condescending email. I finally see why 80-20 has a beef with Obama. If Asian Americans are inspired to empower themselves, what will 80-20 have to sell? Their power decreases as our power grows.
-Eric Byler (Charlotte Sometimes, Tre, Americanese) on Jan 29, 2008