Our friend Bassam Tariq from 30 Mosques in 30 Days just posted a fascinating story over at Times.com about a Bangladeshi candidate that ran for local office in NYC. (hat tip, Sharaf!)
It’s the classic story, with a modern twist. Bangladeshi immigrant Mujib Rahman wants to be elected to New York’s City Council. It’s the story of an immigrant, running for office on the Republican ticket, wanting to make a difference for his community. The clip shows how he tries to campaign in the local Bangladeshi community to gain votes – to get one of their own Bangladeshis in office. But the campaign he’s running on is based on a divisive message – letting voters know his opponent is gay.
I was conflicted as I watched this. On one hand you want this hard working Bangladeshi uncle to achieve the bootstrap American dream. He’s getting himself and his community involved in civic engagement. But on the other hand, his closed minded smear campaign just reflects all the reasons I stopped talking politics with my father’s generation of uncles. Were any of our readers involved in Mujib’s campaign? Did any of you have the chance to vote (or not vote) for Mujib?
I think there’s a natural trajectory in which immersing yourself in an issue tends to lead to a more nuanced understanding.
However, there are also a lot of structural aspects to this that go well beyond this board – What’s the Matter with Kansas and contrary takes brought out class (or other kinds of politics) vs. identity (as narrowly construed) issue several years ago. The repudiation of the BUsh agenda and abandonment of the establishment forces within the Republican party (the peggy noonan richard clarke types) over time has led to more space to talk about various types of multiculturalism, rather than always being on the backfoot – it’s much easier to laugh at Glenn Beck than it is to laugh at Dick Cheney, because Glenn Beck only has cultural power because he is totally out of step with the noncrazy 70-80% of the electorate.
Then there is Obama, whose figure allows you to get into conversations about what multiculturalism really means, whether it’s enough to have x,y, or z – which is all part of the multicultural / diversity elite (obama, hillary clinton, etc., included) being the new face of American capitalism of a particular kind. And this is why many of us who knew we were going to disagree wtih him supported him – because he and what he represents are a political force that you can argue with, because it is a presumption of the conversation that identity politics matters – the question then, is how, and to what extent it becomes a social justice project rather than a way for maintaining and enhancing hegemony in the United States and beyond.
why would a liberal want a bunch of conservative homophobe muslims in office in america??? one would think we would just not want a homophone in office, period – muslim or not. or even conservative or not.
i also wonder how this one-issue campaign is received by the ny bangladeshi community, or his social circle in particular – do they agree? or if they disagree, do they express it by simply not voting (if that’s their district), or by speaking up vocally? from my own personal experiences within the my desi community here, most people won’t publicly speak out about a fellow community member’s character etc, but then, campaigning for a public post may well call for behaviour that veers away from the desi don’t-make-a-fuss model.
so he’s a rich carpetbagger who pisses on those who suffer from unequal protection under the law when its in his political interest. Sounds like JFK, self-made version.
Perhaps the man should have teamed up or made a video with Carries Prejean – that might have attracted more people attracted to him. He needs a vocal coach and classes in accent reduction if he’s really serious about running for public office. As an American born Desi who speaks Telugu and Kannada, I had a hard time understanding him in the video clip. I’m sure the locals must have had an even harder time understanding him or need subtitles when he and his campaign manager open their mouths.
Seriously, this guy also represents many Uncle/Aunty types that I have in my family and in other Desi families, and I come from a completely Hindu background. My parents (and myself) were the only Democrats who never voted for the repubican Presidents, Senators or Reps at the national or state level. After the 2004 Presidential election, however, many of the Aunty/Uncles who were voting passionately republican got a sudden epiphany and decided to vote for Obama. That’s another story, though.
Sorry for the mistake in the first sentence of my last post. I meant (sarcastically, of course) to say “more people might have been attracted to him if he made a video with Carrie Prejean” etc. I was trying to multitask and talk on the phone and type at the same time – never again.
But I don’t understand if Mujib did research on the prevailing views and opinions of his constituents. But, at least he’s honest about his views, even though I find his homophobia disgusting.
Now Uncleji may not be the next Obama, but as far as I can tell, Miss Prejean’s postion on gay rights, if her offending statemet is any indication, appears to be precisely that of The One, who last I checked, was hailed as a conquering hero by HRC. I report, you decide:
Look, we’re talking about politicians – there’s no reason to hero worship any of them. At best, someo f them do minimal harm or maybe 1 or 2 nice things and possibly benefit us by keeping the machinery of government working (a big if).
If we were talking abotu comedians, we would talk about who’s more funny or less funny, more politically minded and less politically minded. Here, we’re talking about who’s more narrowly self-interested and less narrowly self-interested, more crass and less crass, more astute and less astute. In that vein, he seems like a right bastard, even by the (low) standards of politicians.
At the least “The One” (assuming that is another name for the Obamameister), never resorted to name calling like “My opponent is gay.” during his campaign. I was just being facetious about making a video or joining up with Prejean (who is a big Palin fan according to her new book.)
However, he did call Kanye a jackass, but I will excuse him for that.
But I do give mujib credit for being honest about his views. Mujib reminds me of a rougher, unsophisticated version of Jindal for some reason. I don’t know why.
he does. but to play bigots advocate for a moment his real crime i suspect is that he’s not smooth, he’s uncouth, and has the mannerisms of the gritty self-made busniessman, like the original Astor, but I digress. ergo, the “he’s not one of our classier indians” quote.
its a class thing. and that, i suspect, is what subconsciously attracted him to Taz. he’s real, gritty, and authentic. palin and sharpton have similar attributes, and both are demagogues as well. and while we like to think we hate them because of their demagoguery, their supporters wthink we hate them because of who they are class, race, and gender-wise.
the point is he did what many a politician does but did it without pretense or cunning. after all, Mario cuomo, when running against ed koch, was smart enough to keep his fingers off flyer’s that said “vote for cuomo, not homo.”
well, a video of him joining up with prejean would certainly compliment the one already out there.
Dude, you gotta lay off the Fox news rhetoric. It’s very passe.
Anyway, there’s clearly a difference in not doing enough for LGBT rights and actively exploiting homophobia for political gain. I leave it to others to judge who’s doing what where and when. For my part, I will say that as a gay man, HRC does not represent me. I could care less about marriage equality assuming all other rights are guaranteed in law (as I believe was the case in California) and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and would rather have a bill that protects LGBT workers and others who are trying to organise, though I understand that pursuing any kind of pro-LGBT work can have positive effects for LGBT people that trickle down.
Dr. Anonymous,
I don’t related to the Human Rights Campaign either. Though the nation’s leading PAC on Capitol Hill for LGBT issues, I don’t really care for marriage. I think more people in this country would be receptive to gay marriage if we pushed for “civil unions” like they have in the UK, Prince Charles, being the future sovereign of the Anglican communion, was not allowed to marry his longtime lover Camilla Parker Bowle. Instead, he had a “civil union” and same goes for Sir Elton John, who didn’t marry his longtime partner but instead opted for a “civil union.”
I think this would be a great compromise considering the electoral defeat in Maine last week.
I’m sure they would, but at the end of the day it’s a relatively trivial semantic distinction. This issue is really more about the symbolic value to the tribes involved. Party A wants to feel accepted by society. Part B doesn’t want people telling them who they should and shouldn’t accept.
So it is with all these wedge issues. It’s rarely about the issue itself. It’s about what the issue means to your favored band of political activists.
no. party b wants to be bigoted. it is not that party a is issue-based and party b is standing on a libertarian ideal. have you even been following the debates, ads and propaganda in state after state after state?
I make a point of not confusing ads and propaganda with reality. Activist groups are always going to be more over the top than the people doing the voting.
Of course, which group of people you’re more willing to accept caricatures of at face value is also going to depend, once again, on which band of activists you identify more with.
you mean – not letting reality intrude into whatever benign portrait you want to paint of those who oppose equality.
exit poll after exit poll and ads show what motivates these voters.
Perhaps you could produce them?
do your own research. you were the one making the unfounded claims in the first place.
for example, you might start with reading the maine question that was rejected. you might want to look at the ads. and the interviews of voters. and so on.
Couldn’t find anything solid could you?
i gave you at least one pointer,. but stick to your unfounded claims so you can excuse yourself from modernity.
I am a member of Party A. I am willing to concede the purely symbolic question (for now) in exchange for all the aspects of this debate that are NOT symbolic. I strongly support marriage advocates because the symbolism is actually part of a cultural battle. but I strongly disagree with their singlemindedness on the topic, which often has lead to actions to the detriment of the community that they are saying they are working for the benefit of, Party A.
You can insert a class, race, gender, sexuality, and other analysis here to demonstrate why a dispute such as the one you described between the people who speak for Party A and the people who speak for Party B are largely part of the same class and are operating on common terrain.
Dude, Mujib Rahman himself looks as black as an african-american. Bangladeshi-americans also have lower per capita incomes than african-americans. This pandering to western racism is ridiculous.