Speaking of Margaret Archer, She's a Brilliant Social Scientist Who Deserves Our Study as Such
Intro
I wanted to get us thinking strategically and even forgivingly about this issue. I cross-posted this at TOP early this evening and got some interesting discussion. As I said in one of my replies to critical questioning:
Galtisalie jcbdem Apr 08 · 09:47:08 PM
... I'm not at all a Clinton supporter. I'm Sanders to the core. ... I'm not giving [Archer] high marks at all, she could have lied a lot, certainly was unfair to Sanders and insensitive to the context and his being a highly appropriate attendee, and I myself have blasted her today my fair share. So feel free to continue, but I'm looking ahead on this.I'm not thinking that going forward this is fair to the Pope or good for the issues we care about to make the focus on how Sanders got to the conference. Please see my other comments.
One nice comment was as follows:
Dear Galtisalie,
As a Sanders supporter, I would like to say: Thank you for this diary.
When I read about the invite kerfuffle this morning and saw the kinds of things Archer was saying, my first thought was that she was likely some kind of right-wing member of the church opposed to Sanders for his progressive stands and trying to do some damage to his campaign. So I did a quick search to see if she were a controversial figure and, if so, what controversies she’d been involved in.
I quickly confirmed she is a somewhat controversial figure, and found a couple of online articles tearing into her. One was tearing into her because she was willing to include people who support a woman’s right to abortion in a conference. Another was tearing into her because, at a conference on climate, she didn’t include climate change deniers. Wow, I thought, I may not like what I’m reading from her this morning but this is someone deserving of respect and thanks for the work she does. (I’m not going to link to the items I found, but if one Googles “Margaret Archer” “Stefano Gennarini” they should come up prominently.) I don’t know what exactly happened regarding Sanders invitation to the conference, but until I see evidence to the contrary I’m inclined to believe that Margaret Archer acted in good faith.
I haven’t had time to read the material you linked to yet to read what she’s written, but I’ll be making a long (2 day!) bus trip next week and will plan to read it then. Again, thank you.
I said in response:
Galtisalie Nova Land Apr 08 · 10:19:29 PM
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful contribution to the discussion. It could be she screwed us royally and committed sins. I just don't think we should not let her move on. Peace and justice.
Feel free to critique as I know you will. You know me, and know I'm all about peace, liberty, and justice for all, so don't think I've gone off on a whim or a tangent. I want Bernie to be in a good position heading into the conference, not an awkward one for the Pope or him focused on the sideshow Clintonian bs.
Here's my piece:
The Views of an Apparently Kind and Smart Person
I'll admit, I've enjoyed the mud today as much as anyone. Political mud is an addiction. Some of us grow to crave it. Our side gets it slung its way and is happy to see it turn into a boomerang of mud back the other way.
But I’m pseudonymous. My feelings aren't usually hurt when people call me a dumbass or a liar online just as my ego doesn't usually swell when people once in a while have something nice to say about the online “me”.
I will assume that when the good Dr. Margaret Archer started getting tons of international calls from reporters this “morning” (not sure about the timezone where she was) asking for every nuance of Bernie Sanders’ upcoming Vatican visit she wasn't fully prepared just as I would not be. Let's give her and the whole situation a break. Let’s pay her and Pope Francis the high compliment of reading up on her scholarship. Having pulled her or witnessed her being pulled into the public eye against her will, we owe her that.
Speaking of unqualified, I'm distinctly unqualified to explain or discuss her views of the world, but they seem very compassionate and intelligent. I'm going to give her my respect and forget this whole unrequested forcing of her into the public eye happened.
But if dumbasses like me will study and learn something from her scholarly work, I think Dr. Archer will one day be glad this whole thing happened.
Here’s a link: http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/978940...
Comments
Could be the one sin she's guilty of
is the sin of assuming -- and you know what they say about when you assume something.
A quick call to Sanders and they could have faxed a copy of the invite from the Cardinal (the same invite they Tweeted later in the day). Maybe the Cardinal wasn't aware that she needed to be involved (not sure, maybe her office helps with travel or lodging arrangements or some such). Or it was just a case of miscommunication. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and hope that nothing untoward happens during the conference that would show something different from her.
Archer sounds like a progressive ally
and I blame shit-stirring Clinton supporters for all the shit that got stirred. I don't think the Clinton campaign has said peep about this, so it's all down to media and the political junkies in the blogosphere.
Right now they're jumping on every little speck of dust they can find and trying to smear Sanders and his campaign with it. A little dust is natural everywhere, but they want to turn it all into fetid mud and drag everyone into it.
I guess they took the campaign's vow to attack and disqualify as their signal to go hogwild.
Archer is not a progressive
Some one posted her Wikipedia page and she's the worst type of conservative there is.
She rails against welfare and all types of government social programs that help poor people. She's worse than Rand and Norwquest put together IIRC.
'Cute' new photo from TOP in a diary that states ' Bernie admits that he lied about Clinton' while he doesn't actually say that he lied. Just more shit stirring there, but his supporters are hitting them back hard .
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
I'm not seeing that.
I link to her Wikipedia page above, which I've read. It's really wonky scholarly stuff, not railing about any of that that I can see anyway. Did you see something I missed? Plus if you look at the Springer pdf I link to, it seems to imply she has a somewhat Marxian historical/holistic perspective. I need to study her a lot more to be sure of myself, but I did not at all see a conservative and really doubt Francis would have chosen her if she was.
Meanwhile, I saw the Pinnochio bs piece, and other similar crap, and join your condemnation of it, which leads me over to TOP far too often at all hours.
Having worked with quite a few progressives
or at least liberal Democrats when I was a civil servant, they were human and in some cases, unfortunately, not even very nice.
One political appointee, for example, who had all the "right" progressive views, nevertheless would get nervous after the end of work day and phone up subordinates at home to yell at them for allegedly screwing up this or that. Liberal Democrats, even with distinuished records, could also be, in some instances, personally vain, petty, overcontrolling, and sadly, even corrupt.
Possibly colleagues cut Dr. Archer out of the loop, a pattern most professional women would recognize. At the same time her reaction seems excessive. We don't know enough to assign responsibility, nor does it matter much. Yesterday's news. Thank goodness.
Euterpe2
I think the most high profile position
she'd previously held was perhaps in a university faculty senate. And then she finds herself in the middle of a U.S. presidential campaign getting asked shit-stirring questions from reporters for the friend of Hillary, Bloomberg, and lets it rip without a lot of thought. In any event, it doesn't help Sanders at this point to focus on her in a negative way. He should call her up and apologize for any inadvertent protocol breech and thank her for her work as a scholar and as a representative of the church's work to make the world a better place and tell her he looks forward to working with her in person.
There is no cause for Bernie to apologize
and surely they'l meet at the conference in a few days time.
To the extent possible, he should stay far far far away from Vatican/academic internal politics.
Euterpe2
I agree he doesn't "need to" in
a moral sense and maybe not in a strategic sense. But I think it would be a nice kind gesture that the Pope would greatly appreciate as someone who prioritizes reconciliation. He appointed her and Bernie taking the high road and quietly letting her off the hook would to my mind be wonderful on this historic occasion.
Every moment spent defending the shitstorm-du-jour
is another moment stolen from Bernie's getting his message out.
Maybe the reason the Pope invited Bernie is because of all the candidates in the contest, he's the only one not talking about bombing the shit out of people, or cozying up to corporations or religious fanatics.
Improve the Resilience Resource Library by adding your links.
Vote Smart - Just the Facts - 40,000 politicians by name or zipcode
I agree. Very well said. n/t