Response to "Not the Offensive Post, but it IS Ugly"

A long response to a Substack post that really needed to be a Substack post itself.

I read Jessica Weingarten’s Substack, and she recently wrote a post about my US rep, Chrissy Houlahan, and her vote for censure of Rep. Al Green for breaking Chamber protocol. I did, too.

Jessica’s latest post documents the reactions she received in light of her opinion on Chrissy’s decision, and the pushback Jessica got when she suggested ways to effect positive change for the Democrats.

I initially planned to leave a comment, but it was not brief enough to post. Therefore, I’ve converted this into my own post, but it’s essentially a very long response to Jessica’s.

---

I don't normally use intros like this, but it feels applicable: I'm a Black woman.

I am someone who is definitely pissed at Chrissy. She's not just a representative for her white, wealthy constituents in Chester Springs, she's also a representative for the Black communities in Coatesville and West Chester.

Her vote showed she forgot about Coatesville and West Chester in order to follow "the rules" when Rep. Green took a stand against injustice.

That being said, I vehemently disagree with most of the comments lobbied at you. I'll try (TRY) to address some of them briefly:

"One overarching question was if by changing some terminology, we could attract the vast swatches of voters we lost BECAUSE of the words we chose to use, and if we changed how and where we approached people, and we could therefore win elections and legislate the values and actions that matter, would that be a good tradeoff?"

I agree this is something worth looking at. People often forget that even though this "smacks of white privilege," people of color (POC) needed white political allies to effect change. Quite honestly, without white allies, we'd still be fighting for integration today. Our allies can use their "white privilege" to make things better. Straight allies can use their "straight privilege" to pave the way for LGBTQ+ civil rights. Using white privilege is sometimes necessary because those in power—who, btw, are...white—will only listen to other white people who convey the messages of Black people.

"If the criticisms are correct, I have real doubts that we can win large elections going forward."

While there may be truth in some of these criticisms, you're absolutely correct. The point of winning large elections is to appeal to a wide swath of people. I love me some AOC, but her rhetoric is radical and divisive for moderates and independents. That demographic is what helps the Democratic Party win elections: moderates and independents. They have gravitated toward the Republican Party, not because they like what they’re doing, but because they don’t feel like extreme ideas are being shoved down their throats. (How hyperbole and lies are okay with them, I’ll never understand.) Until we can find a way to address the concerns of moderates and independents, we are going to continue to lose elections. The progressive wing cannot win these elections without them (except in blue cities like New York and San Fran).

"First I need to circle back to the people who won’t forgive Chrissy Houlahan. What I heard NOT in the Substack comments, was that this desire to maintain “regular order” was a slap in the face to everyone who was not white, and that my forgiveness of her made me a racist. This is a different criticism from people who felt she should have stood with the Party, or that her anger at the Republicans should have been enough to vote “no”."

I was in the camp of not forgiving Chrissy, too. After writing my recent post, I realized that this fight for justice is bigger than Chrissy's fuck-up. And that’s what she did. She fucked up. Maybe not about what she felt was right, but she fucked up representing all her constituents.

I’ve seen talk about primarying her. I thought similarly (more along the lines of hoping she wouldn’t run again); however, primarying her leaves open the possibility of losing a Democratic seat—something we CANNOT afford to do. There is no guarantee that anyone who replaces her will be elected. Chrissy has been solidly re-elected since 2019 and has done an overwhelming amount of good for Chester County. Don’t get me wrong: I was heated. H-E-A-T-E-D. But the more I work through my feelings, the more I've decided that Chrissy is human. Does that mean she is worth kicking out despite 90% of the positive things she's done? If your kid gets a 90% in school, that 90% is still an "A." They made some mistakes but did a good job overall. (Grading Fetterman, however, is for another day.)

My concern here, too, (Jessica, correct me if I'm wrong) is that most of these criticisms sound like they're coming from...white people. IF these are mostly white people telling you all this garbage—honestly?—throw it in the trash. No one but a POC can truly tell you how they feel and about their experience. (Not saying some minorities don't agree with criticism, but a lot of this sounds like white savior complex to me.) And white people don’t own the corner store with what will work.

"The thrust of the condemnation was that People of Color have no other option than to work outside of the lines. That breaks in decorum are the only way to be heard."

Breaks in decorum are necessary sometimes. I don't believe anyone is saying to just throw out rules or continue breaking them. The vote was meant to be symbolic. Yes, he broke the rule of order in the Chamber. But it was also a key moment for the Democrats to show solidarity behind what Green was protesting. Voting against censure would not have been a vote for throwing out rules in the Chamber. Voting against censure was a symbolic (and quiet way) to stand against the Republicans to say, "we will rise up against injustice if you hurt the American people." It’s not a vote to encourage the behavior. (But also, I’d feel iffy about a vote for censure if he did it again.)

Despite Chrissy walking up to Johnson after the vote was over and yelling at him, the damage had already been done. She contributed a vote to a party that will use those rules against us. Betcha by golly, if Greene or Boebert had done that, I’m not convinced they’d be up for censure.

Yes, we need to uphold rules, but sometimes, rules are worth breaking. Regarding that the vote smacked of white privilege? Yes, to an extent. Black people would not be where we are if Civil Rights leaders hadn't broken some rules. Rules exist for a reason, but sometimes they are meant to be broken. Voting against censure was one of those times. And I was very disappointed with the rest of the Democrats who didn’t rise and leave when he was ushered out. Chrissy's censure (along with the other 9 Dems) was a knife in the gut, especially given that she's also supposed to represent ME and people who look like me (POCs—not just Black).

I could dissect your entire post, but I’ll highlight some points:

• We do need to adjust some of our terminology to attract a broader base. I've never really considered any of these things to be offensive (it doesn't affect THEM!), but I also heard from a lot of Latinos/Latinas who were not thrilled with Latinx being thrust upon them. Inclusive language is important, but it also needs to make sense.

• I'm not sure why anyone would knock finding common ground. Finding similarities, not enforcing differences, is how you win elections. That's not white privilege; it's common sense.

• That guy telling you your whole Substack is insulting and enjoys reading to disagree with you. Tell that MAGA to get a life.

Overall, you make some good points. It comes from a white perspective because…that's who you ARE. But, as the title of my previous post said, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The people who continue to knock or blow off some of the ideas you presented, will continue to cost us elections.