I’ve been putting off doing a full-scale piece on Charles Barron and his “Freedom Party” for some time now. And each week the dynamics have been changing.
I understood from the get-go the impetus behind the “Freedom Party” as a protest vote. Though Andrew Cuomo really got to chose only one member of his ticket, he did not use that opportunity to chose a person of color; giving Democrats their first all white Statewide ticket since 1990. In fact, since 1962, a majority of the Democratic Party’s statewide tickets have included a person of color.
Were Bob Duffy’s credentials so impressive that Andrew Cuomo could not find one person of color in the entire state whose prowess exceeded them? He surely was not restricted to elected officials in his choice.
Cuomo brought this problem entirely upon himself.
Since I believed that Cuomo was winning regardless, my initial objections to the Freedom Party were only three-fold. 1) With Barack Obama in the White (perhaps not the best choice of words) House, a racially based party seemed so 20th Century; 2) It could encourage bullet voting, causing its supporters to skip down ballot races, and thereby costing Democrats seats in the State Senate; (3) the Freedom Party could get 50,000 votes and a ballot line, and the last thing NYS needed was one more opportunity for political hustlers to peddle their line in the open marketplace and create new opportunities for extortion and money-laundering..
At first, writers like Mary Alice Miller defended a protest vote for Barron by noting that Cuomo could not lose.
Then, it appeared that Cuomo could lose, which had the upside of spurring an exodus of potential protest votes,
Now, thanks to Carl Paladino’s loose tongue and bad judgment at choosing speech writers, it once again appears that Cuomo cannot lose, but this time Paladino’s made himself appear to be so mad dog crazy that many are unwilling to even take a chance.
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to register my objections into order to dissuade potential Barron votes from liberals and leftists disenchanted by Andrew Cuomo’s clear neo-liberal tendencies.
Because of Councilman Barron’s tendency to speak of wanting to slap people for the sake of his mental health, many in the "Progressive" community are reluctant to support his efforts at achieving higher office. Score one for them.
Yet, it is rare for someone in the "Progressive" community ever to actually question whether Councilman Barron is "Progressive" on the issues. The consensus seems to be that if not for his reverse racism, he would qualify with flying colors.
A Google search I undertook last year revealed that "Charles Barron" + "Progressive" attracted 6,470 hits. Contrast this with the results for WFP-endorsed Comptroller candidate John Liu (3540), WFP-endorsed Public Advocate candidate Bill DeBlasio (852), enrolled WFP member Leticia James (1,790, plus 284 if you search her as "Tish"), and such other left-liberal favorites as Rosie Mendez (713), Gail Brewer (205), Annabel Palma (147) and Melissa Mark Viverito (429).
And, in fact, at the far left end of the "Progressive" spectrum, groups like the International Action Center and ANSWER consider Charles Barron the epitome of political correctness.
As they put it:
"[H]e will be a rare and revolutionary voice for the movement in the bourgeois white male domains of Capital Hill. Unbowed and unapologetic, Barron is the most radical member of the NYC Council, and the most consistent ally of the antiwar movement holding any elected office in New York and anywhere else. Barron led the fight to bar military recruiters from NYC public schools, and he has never hesitated to publicly support Venezuela, Cuba, and (especially critical right now) the Palestinian people."
Moreover, the election results from the last time Barron ran for Congress indicate that white left-liberals from neighborhoods like Boerum Hill, Prospect Heights and Fort Greene apparently agree. Among Mr. Barron’s most outspoken supporters was Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s Lucy Koteen, now President of the lefty/reform Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats.
Who cares where a potential member of Congress stands on Robert Mugabe or the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, when he opposes Atlantic Yards?
The ultra-"Progressive" Urban Justice Center (UJC) rated the entire City Council on the matter of Human Rights and ranked Councilman Barron second out of 51.
According to UJC, "Our work represents a unique and creative attempt to push for a higher standard of government accountability than U.S. legislation typically allows. For example, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a host of international treaties articulate the right to basic necessities such as food, housing, health, and employment. However, U.S. safety net programs and laws do not clearly acknowledge these rights, and often circumvent or disregard them."
A salient point, though UJC’s actual application of it may be worthy of some reconsideration.
UJC includes in its Human Rights ratings such concerns as term limits, the recycling of electronics, street vendor permits and the Willets Point Development plan. Under such a standard, articulating support for as Mr. Barron does for violators (like Mr. Mugabe) of what are thought of as more traditionally defined "Human Rights," including those of homosexuals (who Mr. Mugabe compares unfavorably to dogs) does not bar one from being a UJC "Human Rights" hero.
A contrasting view is of “Human Rights” is held by the premier national lobby for the LGBT community, which calls itself the "Human Rights Campaign (HRC)." It should be noted that, though HRC concentrates on issues of concern to its specific constituency, it has consistently supported traditionally defined "Human Rights" across the board.
In New York, the local equivalent of the HRC is the Empire State Pride Agenda, and it’s primary focus is currently same sex marriage. I think it is safe to say that, in the "Progressive" precincts of New York, it is no longer considered good enough to be right on all other matters if one opposes same sex marriage.
But according to Room 8’s Mary Alice Miller, Human Rights Hero Barron has a “nuanced” position on same sex marriage.
That nuance being that he opposes it.
“Barron's position on gay marriage is somewhat reserved. ‘My conviction on gay marriage is based on my definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.’ Barron cautioned that he ‘would not like to impose my values on the state. Nor would I take a position in opposition to heterosexual marriage.’ He added, ‘I am not going to abandon that position to appease others.’
“Barron, who has been married to his wife Inez for 27 years said, ‘Marriage is an institution I hold in high value. I define it as a union of a man and a woman.’”
“Broadening the topic, Barron offered a criticism of ‘the gay movement's focus on this singular issue.” Seemingly “Nothing else in the world matters. I don't see them on other civil rights issues as individuals. Nor as a group or coalition of organizations,’ he said. ‘When we die at the hands of police, we don't hear from them.’”
“Barron has another criticism of the gay movement. ‘I do not like when gays try to compare their movement to the Black movement,’ he said. ‘They were not stolen from their lands, lynched, worked to death, whipped, hung, or had their genitals cut off. They have no comparison to our experience in America. I am supportive of gay rights and civil unions. I am supportive of (white) women's rights. Women have no comparison. The only ones who have a comparative holocaust would be the Indigenous Americans, who are still subjected to oppression.’
Apparently, being sodomized with a baseball bat does not count.
I wonder if Abner Louima agrees.