tweets...

TCEQ has required City of #Houston to notify people in 77336 & 77532 to boil water prior to consumption {via @Local2Breaking #hounews #scary 7 hrs ago
Pretty cool: Texas State Rep Scott Hochberg digs Alicia Giainni! (And graciously gave us his extra chairs) http://www.scotthochberg.com 7 hrs ago
streaming live - check it out & chat! #qik http://qik.ly/B3u4q 9 hrs ago
Wish everyone would *shhh* & listen to Alicia Giainni right now w/me, @JRCohen, @20KCourtenay - she's #AWESOME (@ The Tasting Room) 9 hrs ago
CONGRATS to @troyschulze as new @HoustonPress Arts & Culture Editor & blogger on @ArtAttackHP !!! :-) #FF 11 hrs ago
More updates...

Posting tweet...

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

Posted on | December 11, 2009 | 10 Comments

Lincoln delivered this famous speech, noted for the phrase “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” when accepting the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate from Illinois in June of 1858. In July of that year he challenged his Democrat opponent, Stephen Douglas to a series of debates over admitting Kansas into the union as a slave state, and, to a large extent, over the future of slavery and of the union itself. Lincoln, of course, represented the anti-slavery position. The skill with which Lincoln debated Douglas helped catapult him to the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1860, a race which he won.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifty year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting and end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crises shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.”
- at http://www.nationalcenter.org/HouseDivided.html

If I have learned one thing on this campaign, it is this: the democratic process is broken. Our house has more than divided. It has fractured into numerous splinters of extremists, fundamentalists, partisan hacks, conservatives, neo-cons, liberals, progressives, moderates, independents, … you name it. And the sad thing is, none of them can work together towards actual progress because they constantly demonize and cannibalize one another.

I had the honor and privilege of working on the Gene Locke for Mayor campaign. As I’ve said before, I had decided to support him before I was even approached to become his Social Media Strategist. When the opportunity arose to help elect someone whose no-nonsense problem-solving practicality and his experience fighting for civil rights and serving the community inspired me, I took it. It’s not often you get to work with and for someone you believe in. And it’s not often that if you do your job well, you could possibly effect positive change across the fourth largest city in the United States of America. So yeah, I was excited.

In the first few months, it was challenging. We had to adjust to a new team “gelling” together. We had to deal with challenges we inherited from an earlier team. And in a short period of time, we had to deal with the first negative attack on our candidate – an email from an opponent’s supporters that painted Gene as a misogynist.

Apparently, no one in the media or blogosphere thought that calling Gene – a civil rights advocate and the father of two strong, successful women – a misogynist was offensive. They picked it up and ran with it. Many of us women on the campaign and many of Gene’s female supporters were incensed. This is not the man we know. Many of the allegations in the email were lies or items taken out of context to mislead its audience. But we took the high road. Instead of fighting fire with fire, we simply stated that we were offended by it, and returned to the issues.

The bloggers who supported that opponent, however, added it to their mud-pie fillings. A small group had already started lining those pies with accusations of racism and pandering, when Gene said he supported ethnic groups working together. Apparently, that was unacceptable to one blogger, who called me personally to attack me for agreeing with Gene. I see no problem with minority groups working together. Many of them face similar issues and challenges that they can address more effectively by collaborating. And, from my experience, if I want to participate in their efforts, whether or not I was of their ethnicity they would probably welcome my help.

Similarly, I don’t feel like I’m being discriminated against if GLBT groups work together. In fact, when members of the GLBT Caucus invited me to their meeting, I enthusiastically attended … despite them having endorsed our opponent. I support equal rights for the GLBT community because I care and believe in social justice. I admired Gene for also supporting GLBT rights, which he’s proven since his early days as City Attorney. We continue to do it because, as Gene says, “it’s the right thing to do” – NOT because it’s politically expedient. Gene has nothing to gain from it. The GLBT Caucus already endorsed Annise. And when one person called me a derogatory name as I left the meeting, I reminded myself, “That is just one bully. He does not represent them all. Rise above it.”

So it offends me when people accuse our campaign of being bigoted, or pandering, or lying, or anything else that twists the truth. The people I’ve worked with on a daily basis are all incredibly intelligent, respectful and have the utmost integrity. (There are many I haven’t even met yet, however, so I can’t attest to their characters.) It offends me when people accuse us, and especially Gene, of pandering when we state what we support. It deeply disappoints me when those accusations are completely baseless, and it truly hurts when it comes from people who I previously believed stood for the same things that I do: equal rights, unity, social justice, progress, positive change.

The issues we face affect us all, no matter what color or creed we ascribe to. Lincoln was a Republican. F.D. Roosevelt was a Democrat. They were still two of our nation’s greatest leaders who were able to bring our country together and help it rise out of seriously troubled times. Rather than competing on the issues, however, people used divisive tactics and smear campaigning to drag this mayoral race into the mud, from which it never recovered. They didn’t care who they hurt, or how it would damage their effectiveness in advocating for the issues they believe in. They didn’t care if it was factual or a baldfaced lie. They didn’t care if it split their own party in two.

In their singular focus on winning, the political hacks forgot there were real people involved. They forgot that in trying to smear people’s characters, they were destroying potential allies. Instead of elevating the debate and campaigning on the issues, they built a whole kitchen full of mud and threw it to see what would stick. We started with a race of good candidates who would be great leaders for Houston. We ended with a race of “the lesser of two evils.” They’re the same people, with the same positions on the issues. The only difference is, now they’re buried in mud. You can’t see them clearly for all the mud whirling around in the political spin.

In the end, all the hacks will have achieved is an even more fractured house. Someone will have won, but no one will have won. Not in the ways that really matter.

When David Plouffe was in Houston for The UP Experience, I talked to him about the Locke for Mayor campaign. He said he decided to be President Obama’s campaign manager because he realized it was his opportunity to run a campaign based on hope and inspiration, instead of on mudslinging and spin. I had hoped this race would offer me the same opportunity. But it’s hard to run a clean race when you’re barraged by mud. Next time, I’ll wear a rain slicker. Or bring a fire hose.

It is legal in Texas, and in Houston, to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Gene Locke, before someone on his campaign told him to “cool it,” was committed to changing that at least with regard to city policy and with regard to those who do business with the city. Annise Parker was committed to NOT changing that. That’s the big difference between the two candidates that for some odd reason no one paid attention to. Although Steven Hotze did. Steven Hotze wanted Gene Locke to sign a pledge that he would not do what he was committed to doing. Gene Locke refused. Steven Hotze still endorsed him. Obviously because of reasons other than his position on gay rights. Had it been solely on that basis he would have refused to endorse Gene Locke and probably damned him the way he damned Annise Parker.

Gene Locke took the high road. Annise Parker and the media took the low road. And have continued to imply that if you vote for Gene Locke, you are a homophobe.
- Posted by: Charli at December 10, 2009 03:41 PM

Comments

10 Responses to “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand”

Tweets that mention A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand : grace -- Topsy.com
December 11th, 2009 @ 2:20 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Avi Joseph -אבי יוסף, Grace Rodriguez. Grace Rodriguez said: New blog post: A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand http://bit.ly/8tnfio [...]
Shawn K. Quinn
December 11th, 2009 @ 2:32 am

Great post, Grace.

You have done a commendable job on Gene Locke’s campaign and you’re part of the reason I’m proud to be voting for him for mayor. It is a shame that modern politics are such a mud-slinging contest. I would not be surprised if our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
John Cobarruvias
December 11th, 2009 @ 7:05 am

Wow. This must be your first rodeo.

I’m am sure most of the failures of your campaign were due to the failures of Locke and his campaign team. One of these days, hopefully Sunday, I will write a post to say what I thought you guys did wrong, and right. (yes, Locke did something right, but way way too late.)

But there were plenty wrongs, especially attempting to pander to racial groups. And getting caught doing it.

Buck up. Politics is like riding a bull in a rodeo. Hang on. Don’t get hurt. And wait for your next turn.
uberVU - social comments
December 11th, 2009 @ 10:48 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by marc1919: RT @gracerodriguez: Insider’s view of the Houston mayoral campaign from a Social Media Director’s perspective http://bit.ly/8tnfio...
Marie
December 11th, 2009 @ 11:37 am

Politics has always been a dirty business. I think we are actually a little spoiled by a period of relative (very relative because of many exceptions) calm in political campaigns in the 20th Century, possibly because united factor of the two World Wars.

It is unfortunate that our country is so polarized now but rather than lamenting, all we can do is find those areas of commonality and move forward.

Taking the high road is always best, from a preserving-your-mental-health perspective if nothing else.

While it’s sad to leave politics to the politicians, it’s not easy staying in the game.

Those who have the stomach for it roll with the punches, shake their opponent’s hand when it’s over and carry on.
grace
December 11th, 2009 @ 11:53 am

Thanks for your comments, Shawn and Marie.

John, I’m surprised you even read what I write. It’s not my first rodeo, but it’s the first time I’ve seen Democrats so eager to rip apart one of their own.

I don’t think Gene attempted to “pander to racial groups.” This is exactly what I’m talking about: If we say what we stand for, we get demonized for it. From what you said to me during your call, it seems like you think that it’s only acceptable to support people of your own ethnicity. You didn’t call it pandering when Gene showed his support for African Americans. But the moment he said he supports Hispanic Americans and their desire to preserve their culture, it was condemned as “pandering.”

If we support people of diverse ethnicity and culture, it should be okay. When groups like NAACP, LULAC and OCA work together to address racial justice, I don’t see anything wrong with that. And when they do work together, they don’t say “whites not allowed.” In fact, they welcome anyone to join them and help work towards their cause. However, it seems you think we should “stick to our own kind” lest we be seen as panderers. That, in itself, is racist. It’s divisive. It’s what keeps us all apart.

Having said that, if you’re willing to work on bringing people together instead of tearing people down, I can get behind that. You and I may disagree on our personal perspectives, but that doesn’t mean we can’t agree on wanting to work towards an inclusive and respectful society. And if I call it our own “brown-yellow” coalition, I can only hope you won’t shoot me.
John Cobarruvias
December 11th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

Grace,

It sounds like you have given up already.

Personally, I found the black/brown coalition offensive in so many ways. My white, black, brown friends found it offensive. Candidates running for city offices found it offensive.

If you want to cater to all, call it what it is, a Houstonian coalition. That would have been great. But it was what you called it.

And it was one of the things you did wrong. Doing it and getting caught doing it.

See you after the smoke clears
acemoract
December 11th, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

Unadulterated words, some authentic words dude. Thanx for making my day!!
grace
December 11th, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

John,

I HAVE given up. I’ve given up on trying to prove to you and your kindred bloggers that we are not bigots. The many people from all ethnicities, creeds, socio-economic backgrounds, etc., who know us and support Gene already know it; and the ones who think otherwise won’t bother giving us a chance now, thanks to all the spin of the past couple weeks.

First, you know that Gene said that in reference to a coalition from decades ago, when there was a tremendous rift between the black and Hispanic communities. He wanted to be a part of building those bridges again. Our white, black, brown, yellow, orange, multi-colored friends did NOT find it offensive. In fact, they think it’s also good to see minority groups coming together.

Our city is already fractured. We need to start working towards unity in every way possible. “Wrong?” I think not. “Caught doing it?” What is there to be “caught doing?” I’m open about working with different groups and getting them to collaborate. And, hell, I blog and tweet my life – there’s nothing you can “catch” me doing. It’s already public.

It’s rhetoric like that, that does nothing to raise the level of campaigning to an intelligent debate. It’s just more blame blame, attack attack. That’s the part of politics I find deplorable. We’re supposed to be better than this.
Catherine
January 27th, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

It’s clear that there are people who will always blame and attack others without giving those whom they deplore a fair review. They have uneven standards (isn’t that a nice way of putting it?) There was a lot of hypocrisy from media/bloggers throughout the city elections. It’s pathetic that the ones who are the most hypocritical are too blind or too arrogant to catch a glimpse of themselves.

You are right: We are supposed to be better than this.