General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm damn tired of people who claim to be the left
trying to hijack the Democratic platform.
I'm damn tired of people who are trying to redefine liberals, and the Democratic Party.
If you are not for Civil Rights, Equal Rights, and Social Justice, you are not a liberal.
If you consider civil rights as "Identity politics", you are not a liberal.
If you are complaining about "identity politics" in any way, shape or form, you are not a liberal.
And if you adhere to any of the above, you are not the base, you are not the party, you are not our voice, and you will not dictate our future.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)angstlessk
(11,862 posts)i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics
noun
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
STILL CONFUSED!
mercuryblues
(15,559 posts)when people speak out about the police killings, republicans say that is identity politics. Basically any support for civil and equal rights gets labeled identity politics.
And yes I have seen pro-choice labeled as identity politics.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)I think he meant we need to focus on BOTH social and economic issues. That said, we need to fight back,not run scared of our own words because
Repukes try to twist them into something negative.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
brer cat
(26,900 posts)He's the one who started ranting about it, so it must be extremely important.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,842 posts)
babylonsister
(171,997 posts)Civil Rights, Equal Rights, and Social Justice?
Do tell.
Roy Rolling
(7,277 posts)Cheap shot about Sanders, and adds little to the conversation. Get over the primaries.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)
&w=1484
snip
Identity politics are for people who are defined by their identities, this dismissal goes. America should be bigger than that. Perhaps, but those defined by their identities are Americans too.
*************It’s not so shocking that questions of identity are important to those whose identity shapes — often negatively — the way they are allowed to move through the world and pursue the values that identity’s detractors would urge us to focus on instead. If African Americans find it disproportionately difficult to take advantage of liberal promises of life, freedom and economic opportunity because of their identity, it stands to reason that identity remains a concern. And while not all Americans can relate, this doesn’t make black people’s concerns false, or less worthy of urgent conversation. The same can be said for women, immigrants and LGBT Americans.******************
*******************In fact, those arguing for a diminishing of questions of identity in political discussion are asking those who don’t share their privileged position to wait their turn, as though justice delayed isn’t still justice denied. Citizens for whom race, gender, sexuality or even religion are important are encouraged to work within and thereby prop up a system that doesn’t serve their needs, assuming that solutions will eventually arrive quietly and trickle down despite decades of evidence to the contrary.********************
MORE https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/12/06/in-defense-of-identity-politics/?utm_term=.9d8fe2071111
Does this make it clearer? It is a good article.
Motownman78
(491 posts)But, identity politics was a big reason that we lost the 2016 election. I have a lot of friends from Wisconsin. All I heard from them was that the Democrats seemed more concerned about where people went to the bathroom while the factory closed.
Really? That is all you got out of the Democratic platform? Bathrooms?
Motownman78
(491 posts)verbatim. But with the daily dumpster fire, it was hard to talk about anything else. The shit-gibbon knew it worked in the campaign, that is why he is behaving crazy now. We cannot discuss issues because his latest tweet sucks up all the air time.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2017, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)
conversation. There was always conversation about white and middle class from Democrats and our economic positions. Your friend was hearing nothing but what he wanted to hear. That really has nothing to do with the Democratic Party and everything to do with who your friends is.
We cannot throw women, blacks, Latinos, gays to the side in hopes your friend won't allow his bigotry to form his intent on vote.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
brush
(59,591 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)sheshe2
(91,430 posts)I feel your pain if they never bothered to listen to the Democratic Platform. They were homophobic and transphobic if that is all they heard. So very sorry they never realized that the Democratic Party, Hillary in the GE was for:
Healthcare for all. Equality for every man woman and child no matter their color, religion or sexual preference. Raising the minimum wage. More, yet your friends heard...bathrooms.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Maybe the party did care about the factory and the bathroom but which issue made the most noise...?
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)lets not pretend otherwise..."friends?"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Thank you. 
Baconator
(1,459 posts)If you think that every issue has to take second fiddle to what you've described as civil rights issues...
You shouldn't be surprised when not everyone feels as strongly about it as you do and thinks other things might deserve those dollars and hours.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)but freedom for all exists or it doesn't. WE STAND FOR FREEDOM FOR ALL.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Doesn't really address anything of substance though...
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)beg to differ...abortion rights are absolutely needed or women will die. I was miscarrying. I had two before in New York where I was given an immediate D&C and was fine...The righty Georgia doctor waited so long for blood work to 'prove' the 'baby' was gone that i hemorrhaged in my kitchen and nearly died. I had gone to his office that morning where here earnestly explained about his conscience blah blah...My neighbors hearing the screams of my young kids scooped me up and drove me to the hospital afraid to wait for an ambulance...upon arriving at the hospital my husband found me in a pool of blood by myself in a room without even an IV while they 'waited' for the all important blood work. Hubs fired the doctor and a young intern saved my life. I spent a just under a month in the hospital, was left infertile and in need of an aids test every six month for years because of the massive amounts of blood and platelets I received. It took me a year to recover from the ensuing depression and physical effects of blood loss...so don't tell me that social justice issues including pro-choice are not important and substantive. They are a matter of life and death for women. It might not fit on your bumper sticker though.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)a victim of a fanatical doctor who could not even remember my name.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Thank you.
Response to whathehell (Reply #354)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the concept of "identity politics."
And this is what anyone who is not a white straight male (or a woman who draws her identity from the straight white male she aligns with) understands.
Saying "it's not enough to vote for a woman because she's a woman" comes from an assumtion that voters do that, and is therefore demeaning, and assumes that "identity politics" is an actual problem with (POC, LGBTQ and women) Democrats reflexively supporting whoever looks like them, with no real thought about what they are saying, or their qualifications. (Because as we saw - black democrats dropped everything and supported Herman Cain and Ben Carson, and Democratic women dropped everything and voted for Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Carly Fiorina....Right?)
It's "reverse racism" for the left.
That's why you never heard any such progressive say that "it's not enough to vote for Obama because he's black." He was the choice of Democratic white straight men, and therefore supporting him was "universal" and "outside" of Identity Politics.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)White straight men, and what they are being paid, are getting "lost" in the discussions of bathrooms and women complaining about having to have babies, I hear tell.
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)
Ninsianna
(1,353 posts)those friends in WI, I'm guessing they didn't bother to do their homework, learn anything about Democrats or the platform, and were too busy lapping up the "identity politics" coming from the Right, which saw hundreds of thousands of people unable to get ID so they could vote, despite a court ordering their government to do so?
It happened in Motown too, it's too bad that there was no one to educate them about how utterly ignorant such a take was and how Trump was going to screw them over more than their beloved Paul Ryan, and Walker already had.
Truly a shame the WI apparently lacks all connection to the internet where people could have learned how to combat the lies, in case they weren't persuaded by the "identity politics" of the actual Nazis and racists who never gave a carp about factories or anyone who wasn't a supposed billionaire named Trump.
Motownman78
(491 posts)voter apathy. When I see hard, concrete proof that voter suppression occurred, I will continue that the main reason we lost Midwest states for the first time in 20 years is that we were too fixated by the Dumpster Fire to have any room for our economic message.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)but I doubt even that would change your view.
Response to pirateshipdude (Reply #26)
Post removed
Ninsianna
(1,353 posts)Will you go do your homework or do you need us to spoon feed you information on what occurred in MI and counting people's votes in Democratic precincts, including Wayne County and Detroit?
One would think someone with Motown in their name and demanding news of MI would bother to have read some Freep or the News or literally any of the coverage of what was going on?
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)Wait you just said....
Even when you see proof there was voter suppression...that, and I quote.
--------------------------------------------------------
Quote: "I will continue that the main reason we lost Midwest states for the first time in 20 years is that we were too fixated by the Dumpster Fire to have any room for our economic message."
----------------------------------------------------------
Hm
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #35)
Post removed
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)Russia would never factor in as well.
Thanks, interesting conversation with you, however it is late and I gotta go, Motownman.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2017, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)
WI implemented voter ID precisely to keep people of color from voting. At least tens of thousands were denied the right to vote in that state alone.
whopis01
(3,814 posts)It's cute to try to catch someone in a typo, but based on their other posts, it is very clear that this is what they meant.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)But not we. We are not CNN or Fox News. Clinton had far more extensive economic proposals than anyone else. Also polls and post-election surveys show that voters who listed the economy as their number one concern overwhelmingly voted Democrat.
Of course if all you do is repeat what you hear on TV, you will never know anything substantive about candidates and their policies. You have a responsibility to make some effort to inform yourself. That you chose not to is not the party's fault. The party doesn't control TV programming. If you want good government, you need to take responsibility for informing yourself. Relying on what you hear is certain to leave you under-informed.
This is what you didn't look at during the election. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Before making pronouncements about what Democrats didn't do, you really should read it.
Ninsianna
(1,353 posts)polling stations, wouldn't let them be registered, or forced provisional ballots that may or may not have gotten counted, and then made the counting machines not work properly in such a way that they couldn't be recounted?
Weird how voters were so apathetic, but showed up in historic numbers despite all of this and still gave the candidate 3 million more votes than her competition, earning her the most votes of any candidate other than Obama.
You seem to have embraced this odd notion of "voter apathy" despite hard, concrete proof that there was no such apathy, and you reject the hard, concrete proof of voter suppression, including what happened in WI, so you can continue to hold on to false beliefs and fake news, and parrot the same lines that the Dumpster fire keeps using, but there was plenty of economic message there, actual policies, for those who had the eyes to see, the brains the process and the ability to actually "see" what was in front of their faces and coming out of the mouths of the candidate herself and ALL of her surrogates.
When one's "identity politics" causes one to blind themselves to reality, hard and concrete proof and facts, it's unfair to blame anything other than the willfully ignorant voter (or non voter) and their fixation on denying their failure to reject their identity politics, which many white voters failed to do, and embrace policies and economic messages that were very much in evidence to those not so blinded or stupefied by simple facts.
Mosby
(18,386 posts)The historically low turnout in this country makes cheating more effective.
If the liberal base voted at high levels very few republicans would get elected to anything, remember that only 30-35% of the electorate is registered republicans.
Ninsianna
(1,353 posts)it's a bit difficult to turn out to vote. Also, when the hours are limited, and there are fewer polling locations.
Despite all that though, we didn't have "historically low turnout".
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/
The liberal base has been corralled by gerrymandering, affected by ID laws, affected by Crosscheck, afflicted by voting machines that don't work, and counting machines that fail.
Remember all the ways that GOP has made it easy for themselves to retain their power and then look at the numbers. It's a bit unfair to blame people for not showing up.
Mosby
(18,386 posts)Turnout is always low in the US, especially for midterm elections.
Voter suppression etc has obviously had an effect on turnout, but it's small compared with the total number of non-voters.
This last election was won by 107,000 voters in three states, and yet millions of "liberals" in those three states didn't vote. Even if 10s of thousands of votes were suppressed that still is a small fraction of non-voters.
Ninsianna
(1,353 posts)affected by the active voter suppression efforts. When you had a campaign that was spreading disinfromation to liberals re: "rigging" and how "both parties are the same" you had forces that were deliberately out there to suppress voter turnout and participation.
I ran into this when registering voters, they didn't get the candidate they wanted, and they had swallowed whole the lies told about another one, and they didn't want to register to vote, or were angrily staying home or voting 3rd party.
I found it ironic that they didn't understand that they had to be registered to vote to actually participate in the primaries. (My state doesn't require that you be a registered Dem, just that you registered, and you requested which ballot you wanted.)
There are several methods of voter suppression, spreading disinformation and division was one of the methods used via the "left" by various online entities.
That being said, the ones who stayed home have much to answer for, as do the 3rd partiers (who actually don't do anything with that 3rd party at any other time) and the people who wrote in an invalid candidate or went Trump for "change".
Ninsianna
(1,353 posts)hard, concrete proof about what was going on in Wayne County, it might stop this need to fixate on utter BS that's being spread around to deny reality.
brush
(59,591 posts)The claim is that thousands of ballots in Detroit, a majority AA city, neglected to vote the top of the ballot — the box for the Democratic candidate.
THAT'S VOTE SUPPRESSION right there and those missing votes for Clinton caused her to lose Michigan.
And pls don't think repug cheating stop at Michigan's borders. Skullduggery was afoot in other states as well.
Cha
(309,766 posts)Suppression in the 2016 Election. You can't ignore it.
As for the "apathy".. that's on them. They cared more about sound bytes/bites than their Planet.
whopis01
(3,814 posts)I believe you meant to say "Until I see hard, concrete proof...", not "When I see hard, concrete proof..."
What you posted sounds like you will continue to claim it is apathy even in the face of hard, concrete evidence of suppression.
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)Texas is suppressing the vote like crazy. Come and try to vote but bring a birth certificate or pass port.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/14/how-unequal-voter-turnout-and-vote-suppression-helped-elect-donald-trump/
Ignoring reality isn't going to get us anywhere.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/the-real-voting-scandal-of-2016
http://billmoyers.com/story/voter-suppression-laws-working/
And voters who voted on economic issues voted for Hillary, so there clearly was an economic message that was heard - despite targeted efforts by Russia and Assange to drown them out when they were put forth:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.ca2bce7d1372
Cha
(309,766 posts)done their homework. they just latched on to 3rd party bullshit LIES and voted against themselves.
Mahalo, Ninsianna
"Its time to bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not working class."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029165140
JI7
(91,778 posts)and think transgendered people should not be able to use certain bathrooms.
Motownman78
(491 posts)but the Democrats were so fixated by DT's daily ravings that is all that was talked about.
JI7
(91,778 posts)people reveal themselves
Motownman78
(491 posts)economic issues are not talked about is a bigot?
JI7
(91,778 posts)as the other poster says, it says a lot that they were not bothered by his bigotry and other vileness but felt the need to express displeasure over bathrooms.
Economics matter. If the head of the KKK said he could guarantee everyone in America would make a $100K a year, he would be elected President.
JI7
(91,778 posts)large majorities of people of color did not support trump.
But Trump gained 7 points with Americans of African Ancestry and 8 points with Hispanics from PBO in 2012.
JI7
(91,778 posts)He won whites by only 1 more percen than Romney in 2012.
JI7
(91,778 posts)and he did not.
hillary won by 3 million more votes.
trump's increase we in rural white areas.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)voted for Trump in '16.... Go figure 
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)BainsBane
(55,849 posts)Why am I not surprised? The single most disreptuable polling outfit and a Trumpster source, which I will not be reading. If you can't find anything reputable, it means you have nothing.
Besides, county totals don't account for individual voters, voter suppression, or population changes--another thing I shouldn't have to explain. If you made a point about counties, the Trumpster argument might suffice in RW circles, but your point was about individual voters, which county totals do not establish.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 7, 2017, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Maybe now you can be surprised. 
.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-over-so-many-obama-voters.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/former-obama-voters-now-supporting-trump-why
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/map-the-obama-voters-who-helped-trump-win/?utm_term=.80cc20583cf2
JI7
(91,778 posts)more than Trump did.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)when you read the Rasmussen poll published on this thread.
Cha
(309,766 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)Statistical evidence is as close to "proof" as one can get in a US election..
brush
(59,591 posts)AAs did not vote for trump. AAs voted 90+ percent for Clinton, which is much higher than for any other ethnic group.
AA votes were also suppressed by repugs vote suppression tactics — broken voting machines in black precincts, cuts to early voting, ballots counted that mysteriously left off marks for presidency, Interstate Crosscheck.
Pls inform yourself so you don't fall victim to media/repug talking points that try to justify the stolen election.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The economic structure of the US is built on discrimination of women, immigrants and people of color.
The generational wealth of the overwhelmingly white, straight male population in the top 1% was created on education, capital, housing, and jobs reserved exclusively for them.
Is that clearer?
Good.
Now you understand that there will be no change in economic concentration among the current 1% until women, immigrants and people of color have recovered from CENTURIES of being locked out of equal opportunity. That will take people acknowledging that yes, white people don't have all the money because they simply worked harder, because that is exactly what saying race and gender is not endemic to the economic situation of Americans who are not making it.
It will also require acting, legislatively and culturally on those issues such as LGBT discrimination in housing and the workplace, the pay gap for women, the school to prison pipeline for young black men, targeted policing of people of color, targeted legislation to put obstacles in the way of women's reproductive choices, cutting of resources for public schools with high populations of disabled, impoverished or special needs kids.
To do that, we need to SHUT DOWN the talk about how those things need to wait until AFTER white middle class straight men are making the income they think that they deserve, and then will magically become supportive of opening up opportunites for those jobs, because in those halcyon days of labor, women and people of color were locked out of those jobs to keep them open for white men.
Trickle down social justice won't materialize any more than trickle down economics did.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... revealed to me more about themselves than they realize. And it's not very flattering at all. (I'll just leave it at that, for obvious reasons.)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
whathehell
(30,136 posts)have to be one or another and I'm getting that's your question as well.
Motownman78
(491 posts)to blame the loss as "All those white rural voters are bigots."
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)and that's why we have to hash things out on boards like these.
NYResister
(164 posts)BainsBane
(55,849 posts)They just don't. They haven't for decades. No one with any knowledge of election results points to rural voters as a reason Democrats lost.
You seem to get your news from TV, perhaps Fox News. You really must demand more of yourself if you are to make informed political decisions.
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)if those "big government" politicians just "shut up" about women's health care, LGBTQs and the situation of people of color are delusional, and quite frankly destructive to the progress that has been made.
Response to Motownman78 (Reply #49)
lunasun This message was self-deleted by its author.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)I can't help them, they are just that way.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)county because we will not throw Transgender rights under the bus. Sorry you live in such a terrible area.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)I blame local TV news for keeping it going. They know the voting behavior and continue catering to the group for maximum viewership. It is one of those areas that has to be written off during elections for Democratic wins and concentrate on other areas to win,
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)economic issues either in areas like that ...Dean was quite successful. We have Manchin in WVA after all. I live in Ohio...my area is not as bad as what you describe...but I have Trump voting neighbors...mean as snakes. Good luck!
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)
betsuni
(27,775 posts)The Democratic candidate talked about jobs and the economy all the time in her speeches, of course she did. But the only snippets shown were when she said something about Trump. Trump was allowed lots of airtime and we saw him speak. We were told what Clinton said in one sentence. I forget the figures of airtime, but wildly unequal. It would be nice if people picked up a newspaper once in a while and saw wide varieties of opinions and information.
radical noodle
(9,953 posts)by DT's daily ravings that the Democratic message was never discussed. Trump sucked all the air out of the room. We cannot underestimate his ability to deceive the gullible.
NYResister
(164 posts)Bernie, and Hillary especially, talked about this, plus a lot more.
The Democratic Party had plans, Donald Trump offered noting but hatred and bigotry.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)I never heard anything of the sort. That is the sort if the right wingers say. Democrats respond with a discussion of specific proposals to address economic development and jobs training. Clintonhad extensive proposals on her website about that. It's up to us to read about them and inform voters we talk to.
Igel
(36,715 posts)Boycotts, often (D) led, against the state.
Texas had its own variant of the issue, but there was a clear partisan split reflected in how the news was covered and the situations involved were described.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)As the poster claimed. He said all they did was talk about bathrooms. That is factually false. RWers may have been upset about it, but it was not at all what Clinton focused on.
JI7
(91,778 posts)so based on actual proof it would mean the issue helped more than hurt.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)seat. There were better choices at the state assembly.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not like the candidate we had was imposed as some sort of anti-moderate conspiracy.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)have been a better fit for the state.
"Quist defeated state Rep. Amanda Curtis on a vote of 90-69 in the final round, state Rep. Kelly McCarthy of Billings was eliminated after the third round, Gary Stein of Missoula was eliminated and Dan West of Missoula dropped out after the second round, and attorney John Meyer of Bozeman, Lee “Link” Neimark of Whitefish and Tom Weida of Helena were eliminated after the first round. "
http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/montana-democrats-pick-musician-rob-quist-to-run-for-u/article_ae4853b1-3b4b-565c-8769-6ddea049a7b8.html
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)my opinion who did in fact want the nomination.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)delisen
(6,939 posts)and is going for a third term. (Even though he was a lousy job creator
Paul Ryan's been going strong in Wisconsin for some time. State legislature went Republican before 2016.
People in Wisconsin have shown a decided preference for Republicanism long before transgender bathroom issue.
Wisconsin factories have been closing for decades. First the old runaway shops; then automation. But Trump voters in Wisconsin seemed to not be impoverished.
Private unions built an alliance with Walker to take down public unions in Wisconsin some time ago--it was one of the open secrets of Walker's success.
the old saying that the rich can hire one half of the working class to beat up on the other half seems to be also true of the middle class in Wisconsin.
How do you think the Wisconsin Republican phenomenon happened ? Some say it was the passage of the Healthcare Bill (ACA) giving rise to the Tea Party.
Maybe there is more to the story?
kacekwl
(8,212 posts)all they watch was Fox entertainment and listen to dimwit radio liars like Jay Weber. I don't buy that nonsense.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) Gothmog
(161,794 posts)I disagree with the concept that the Democratic Party needs to abandon its base of voters and to focus on white voters only. We should not remake the Democratic Party into the image of a candidate who lost the primary
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Love that definition. Succinct, and TRUE.
There's been a LOT of that bullshit spouted on DU and elsewhere and I'm sick of it. I'm a Democrat because we are the inclusive party. We're the party that protects and defends the rights of ALL, not just whites. If the people who whine about bathrooms don't support that, they're not Democrats or liberals. Of course, we know that a some declare that they're not Democrats, so there's that.
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)Cha
(309,766 posts)KPN
(16,561 posts)I'm white, a registered Democrat for going on 45 years, raised in a deep blue State by Dem parents so a loyal D my entire life. I'm not part of the base? WTF?
whathehell
(30,136 posts)and that seems a dubious assertion.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)not separate it from economic justice...much of income inequality stems from bigotry.
Me.
(35,454 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... IMHO.
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Essentially, politics that puts more emphasis on the rights of a group over the rights of the individual.
The police shooting example given shortly after you asked is *way* off the mark.
Chevy
(1,063 posts)and watch in real time as the phony left admonish POCs and women.
Skittles
(163,509 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)Skittles
(163,509 posts)yes indeed
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)I would say "none". I'm a white female and I believe economic issues are a valid concern for EVERYONE.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)would affect my job performance which is illegal by the way but still happens... faced sexual harassment too which forced me to leave and accept a lower paying job. As a woman...not controlling whether I have kids or not is damned important to my economic well being. So social justice issues affects me personally and you know what It affectS my 'white male husband' as well...there can be no economic justice without social justice.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)and policies that don't benefit white men. It's a term decrying the politics of the majority, the understanding that race, gender, sexuality, etc... play a role in society-in inequality--and must be addressed to bring about a society that works for everyone rather than white men exclusively. .
It's disheartening to see some on the left adopt terms the right has used to undermine equal rights and the Democratic Party's efforts to promote those rights.
Before Bernie used the term to criticize Democrats, I had never heard it used by someone who was not on the right. If I heard someone use that term before, I knew they were expressing opposition to diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, Bernie has adopted that language and as a result it has spread far beyond the right. I don't know if he understands what he is validating or if he means something else by it. His answer before a TV audience to what politically correct meant was very strange and bore no relation to how the term is commonly used. Whether that's also the case with identity politics, I don't know. Regardless, the word conveys what it has always meant to those hearing it.
That's not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms to some of what has emerged around identity-based discussions, particularly on college campuses. But that has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's platform or priorities.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)and black women, black men, hispanics, asians (Did I miss anyone?) gays and straights..
Funny thing, economic justice DOES that. Why anyone would want to minimize that baffles me.
Why?..fear that some undeserving white men might benefit?
Rev Al Sharpton seems sufficiently concerned with civil rights -- This is what he had to say:
"It's not who you go to bed with at night, it's whether you've got a job to go to in the morning".
Amen to that, Reverend.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Sanders is the one that has repeatedly stated he focuses on middle class and their economic woes. He said this. We can take him at his word. This is how this focus, the economic justice he focuses on ignores social justice issues.
Free college for all. Rich, poor and in the middle. Free college.
The rich and the upper middle class will have the best tools and availability to ensure their kids get a slot in the universities. There will only be so many slots. Those less advantage, those that do not have that guidance, direction and possibilities in their life will not have those advantages.
It is an unlevel playing field. The rich will end up with the free college and the poor will be the ones that pay for it.
That is as simple as I can get, an example where Sanders focus on economic justice is not real justice.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)and I think those who actually know his politics would laugh at the suggestion* but that's fine..We get it..You just don't like him and no amount of anything will change that...I think the dislike is irrational and so I'm not going to waste more time with it.
* Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, and if you understood what that meant, you'd realize it doesn't get any more fair than that.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251439324
We quote that he says this. Your response is people will laugh at us, if we quote that he says this.
We are listening to Sanders.
This is why I stop having these conversations. The very start of the conversation is skewed. We have to start at the beginning.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)the middle class as your last post stated, so yes, ironically enough, this conversation WAS skewered at the outset -- by you. 
Again, I'm not spending time on this, sorry.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)But hey, if this is the only conversation you get out of my three? posts, it lets me know we are not going to get much further.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 6, 2017, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)
The Working class are generally non-college educated blue collar workers making about fifty grand a year -- Middle class workers generally are college educated and can make salaries up to about Two hundred grand -- some say even higher. Those upper tier earners are categorized as upper middle class.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)That is what dismisses poor looks like. I do not think he purposely did it. I am sure he did not purposely do it. Once we told him his plan did this, he adopted Clinton's proposal.
In that instance, he stopped focusing on the middle class, and focused on the poor. He saw his error. He does not always do that. That is what we are having a conversation about.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)It was she who adopted HIS proposal for free college! .She just put an income cap on those to whom it would apply.
You don't have your facts straight, so I'm afraid that makes me even more disinclined to discuss this further.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)Just remember -- There's no such thing as "alternative facts" on DU, so please seek out the real ones.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)Bye.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)The only thing funnier than your complete lack of facts, is your laughable attempt at condescension....Welcome to the big I list.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts) ehrnst
(32,640 posts)His difference was that it would be free for even the 1%, and Sanders criticized her for that.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6888
"I'm a little different from those who say free college for everybody," she said on NBC's "Today" show in 2015. "I am not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump's kids. I am in favor of making college free for your grandson by having no-debt tuition."
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/
The plan he put forth in April of 2017 adopted her mechanism of limiting the benefits to the middle class and lower income students, to make it more affordable to implement.
It's not like the idea of universal access to college is new - but the method proposed has varied.
http://www.freecollegenow.org/
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)What ends up happening is the poor pay to put rich kids who can afford tutors and expensive SAT courses in Georgia schools...There needs to be a cap. There is no help for middle class or poor kids...sink or swim. And it is not surprising that most poor kids in inferior schools sink...Georgia had some of the worst schools I ever saw.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)'Hopemobiles'...there needs to be a cap on who gets free tuition. Also, many Georgia students who can't afford tutors and the like are locked out of Georgia schools these days. I lived there and saw what happened.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)Thank you for your many great posts.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)graduated summa would have qualified. Georgia has the worst schools...and when hubs got sick we had to take them out of private school which is very expensive there. We moved when she was in 9th grade and I needed to tutor her to help her first in Wisconsin and then in Ohio; she was so behind...their schools were very good then. Of course, Scott and Kasich have damaged public schools now. The free tuition program benefits the rich mostly in Georgia. It makes me sad to see the poor supporting it with their taxes when most can't use it. I liked Hillary's program with caps...and I think something must be done about outstanding loans. We managed to get our kids out without huge debt but they have some. Devos is reneging on loan agreements.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)Is to assume, quite angrily, that it means abandoning "economic justice" for white people. Most thoughtful people understand there is no economic justice without civil right because the absence of legal and civil equality means increased poverty for the subaltern. Assuming that a commitment to civil rights means a lack of concern for jobs is not about "economic justice" but rather a commitment to increased wealth for the few at the expense of poverty for the majority. That is as far removed from "justice" as it gets.
So yeah, I get that some white people are outraged the Democratic Party concerns itself with matters of equality rather than focusing exclusively on ensuring the white bourgeoisie regains its position atop the world capitalist order. That is after all part of what led to Trump's election. To claim that has anything to do with "economic justice" is disingenuous. No one who cares about equality or justice sees a commitment to civil rights as threatening.
Similarly, "neoliberalism" has become a slogan for those not even remotely concerned about global inequality and who offer no critique of capitalism. A relentless focus on the economic standing of one race/class--the white bourgeoisie-- in one country in the world has nothing to do with justice or equality. It's a form of nationalism in which people appropriate the language of socialism to restore the kind of global inequality wrought by empire that benefited them at the expense of the many.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)is to assume, quite angrily that it means abandoning "social justice" for non-white people. 
The idea that "some white people" are "enraged the Democratic Party concerns itself with matters of equality rather than
focusing 'exclusively on ensuring the white bourgeoisie' regain it's position atop the the world capitalist order" is
such a bizarre and incorrect reading of those who want to INCLUDE economic issues into the Democratic platform
that I can hardly believe it.
I can only imagine that we must be living in two different worlds, because, in the one I'm in, every race, gender
religion and sexual orientation BENEFITS from economic improvement and suffers from poverty
Then again, you may be right...Maybe those striking Fast Food Workers "Fighting for Fifteen" were not the
mufti-racial group of low wage workers they appeared to be, maybe they were really the "white bourgeoisie" trying to "regains its
position atop the world capitalist order".in full disguise..
You know, I'd like to laugh at the above nonsense, but I suspect you truly may be
the rigid ideologue you appear to be. With that, I'd have to conclude we have nothing to say to each other, and will
simply say adieu.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)I do not understand why you do not understand that we think Sanders focus almost exclusively on the economic condition of the middle/working class.
"Really?..What I find odd is that any discussion of economic rights
is to assume, quite angrily that it means abandoning "social justice" for non-white people. "
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)which are referred to as "universal issues."
emulatorloo
(45,779 posts)If I remember correctly the term was coined by rightwingers to smear folks who fight for civil rights.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)If I were a woman, that would seem to be a pretty big issue for me, simply in the unfairness. Forget feeding the family and paying the bills.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)I don't think the purist message will ever gets us to winning though. We are a big tent of many very different beliefs.
" I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat."
Will Rogers
meadowlander
(4,887 posts)It's the dismissive assumption that your political views derive from your identity and not from a process of rational thought.
It's also an excuse to ignore the merits of any criticism leveled against the establishment by claiming that the person making that criticism is just playing the <<race, woman, gay>> card.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on the far left.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You nailed it - thank you!
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)sheshe2
(91,430 posts)Thank you. NYRegister.
Cha
(309,766 posts)Mahalo, NYResister
Chevy
(1,063 posts)brer cat
(26,900 posts)betsuni
(27,775 posts)no economic policies, not wanting national health care or higher minimum wages, etc. from people claiming to be on the left. Here, this is the message: Democrats: EQUALITY GOOD. Republicans: EQUALITY BAD.
Damn.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)K & R
emulatorloo
(45,779 posts)Untrue then, untrue now. Odd to see self identified 'leftists' picking up that rightwing banner.
Cha
(309,766 posts) Iliyah
(25,111 posts)
Cha
(309,766 posts)Gothmog
(161,794 posts)I saw that and was so very happy that President Obama is working on helping the Democratic Party
Cha
(309,766 posts)person who stands by while the country and Planet is being shot to hell by all stripes of Lying extremists.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)I'd say there's no "equality" without it...Unless we should all be equally poor.
Cha
(309,766 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts) Cha
(309,766 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)I call them civil rights, and even "they" aren't proposing those be dropped in favor of economic rights, simply added onto.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)
wryter2000
(47,804 posts)I don't like hearing those things from wingnuts, and I sure as hell don't need it from people who are more-progressive-than-thou.
R B Garr
(17,602 posts)articles posted elsewhere that they feel the same way and know how it's manifested. I've seen lots of awareness about it.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Gothmog
(161,794 posts)Both parties are not same
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Gothmog
(161,794 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)It makes no sense for outsiders to demand we adopt theirs when we prefer ours.
hay rick
(8,638 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)every time we did that, and every time we put low inflation and balanced budgets before full employment and the end of poverty as our priorities.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)That proves out the numbers in the last couple decades. They strengthen small business, they Pell grant for low income for college, they work toward affordable health care and taking care of our health issues. They address Wall Street, with well drawn out plans, curtailing as much as they can, without hurting the industry. Well beyond those claiming to be further left.
Unemployment is down. Accessibility for loans go up without being AS screwed. EPA, FDA and so many other departments there for the middle class white man along with every one else, allowing new markets for jobs. Working on increase minimum wage.
Do not tell me that the Democratic Party is not for the working man.
There is a number of things I did not consider or hunt for that I am leaving out.
Good relations world wide. Working on peace as opposed to battle at the drop of the hat. All of these influence the economic world we live in.
I would not think that we needed to have this conversation on our Democratic message board, supporting the Democratic Party.
But, Ken Burch, I adamantly disagree with you and your assessment of our Party.
betsuni
(27,775 posts)Who are the Democrats moving right on economics?
aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)YMMV
betsuni
(27,775 posts)Voted for along party lines, "The banks have made it difficult for Congressional Democrats and the White House to give stretched homeowners a stronger hand" and the banks "have won some early skirmishes by teaming with Republican allies, the banks now appear to have the upper hand." Clearly Democrats are on the side of consumers.
I get it now! All this accusing Dems of being just like Republicans is about a handful of the more conservative Dems who have sometimes voted with Republicans on bills like this. A handful. Ha!
aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)Just a handful, but a powerful handful that many considered leaders in the party such as Biden, Byrd, Corzine (before he crashed), Inouye, Nelson, and Reid and a few others.
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Mosby
(18,386 posts)Free trade hurts the country, hurts American workers, and assures that "developing" countries will always stay "developing".
Right now Japan is negotiating a trade agreement with the EU to lower prices on Japanese cars to them and European wine, cheese and other foods to Japan. What the fuck is so terrible about that? Blah blah blah blah all trade deals are bad, why? Prove it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That sounds a lot like the "open borders are letting in terrorists!" accusations of the far right when even a few immigrants are let in.
Without some free trade, their can be no "fair trade." How do we monitor and require that businesses in those countries provide humane, good working conditions, and good environmental protections without giving those businesses a market here? You must put something on the table, in order to get those those things in return. Trade agreements are a powerful negotiating tool.
And many American jobs are now linked to trade agreements, including NAFTA. Canceling NAFTA will have a huge negative impact on the auto industry, and cost many jobs. So It's not black or white, FREE TRADE vs AMERICAN JOBS. Anyone who tells you that slaying the "trade agreement dragon" won't create other dragons is lying to you.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/28/cats-cradle-scrapping-nafta-will-wreak-havoc-on-auto-industry-supply-chains/
There is no stopping globalization, any more than one can stop the stream of refugees. You have to be in the driver's seat, or you will be run over. Isolationism in trade doesn't work any more than a wall along the Texas border will.
There is middle ground between isolationism and onerous trade agreements - and if we are not out in front of trade, at the table setting the terms, our workers and our planet will suffer at the hands of other countries at the table who don't have environmental regulations or human rights priorities.
Robert Reich opposes TPP, but still stands by NAFTA, which was implemented when he was Secretary of Labor, and believes that we can learn from NAFTA to craft more effective trade agreements:
"If you put labor and environmental standards into our trade agreements, it’s not a race to the bottom. If you have an environmental standard and a labor standard that, for example, bars all slave labor, guarantees the right to organize, maintains kind of minimum labor standards throughout the world, you are setting a floor for all nations. It’s not protectionism. This is a way of actually getting everybody up rather than having the bar continue to trend downward. We tried to do this in NAFTA, and, unfortunately, we couldn’t get the Mexican government support. We tried to have a labor and environmental side agreement. I think it would have been a much better agreement had we had that."
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/30/1507138/-Robert-Reich-On-NAFTA-I-Don-t-Think-It-Was-A-Mistake
But international trade isn't the only dragon when it comes to American jobs.
You are aware that factory jobs done by automation are not coming back, don't you? Any more that the switchboard operators, elevator operators, FotoMats, and coal mining jobs are. Drivers will be next to go the way of the blacksmith. Rail against automation all you like, but the best use of our energy and time is to prepare for it. Same with globalization. Buying drugs from Canada is one product of globalization. There are no borders on the internet, and you can't unring that bell.
Again - I'm not defending or villifying any specific trade agreements, as I am not an economist, and have an awareness of how much I don't know. I just don't buy the into the established tribal dogma that any free trade whatsoever is bad for American workers or workers in developing nations - and indicates corruption on the part of those who support a trade deal.
I own a business, and rely on international (fair trade certified) products. Because I purchase these fair trade elements for my products, women in developing countries, India, Ghana, Morroco and Bangladesh are enabled to make a living wage. I purchase other elements from the United states when they are available - and even then, it's hard to find much that is manufactured here from sellers.
Thinking about trade simplistically isn't going to get us anywhere and could hurt us.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)People really need to read information and get educated on this issue instead of listening to a couple words. All bad. Screw the people, yea.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Along with "If you talk about any universal health care plan but Single Payer you are a corporate shill!"
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Anything beyond destruction, one is a corporate shill. We need corporations. We need to regulate greed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Dismantling Wall Street, which is different than responsible regulation, would also dismantle many people's retirement.
And before anyone chimes in - I know that we should not have let employers transfer pensions to 401ks, but that has been done, and we have to deal with that reality.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)exist solely on SS.
Jobs? That allow us to invest for retirement would be another.
101?
Mosby
(18,386 posts)You did a nice job explaining the neolib and libertarian position, here's the progressive position:
Q: What do you make of NAFTA?
A: We ought to change NAFTA. We’ve only done half the job with globalization. You’ve globalized the rights of big corporations to do business anywhere in the country, but what we now need to do is globalize the rights of workers, labor unions, environmentalists and human rights. If you do that, you raise the standard of living in other countries. And what happens is our jobs stop going away because the cost of production goes up.
Q: Should the US seek more free or liberalized trade agreements?
A: I want strong, enforceable trade agreements and a trade system bound by clear, continually improving rules. I will push for solid, enforceable labor and environmental standards in all existing and future trade agreements. I will vigorously enforce the agreements we enter into and defend U.S. trade laws when our competitors challenge them.
Q: America’s farmers need open markets for their crops around the world, but other American workers want a level playing field. How would you balance those interests?
A: There’s no reason we can’t do both. NAFTA and the WTO only globalized the rights of multinational corporations, but they did not globalize the rights of workers. They are not going to globalize human rights, environmental rights, the right to organize. That needs to happen. And if it doesn’t happen, NAFTA and the WTO simply aren’t going to work. Right now, we’re exporting jobs.
We need to have a level playing field. We need to have the same kinds of environmental protections, labor protections, human rights protections and worker protections if we’re going to have open borders. That will not disadvantage exports.
Q: What is your plan to stop the loss of jobs that come from free trade?
A: Globalization is here to stay whether we like it or not, but the rules for globalization are not. Both NAFTA and the WTO help large multinational corporations but ignore the needs for the people who work for them. In order to make globalization work we also have to globalize worker protection, labor rights, environmental rights and human rights. Free trade won’t work under the present circumstances.
Q: What about free trade?
A: We’ve gone the first mile. I don’t disagree with the premise of the free traders. But we need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we’re not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements.
Q: What if they say no?
A: Then I’d say, “Fine, that’s the end of free trade.”
Q: What do you mean, that’s the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?
A: Yes.
Q: So you’d be in favor of tariffs at that point.
A: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can’t get people to observe human rights, and say that we’re going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don’t think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We’re enabling that to happen.
Free trade is good; jobs that create exports pay Americans 16% higher wages than jobs that don’t create exports. We can help other countries, even those that are not now democracies, become more democratic through trade.
Unfortunately, our free trade policies have also had the effect of hollowing out our industrial capacity, and most worrisome, undermining our own middle class. All through this country, including in Vermont, I’ve seen factories move to China and Mexico, leaving American workers to learn new skills & earn lower wages.
Free trade must equal fair trade. We are subsidizing the sometimes awful environmental practices of our trading partners, and we are subsidizing the profits of multinational corporations by not having international labor standards. If free trade allows General Motors to set up a plant in Mexico, free trade should allow the UAW to organize that plant under conditions similar to those in the US. This isn’t wage parity; I am asking for shared ground rules.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Howard_Dean_Free_Trade.htm
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)An establishment Democrats' view on trade that pretty much jibes with what I wrote, as a tool for ensuring fair trade, environmental regulations.
Good to know that I've had an influence.
Are you going to send this to Robert Riech, so he can change his tune that neolib NAFTA he gave us wasn't a mistake?
Let us know what he says.
Mosby
(18,386 posts)I said:
Free trade hurts the country, hurts American workers, and assures that "developing" countries will always stay "developing".
which is true. Free trade is why Mexicans get $3.15 per day in minimum wages, it's why Indians live in neighborhoods with raw sewage running down the street. It's why China is the largest polluter in the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/01/india-cities-drown-sewage-waste
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/27/more-than-million-died-due-air-pollution-china-one-year
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)talking about how to make trade agreements into leverage to ensure worker protections and the environment.
That doesn't support your statement, "Free trade hurts the country, hurts American workers, and assures that "developing" countries will always stay "developing."
It does support my assertion that there is good free trade and bad.
LBM20
(1,580 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)To dismiss social justice as being "less important" and "less universal" than "economic justice" is no different than dismissing the role of combustion engine vehicles in a conversation about climate change.
Because "economic issues" affect white straight men, they are considered "universal." Especially by white straight male politicians.
emulatorloo
(45,779 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts) oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are you referencing specific politicians?
orangecrush
(24,227 posts)
retrowire
(10,345 posts)NYResister
(164 posts)I'm not surprised.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)You keep worrying about interpretations of a label like a high school clique, and I'll worry about the practical things.
You'd think we'd all realize by now that all the "fake" leftists are likely disinformants planted to confuse and cause bullshit discussion like this.
Oh look you're a new member with only 25 posts that suddenly has a divisive opinion on DU.
No surprises there. 
Arazi
(7,726 posts)Riling up the divisions even as we need each other more than ever? Check!
Obvious is obvious smh
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Not me yeah?
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)Bernie 'supporter'...support for what? I voted for Hillary and like her but she is not running for anything; thus, I am not a 'supporter'. The primary is over...whom we supported just doesn't matter anymore. Let's support Democratic candidates in 18 and 20 so we can win and stop Trump.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)So you don't need to constantly repeat your lack of fuckdom.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)XD
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)and economic disparities either.
JI7
(91,778 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)In multi-racial, multi- religious societies like ours, those have just been excuses; There are as many or more historic examples of economic oppression in societies that were ethnically and religiously homogeneous, Europe being a prime example. Think the French and Russian revolutions.
JI7
(91,778 posts)continously voting republican because they want to kick out the non whites.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Race and gender bigotry ARE are problems in and of themselves but they are NOT the primary cause of disparities in wealth, they're just excuses for the haves to make more "have nots".
That said, you can choose to ignore world history and keep a narrow view....It's your choice.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)When women could not own property separate from their husbands, even a bank account or a credit card, they could not accumulate a credit rating or wealth, which often takes generations, let alone send their children to college, or save enough for retirement or health care.
If a woman is legislatively compelled to bear children, then that is a HUGE economic issue in her life.
When people of color were and are prevented from owning homes either by discriminatory housing laws, or laws preventing them from qualifying for mortgages, they could not accumulate savings, or the income from real estate, keeping them in poverty for generations.
When women and people of color are kept out of higher education, especially in the areas that would lead to highly paid professional jobs (as they were for centuries) they were not able to pass the benefits that came with that to their children.
That said, you can choose to ignore world and U.S. history and keep a narrow view....It's your choice.
Here are some resources to get you started, should you choose to become educated on the issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reminder-abortion-is-an-economic-issue_us_58f8d11be4b018a9ce58dd4f
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2779915?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/27/blacks-with-college-experience-more-likely-to-say-they-faced-discrimination/
https://www.bustle.com/articles/136295-what-was-it-like-for-women-not-to-be-allowed-their-own-credit-cards-10-women
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not Europe - which oddly enough has been held up as an example of economic justice by some politicians.
YCHDT
(962 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)That inequality isn't all about race...In certain circumstances, Male privilege can outrun White Privilege by a mile.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)doesn't mean that "privilege" doesn't fuck everyone else.
Come back when you can compose a coherent response.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)Do you really think race, sex or sexual orientation doesn't play a role in economics? It often determines winners and losers.
Cha
(309,766 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)It's economic AND civil rights -- Not one or the other.
Voltaire2
(15,367 posts)economic and social justice are not in conflict.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Maybe you should tell the OP and his or her supporters here that.
kcr
(15,522 posts)It's not me who needs reminding.
sheshe2
(91,430 posts)*************It’s not so shocking that questions of identity are important to those whose identity shapes — often negatively — the way they are allowed to move through the world and pursue the values that identity’s detractors would urge us to focus on instead. If African Americans find it disproportionately difficult to take advantage of liberal promises of life, freedom and economic opportunity because of their identity, it stands to reason that identity remains a concern. And while not all Americans can relate, this doesn’t make black people’s concerns false, or less worthy of urgent conversation. The same can be said for women, immigrants and LGBT Americans.******************
*******************In fact, those arguing for a diminishing of questions of identity in political discussion are asking those who don’t share their privileged position to wait their turn, as though justice delayed isn’t still justice denied. Citizens for whom race, gender, sexuality or even religion are important are encouraged to work within and thereby prop up a system that doesn’t serve their needs, assuming that solutions will eventually arrive quietly and trickle down despite decades of evidence to the contrary.********************
MORE https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/12/06/in-defense-of-identity-politics/?utm_term=.9d8fe2071111
whathehell
(30,136 posts)especially being a female whose experienced her share of abuse based on gender....I just don't understand why Democrats should have to CHOOSE between an economic or a civil rights focus...We've been standing for both for decades.
Response to whathehell (Reply #79)
Post removed
whathehell
(30,136 posts)I voted for Bernie in the primary and voted Hillary in the general.
I wouldn't minimize social issues as "wedge issues" but I also won't ignore economic issues.
Fuck that.
NYResister
(164 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)so what's the problem?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)to what a some in the party believe.
Whether or not economic issues are getting sufficient attention or not has not been determined as "fact".. It's a matter of opinion right now, which is why we are discussing it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Again, and again.
Can't come out and say what you really mean?
You seem to backpedal a lot when someone asks you directly about what you think of Democrats.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)You're clearly looking for a fight and since I'm not at all interested, I'll be saying 'adieu' now. Have a nice day.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The classic response of someone who can't answer the question in a way that doesn't reflect badly on them, so they accuse the person asking them of making "baseless accusations." A favorite right wing response to being confronted with facts, or the lack of substance in their statements.
Got it. Loud and clear.
Have a nice day.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)rights without civil rights. The two are intertwined...and those who think that woman's right, POC 's rights, LGBTQ rights and Trangender rights are not as important as economic rights are wrong. We (Democrats) stand for equality always. It is in our DNA.
YCHDT
(962 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)on social issues to the detriment of economic issues
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"The vast majority of families would be able to send children to public colleges and universities tuition-free. Four-year-olds would have universal access to pre-K, and child care would be massively subsidized so as to cap costs at 10 percent of a family’s income. All workers would get 12 weeks paid family leave and 12 weeks paid medical leave, in case they need to care for a new child, a sick family member, or themselves. The child tax credit would be doubled for families with young children and made available to poor families with little earnings.
Eleven million undocumented immigrants would gain a pathway to citizenship. Medicare would be expanded to people as young as 55, and allowed to negotiate down drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, and every state would have a robust public option. All states would expand Medicaid coverage to anyone living underneath the poverty line, and subsidies for health care on the exchanges would be more generous. The government would cover out-of-pocket health costs through the tax code. Federal money would be able to pay for abortions for people with government-paid insurance. Social Security benefits would increase. The minimum wage would be at least $12, maybe $15 an hour, and firms could unionize through card check rather than having to go through elections.
There would be an injection of $500 billion — $275 billion of which comes from federal coffers — into rebuilding roads, highways, mass transit, airports, seaports, broadband networks, electrical grids, water pipes, and other forms of infrastructure. This would be the largest public works push from the federal government since the building of the interstate highway system in the 1950s. Much of that money would go to directly hiring workers, particularly youth in minority communities. The Clinton campaign estimates that the $500 billion would create about 6.5 million jobs, more than half of which come from public money."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government
"She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Social issues, and I know Hillary included economic issues, but it was late and her Wall Street income didn't help her image in that regard. .I'm not blaming Hillary exclusively for this, though, the DLC approach of the party as a whole has hurt..Bill Clinton with NAFTA and he, and Obama basically ignoring unions and labor rights. I was quite disappointed in our two last Democratic president's on this score..
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"They- would likely say the opposite -- That they've focused almost exclusively on social issues to the detriment of economic issues."
Who were you talking about then, when you say "they?"
And who exactly " focused almost exclusively on social issues to the detriment of economic issues."?
whathehell
(30,136 posts)I thought that would have been clear, but whatever...Again, have a nice day.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"**They**- would likely say the opposite -- That **they've** focused almost exclusively on social issues to the detriment of economic issues."
Who were you talking about then, when you say "they?" There are two they's.
And who exactly " focused almost exclusively on social issues to the detriment of economic issues."?
And which poster?
You seem to be avoiding answering questions, and I'm not the only one asking you for clarification.
And have a nice day.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)issues, than they are promoting social issues over economic issues? Really? Is that what you meant to say?
whathehell
(30,136 posts)and I'm guessing they don't either.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)The problem is when people that are Democrats like Joe Biden, or who are on the left working to remake the Democratic Party, like Bernie Sanders (who I voted for in the primary) are saying things like, "We need to move away from identity politics", then it becomes a problem where the message and focus of the Democratic Party appears to have to be one or the other.
They are inextricably linked. For people who discuss opportunity and equal access to the "American Dream" which is an economic and social thing, they need to truly understand that groups of people, whether by gender, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other demographics, have been cut out or at least that dream has been made more difficult to achieve in a deliberate and systematic way that cannot be fixed solely by focusing on "good middle class jobs" and diminishing the power of Wall Street.
That was something that was always lacking to me in Sanders' campaign, and while he did get a little better at it as the campaign went on, he never resonated with many minority voters and women because he focused mainly on the economics without understanding that while important as a whole, you can't tell a Black person who has been discriminated against, or a woman, who is paid less than her male counterparts for the same job, that everything will be fixed by taking power from Wall Street or creating infrastructure jobs, especially if the Black person thinks, "why bother, those jobs will go to White people" and the woman thinks, "I'll still get paid, 75 cents on the dollar for what my male peers get".
I liken this to the idea that Christians feel discriminated against because other faith traditions and atheist groups are displaying a louder voice regarding the public sphere these days. Christians have been used to everything in society being tailored to them with little to no questioning as to their dominance. Now that there is push back, they see it as oppression, rather than the request to give respect to other points of view.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)When politicians say otherwise things like "We'll,be got to move away identity politics", I think they mean we've got to move away from an EXCLUSIVE focus on them, and begin to focus more on the economic issues which affect all of us.
As Reverend, Al Sharpton once noted "It's not who you go to bed with at night, but whether you have a job to go to in the morning"..
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)By "they" I meant "we" as in Democrats.
I have not seen any Democratic politicians focus exclusively on "identity politics". That sounds more like conservative framing of what Democratic politicians are focusing on. Conservatives have been relying on framing and "working the refs" or setting the parameters that Democrats work under and when we repeat their narrative, then we help them. We did not lose because we spent too much time talking about "bathrooms" and other such non sense.
We lost through a variety of issues including vote suppression, media framing, infighting, and other things that kept the Democratic Party from pushing forward with its platform. There is a great deal of voter apathy because it serves the conservative interest to have less people vote. They deliberately go negative to make people "disgusted" with the process and stay home. more than 40% of eligible voters stayed home. You can say that the Democratic Party needs to be stronger in its messaging, but to say that we focus "too much" or "exclusively" is both false and plays into the hands of conservatives who are constantly pushing that narrative of Democrats being "elite", having a "gay agenda", and wanting to give your hard earned tax dollars to lazy Black people or illegal immigrants.
As I said in my post, identity and economics are inextricably linked.
Reverend Sharpton is correct in the sense that money is necessary for survival, however, if the color of your skin, who you go to bed with at night, or any other part of your identity, makes it more difficult for you to have a job to go to in the morning, then that is a part of the social and economic justice equation that needs to be addressed AND it can be addressed jointly with the larger economic issues.
White people (men in particular) do not lose when people of color, women, LGBT gain access to the same protections and rights that they have. It is not a sum zero game but that is certainly what conservative want to promote. Raising racial, gender based, and other anxieties and resentments is all they have left because their message is bankrupt.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)If not, you've surely noticed that the OP seems to think otherwise, so why aren't you challenging his assumptions?
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)All I know is what was said. The OP stated clearly, frustration at people "supposedly from the left" who use the term "identity politics" as a critique and are trying to pull the party into focusing solely on generic economic issues.
I actually do not think that you and I are having a serious disagreement or debate here, however you say you have not seen Democrats ignoring social issues and ask me if I have. In your last post you stated that it shouldn't be a choice between social issues and economic issues and I actually agreed and said that Democrats "do not choose" they address both together and each separately as needed. You appeared to challenge me asking "who is they?" and proceeding to say that, "when politicians ....move away from identity politics....EXCLUSIVELY....." I answered again, that there is no EXCLUSIVE focus on identity, but argued that identity is critical for many within the Democratic coalition who while they might be helped by economic issues, would likely still be worse off specifically because their identity remains an obstacle that was not addressed.
Again, you said yourself in your original response, that you are a woman and have seen negative effects of that identity, then you questioned why there had to be exclusivity. There does not. Calling out the problems and instersectional differences is not Exclusively focusing on identity, it is addressing special challenges within the wider context of the fight for economic and social justice for all. As I said, when we fight among ourselves about semantics, then we are doing the work of conservatives for them. They want us to bicker about Black people, gay people, women, (insert your minority or marginalized group here) trying to get "special rights", rather than just seeing it as progressives do and trying to have every group have a seat at the table and addressing challenges specific to those groups while fighting the larger battle.
Like I said, I don't think that we are on opposing sides of this issue. We seem to be arguing around the edges.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Then why don't you ask him/her before posting long responses to me?
I guess I don't understand why, if you think you know what I'm saying, and don't much disagree, you keep posting long responses to me rather
than a single, clarifying question to the OP.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)While I may not necessarily agree with the absolute tone of the post, I do think that the use of the term "identity politics" and admonishment of the Democrats by other Democrats and allies is not a good thing. "Identity Politics" has been an exclusive domain of conservatives, for use in ginning up resentment from their base, which is overwhelmingly White, or very narrowly, minority voters who have acculturated and accepted the "American (White) Way" to be superior to any other experience.
As I said in my previous posts, once we start adopting their framing and language, we do their work for them. The problem is that when you speak about the economic social struggles of Black people, or Latinos, Asians, women, LGBT people, etc... you are also speaking about economic struggle in general. However, the reverse is not true. When you generalize the discussion to economic struggle, by default, the needs of the majority population and the normative/dominant culture are what is front and center, and the additional struggles of marginalized populations are pushed to the back.
The conservative and corporate media (which are different) will always focus on those areas that divide liberals and moderates rather than on commonalities. It is easier to have us fighting by using resentments that women may have against men, or White people against Black people, or Hetero and cisgender people against LGBT people. It should not be that Black people, women, and other groups should "quiet down" it should be that all Liberals and allies should include all marginalized groups in their general message. That is why when people say, we should not focus "exclusively on Identity Politics" it upsets people because we really don't ever focus exclusively on it as a party message. The struggle is covered and highlighted by the media because conflict sells a lot better than more than 55% of the population demanding good jobs, equal pay, equitable distributions of the fruits of labor and goods of society, and non-discrimination.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)Give it up, bro...The rationalizing and weasel words are making you less credible, not more.
Come back when you':'re not so intimidated by the OP -- That should empower you to be a little more honest and even-handed
Until then, I'm afraid this conversation is over.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)You can run away from the conversation if you would like, but to make claims like that and then run is cowardly. I will tell you that I think you are trying to thread a needle that does not need to be threaded. You ask questions about "Where is the Democratic party ignoring social issues?" when that was never implied.
I am intimidated by no one. I just happen to agree with the idea that using the term "identity politics" is a bad idea when supposed liberals use it to denigrate other liberals.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, just putting a perspective out there in hopes that other people will read it and think about it.
I am sure that there are many areas where we agree and it is unfortunate that you choose to stoop to personal attacks, but we all have our style of discussion and debate I guess.
Good day to you
whathehell
(30,136 posts)only when I get answers to mine. See ya.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Looking back at your posts, you asked questions, and I responded to them. Perhaps you did not like or agree with the answers. I cannot help you with that, but you got answers.
As for "It's all in the context..." Perhaps, but context is subjective and a lot of it is based in the biases of recipient as well as what the sender is trying to express. I think I have been pretty clear.
I will leave it at the idea that the use of the term "identity politics" as a criticism of the Democratic party by people who are supposedly on the left, is not a good thing because it lines up with the strategy that conservatives use to separate us.
At this point I don't even think you know what you are asking and it is frustrating to try and have a discussion with you. Good luck with whatever it is that you are trying to convey. I think it is lost on a number of people.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)as you know...Talk about weasel words. 
You know, I'm flattered you find all this too compelling to let go, but
the feeling just isn't mutual. That being said, I must repeat that this conversation IS over...If you insist on refusing to take
"no" for an answer, though, I'll have to put you on Ignore, which I'd rather not do. It's up to you.
alarimer
(17,139 posts)They are not in conflict, but I think a lot of elected Democrats have problems because they get tons of money from corporations for their reelections.
And plenty of corporations are socially liberal within their workplace culture (they want good employees and they want them happy so they offer benefits to same-sex partners, for instance, or various other things) but they do not want regulations that might affect their bottom line.
Being socially liberal for Democrats is a whole lot easier than being economically liberal. Most of the hard work has already been done. Laws have been passed, Supreme Court decisions have come down supporting this. (Of course this is partly why we have Trump, a last ditch protest against all of it). But ask a Democrat to be a progressive economically (i.e- supporting higher taxation on the wealthy) and you get a lot more hemming and hawing. It's easy to march in a gay pride parade NOW (everybody does it) but how many elected Democrats do you see on picket lines these days? Almost none. And that is the bare minimum I ask for: yes, absolutely, they should support all manner of civil rights, even when it's hard, but they also have to come out strongly in favor of economic issues that help everyone.
I used the word progressive above in talking about economics, because classically, an economic liberal is one who favors lower regulations and freer markets. I am not of the opinion that those things actually help the most people.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Have you been paying attention to what is happening with women and girls? I beg to differ. Sanders said almost the exact same thing. That is a reason a lot of people in the Democratic base had issue and exactly what is being pointed out.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)free, which reassures the oligarchs that you won't be costing them anything.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts)Just wondering.
I haven't seen such hostility.
betsuni
(27,775 posts)There's never any evidence of all the bad things Democrats are accused of doing.
whathehell
(30,136 posts)What, pray tell, is "hostile" about supporting labor unions and economic fairness?.. It's been part of the democratic agenda for almost a century.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)emulatorloo
(45,779 posts)Cha
(309,766 posts)whathehell
(30,136 posts) 
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
leftstreet
(36,722 posts)Leftists have no party in the US
You're talking about Democrats within the Democratic party attempting to hijack and redefine the party platform. That's been happening for decades.
NYResister
(164 posts)I'm sick and tired of folks who claim they are "leftist" acting as if they are some poor victims in the grand scheme of things.
I'm a liberal. A true liberal who cares about people. Not just myself, but everybody.
There is nothing "left" "liberal" or "progressive" about your attitude.
You are all about yourselves.
It's selfish. And I'm sick of it.
SCantiGOP
(14,428 posts)The one where you were put in charge of determining who is and isn't a "good" or acceptable member of the Left?
We would just like to see your credentials.
Steven Maurer
(501 posts)And quite frankly, the majority clearly agree with NYRegister.
Just to reiterate basic operational principles:
• If you don't vote for Democrats, you aren't one.
• If you spend an inordinate amount of time bashing Democrats, you aren't one.
• If you want to assert that the Democrats aren't the left in America, you're flat out insane. As kook as the nutcases who whine that FOX is really liberal media.
As proof - no "memos" sorry, Democrats are a bottom up organization not a top down one - let me reference the continued electoral losses within the Democratic party of anyone who plays footsie with people who don't understand the three points above.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)BainsBane
(55,849 posts)Do not vote for Democrats.
leftstreet
(36,722 posts)Apparently they hope to define the Democratic party platform in such a manner that they can then vote for candidates. Or something like that.
My point was - they're not Leftists.
BainsBane
(55,849 posts)Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)Green traitors, independents and anti-Democratic party groups like "Our Revolution"
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)movement...which we can't get and which endangers the ACA...it is looking like full repeal according to the news...awful. It should be all hands on deck to save the ACA and millions of lives...but I have noticed that the Alt-left (for want of a better term) has a curious lack of empathy for people who would literally die. It is all about the ideology: a trait they share with the far right.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... they want to take their eyes OFF of the ACA, thus leaving it in a vulnerable state, ready to be destroyed. (But then again, this "destroy to rebuild" or "let it burn" strategy has been OPENLY ADMITTED TO by many on the loony-fringe. Susan Sarandon, for instance, has noted that Trump will be "good" for their cause.)
People who think the same way that Sarandon does are naive and vain.
And yes, your final observation is one that has crossed my mind many times as well. So far extreme that they've gone full-circle to the other side. This helps to explain things like JPR and how they're rooting for the Democrats to fail, and cheering Trump's successes and goals.
It's surreal. It's insane.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)I especially like the beginning. Taking their eyes off ACA leaving it vulnerable. I hadn't considered that, but you are correct.
Saviolo
(3,321 posts)You stated:
People who think the same way that Sarandon does are naive and vain.
And I just wanted to add privileged to that. People like Sarandon will be minimally impacted if the whole thing comes tumbling down. If infrastructure crumbles, it is the working class and the poor that will be affect. It is the rights of middle-class POC, youth, LBGTQ, and women that will be most affected. Those people that are hoping that everything catches fire and burns down won't be caught under the flaming rubble. Wealthy so-called liberals who want the system to collapse will be standing on the rubble, not crushed beneath it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's all very easy for people to make these "sacrifices" when they can AFFORD to make them.
===================================
QUOTE: "Wealthy so-called liberals who want the system to collapse will be standing on the rubble, not crushed beneath it."
===================================
You've got a way with words, and that's quite the mental image you've created there. Sadly, it's one that will be true if people like Sarandon get their way.
Saviolo
(3,321 posts)I remember he was saying, during the election, that people need to set aside their "pet issues" (identity politics) to get the election won. I think he was referring mostly to the so-called bathroom bills (a misnomer). And he so graciously said he'd take his pet issue, pot legalization, off the table in order to help beat Trump.
Like Bill Maher would ever spend a day behind bars if anyone found him with a kilo of weed in his car. How gracious of you, Bill, to put aside the pet issue you have that would mean you get to smoke as much as you probably already do, but now it's not illegal! But those uppity queer and trans people need to set aside their "pet issue" of, y'know, getting to exist in a public space.
It's a shame, too. Bill Maher is a smart guy and speaks sense a lot of the time. But he's also just super out-of-touch and just a mess some of the time. It's very disappointing.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but I've noticed that he'll sometimes let the episodes "age-out" from week to week without being watched.
It used to be "must-watch" TV in our house... then he became a disappointment... tiresome... predictable. Even the New Rules seemed to be more Old-Hat.
I really was a fan. Did he change, or did I? I'm not sure... but it's clear that our paths and philosophies (and our sense of humor) diverged back in 2016.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)leftstreet
(36,722 posts)You're not wrong. The people you're discussing don't seem to be supporting the Democratic party platform. Why? I don't know. I don't know who the hell they are.
I just know they're not Leftists.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)are made up of those folks who always vote and never threaten to take their ball and go home.
melman
(7,681 posts)What a familiar posting style. I wonder why that would be.
NYResister
(164 posts)That's why.
That's definitely not it.
Arazi
(7,726 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2017, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)
It's just that we also need to be for economic justice and an end to corporate dominance in politics and life-and to fight for both justice causes, because they are distinct yet related.
It can't be progressive to ONLY be for civil rights, equal rights and social justice, while at the same time backing "pro-business" economic policies, trade deals that only help the white and rich, and working for the continued decline of the labor movement..
It's not possible to achieve social justice without tying it to the need for a massive effort to fight poverty,
And you can't have social justice without transferring some of the wealth back from the 1% to those who actually created it.
We need social AND economic justice. It isn't possible to have one without the other. And there was no good reason for anyone ever to imply that one justice struggle must be fought while the other is abandoned.
NYResister
(164 posts)The "real" left, i.e. "the majority", voted for it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And because some believed that simply electing a woman would be transformational.
Or because they believed she was more qualified for the job.
And they had every right to vote however they wanted.
They didn't reject the idea that we need to stand up to corporate domination of politics.
And this isn't a "HRC vs. Bernie" thread. We're past that now, for God's sakes.
Neither of those people will run for president again, so there is no reason to keep things divided into camps.
They both represented legitimate viewpoints, the ideas both held were popular, and the ideas of both, separated from the personality of either, have a legitimate place in this party.
We will be a dead zone if the views or supporters of either are totally anathemized with the Democracy.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Because of experience. Because she gets things done. Because she was the all around best candidate by far, put up, in decades.
Please do not tell Clinton supporters dismissive reasons we voted for her.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and that I accept that.
You had the right to your reasons and I respect your reasons.
It still goes without saying that the other candidate didn't deserved to be endlessly smeared on race throughout the campaign. If you didn't want to vote for that person, fine, but he never deserved to be accused of not caring about racism or being unwilling to fight it.
And his supporters never deserved to be accused of not caring about racism just because they didn't switch to the less-progressive candidate the day after Super Tuesday. They wanted to go on fighting for the causes they cared about, and they couldn't have fought for economic justice and against corporate power anymore if they'd switched to HRC in March. They didn't want to abandon their principles.
The primaries are over and if the point of the OP is that the party should renounce everything and everyone remotely related to Sanders, that's a call for the party to give up on ever being a party of change-and probably a call to give up any chance to win in the future.
We need HRC AND Sanders people to win, and we need all of those people to have the space to work for what they care about and then to find common ground with each other.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)to demean her as a candidate and that was my point. What is it that was said? Women voting with their vagina? Voting for her because she is a woman? Purely for dismissal of our candidate.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's all I have to do to not be refighting.
We are past 2016. Neither HRC nor Bernie will ever run for president again, and there's no reason to frame the discussion on who people supported then. We're done with that.
I proved I wasn't refighting by spending the fall campaigning hard for HRC.
KTM
(1,823 posts)Which policies of O'Mallery's did you think were better ?
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)Planned Parenthood is not 'establishment'.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Look, she would have been a fine president.
I accepted her as nominee and campaigned hard for her in the fall.
So did most people who backed the runner-up.
The only thing I dispute is the claim that those who voted for Clinton were voting to reject every single idea the other campaign championed.
A lot of you weren't.
There were tons of people, all over the country, saying "my heart is with B_____, my head is with HRC".
That's why I'm saying our future should combine the best and most popular ideas from both of those campaigns, and include other ideas that compliment them-not anathemize the ideas of either, not adopt anything that harms anyone in the base.
Social justice AND economic justice.
Future, not past.
JI7
(91,778 posts)republicans.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)back burner, unacceptable. Human rights and cannot be delayed or marginalized.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)====================================
Quote: "Human rights and cannot be delayed or marginalized."
====================================
I totally agree. And I have to question the actual motivations of anyone who doesn't agree with such a simple, honest and straightforward objective.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)election is close...2000,2004 and 2016.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)As FDR's "Four Freedoms" recognized.
The rank and file are united for both, whatever any leaders say.
And it's been proven over and over that we can't have social justice without economic justice...the result is always backlash and the loss of most of the gains.
Why not just commit equally to both struggles and admit that the two justice causes are NOT in conflict?
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)though, is being done by some, and that is the conversation.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That person's supporters, for the record, can't be assumed to be collectively dismissive of social justice.
If the Democratic base(a lot of whom supported that guy)want victory, we need to acknowledged that it's important to make common cause with at least most of the left), that uniting progressive voters is more important than appeasing the party's donor wing, the only sector of the party that supports "pro-business economic policies".
It's not a "conversation" to post OPs that are collective denunciations of everyone who supports economic justice(which this OP is, with its implication that MOST economic justice supporters don't support social justice. They support social justice as much as the Democratic base supports economic justice. It's time to admit that and move on towards working for unity.
We need the votes of those who still want a real effort to fight poverty, those who fight for a living wage, those who don't accept that Democratic foreign policy HAS to be just as militaristic as Republican foreign policy.
Those are the only votes we can gain between now and 2018 and 2020-and we HAVE to gain votes because we can never win another election solely on the votes of the people in our current base-many of whom, as you point out, are on the left on economic issues and didn't want us being status quo on those issues.
We cant win those votes over with threads like this, OR with implicit demands that the kind of voters I'm describing renounce the people they supported, which is what I strongly suspect the true intent of this OP is about.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They aren't to blame and it's time to move on on this as far as they go, since his supporters back social justice as much as you do.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Democrats and our Democratic Party?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)on this issue.
That, in particular, the supporters of one former candidate need to be called out on this again and again and again, even though that candidacy ended and even though it can't be assumed that the supporters have the exact same views on every issue that that candidate had. That's simply not a fair assumption.
As activists, nearly everyone is with you on need to fight institutional and grassroots bigotry, and to fight those things aggressively.
The only point of disagreement has been on the assertion that any significant number of people on the left wanted the fight against bigotry and social oppression put to the side. People that wanted that wouldn't identify as part of the left.
What I'm saying is...the great mass of us agree with you on the points you made in the OP.
What purpose does it serve to imply that there's a significant dispute on that on the grassroots level?
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)I am making factual statements. What you get from it is your business, but please do not define me. I am more than willing to make my own, clear, concise statements. Of facts.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The man will be 79 in 2020 and realizes the voters won't elect a president who is that old.
And I don't think you are representing quite accurately what he was saying-he was arguing, in a flawed way, that the issues you mentioned in the OP, issues the great majority of us, whoever we backed in the 2016 primary, agree with you on-should not be treated as the ONLY issues that matter-that we can fight for rights and justice AND fight passionately for economic justice.
He shouldn't have phrased it as he did...using the term "identity politics" was wrong and it did sound dismissive-but it was him sounding dismissive as an individual. It still goes without saying that a Sanders Administration would have been just as anti-oppression in practice as a HRC administration.
But the OP reads as though there is still a refusal to accept that the supporters of Bernie are themselves committed to the antioppression agenda. As a group, they are and they always were.
And if we are to beat Trump or whoever might be nominated in his stead, we need to be finding common ground with each other...we need dialog for a change...anything that perpetuates the artificial division between social justice and economic justice advocates that was invented for the 2016 primaries, a division that hadn't existed before that for decades if it truly existed at all, only hurts our chances of beating the party of oppression, both social AND economic.
Trump is the villain...not anyone who ran for OUR nomination in 2016.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)I have no interesting going beyond what I have already said, or repeating myself.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)mistake. We need both economic justice and social justice is this party. Our
Me.
(35,454 posts)"It's just that we need to be for economic justice and an end to corporate dominance in politics and life"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)There are good reasons why the base of the party rejected the concept of trickle down social justice. Attacking "identity politics" is simply code for saying that we should ignore the base of the party in favor of white male voters.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You have been lying about my intentions here for months now, btw. Kindly stop.
I have never called for the party to be remade in ANY one person's image...It needs to be remade in the image of THE PEOPLE...the poor, the dispossessed, the hard-hit of all races, genders, orientations, creeds and identities. It needs to be a party that fights for social justice AND economic justice-two causes that are distinct, but related, and two causes that are not in conflict with each other on anything in this era.
We can't ever defeat social injustice in isolation. The Sixties proved that, once and for all. We can't fight racism, sexism, homo-and-trans phobia, Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry while taking the side of the rich on economic issues at the same time, while refusing to deal with the sense of being cast aside economically that a lot of voters, including a lot of voters of color in the Upper Midwest, feel on a daily basis.
And the fight agaist social injustice has never been totally separate from economic justice. Part of the agenda of social justice is the eradication of poverty and the reduction of economic inequality to the lowest possible levels. We also can't eradicate white supremacist thinking without addressing the fear of want that market economics drills into everyone's minds. In most of the country, it is scarcity and fear of scarcity, as much as anything else, that preserves the tribal, paranoid mindset that makes working-class whites see everyone different from them as the enemy.
The base supported HRC, but that doesn't mean the base is anti-Left. The base is well to your left on the actual issues. They backed HRC largely because they believed she was more likely to win and because of her qualifications, and they had the right to do that. Some, but not all women, believed that simply electing a woman as president would automatically be transformational. They had the right to believe what they believe on that. She won the nomination and I fully accepted that, as you know perfectly well. The overwhelming majority of Sanders voters supported her. And the polls have continued to show that, whatever some parts of the base felt about the runner-up as a person, they were and are closer to his progressive views on economic policy than to her largely centrist-to-slightly conservative views on that set of issues.
BTW, I AGREE with you that nothing should have been said that even sounded like we should ignore the base(few if any of whom want us to be a centrist party)or should ignore racism. I've agreed with you on that the whole time.
It was a stupid thing to say...and there's no reason to be angry at anyone other than the specific individual who said it.
It's not the fault of that person's supporters that he said what he said, and there's no good reason to be attacking them for it. We need all of those people if we are going to win in 2018 and 2020, and we have no chance of winning them if we do what you want and adopt a "to hell with the Left" platform. People who hate the Left as deeply as you do don't agree with the Democratic Party on anything important, and there's no votes to be won by being as hostile to the Left and dismissive of what they propose.
Finally, we can't ever win another election if we do what YOU really want us to do and drive everyone to the left of Rahm Emmanuel out of the party. If the Dems do what you want and become a vindictively anti-left party, we will be stuck at 49% percent forever. It's not possible to run on a bland platform and win by default. Our only hope, in the "real world", is to actively mobilize everyone Trump is harming by running a campaign that promises to repealing all the ugliness and offering real solutions instead.
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)Have you gotten out in the real world yet and explained you platform to anyone? Please get out into the real world
KTM
(1,823 posts)Get out in the real world son ! Get some life experience under your belt, come back when youre a grown up, maybe The Brigade will take you seriously then !
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 6, 2017, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)
that all other social ills like racism, nationalism, misogyny and homophobia, will "be made right," because the root of racism and misogyny is apparently economic disparity. (All you have to do is look at countries in Europe who have implemented wage equity, universal health care, and strong public schools - no racism, nationalism, homophobia, xenophobia or misogyny at all! Just like during the heyday of labor here in the US in the 50's and early 60's!)
Like when Reagan said, "give the wealthy more money, and it will trickle down."
It appears that now the white working class male (straight male, to be specific) has started to experience the endemic economic strain that women and people of color have for decades - centuries even, it's qualifies as a "universal" economic issue and worthy of action.
Bernie Sanders explained that this theory has been show to work in Vermont, which he said was a "very conservative state" but elected him because they liked his "economic views" so much, they therefore tolerated his "social justice views," even though "they are very conservative."
And he stated that by "being flexible" on "social issues" (like health care specific to women, and gun safety) to appeal to those disillusioned socially conservative (anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-gay) rust belt men, Democrats can be voted in on lefty economic platforms, and those social justice issues will "fall into place."
“What democrats have gotta to do is come into those states and not be Republican-lite but have the guts to take on the big money interests. If they do that I believe other things will fall into place.”
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sanders-to-trump-listen-to-scientists-climate-change-is-real-909073475617
That is what I mean by trickle down social justice. When working class white straight men get what they want in the way of economic security, their goodwill will "trickle down" in the form of tolerance for "social justice issues."
I guess we put the cart before the horse in the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the gay rights movement. We just needed to make sure that the white straight men didn't feel "anxious" about their economic security, and they would totally have ended segregation, glass ceilings, enforced pregnancy, and put the social safety net front and center all on their own.
The rest of us just needed to be more patient.
ms liberty
(10,148 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Informants and disinformants are a real thing people.
Don't get caught up on every firebrand opinion that gets posted.
ESPECIALLY the ones that are questioning label purity and bullshit like that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Response to NYResister (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)left and the only thing that seems to put them on the left side of things IS identity politics and all their other positions on the issues, well, nevermind.
I am tired of people who claim to be on the left who sneer when they proclaim single payer will NEVER happen.
Demsrule86
(71,132 posts)single payer, you need a sixty vote majority in the Senate, a house majority and the presidency. Thus saving the ACA is very important...it is what we have and in a divided country may be all we ever have for the foreseeable future. The ACA which so may
on the far left belittle was a huge accomplishment, and it changed the way people think about health insurance...now viewing it as a right. It took 100 years to get any health care...and now you think with a GOP government majority who want to get rid of Medicaid Medicare and social security, that now is the time to support single payer...seriously!
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)do it again. For get the Civil Rights-shamers who call it 'identity politics.' Work hard to get the real Dems, frustrated Independents, and converted Republicans out to vote. We can do it without the 'Reveloution' and Stein-bots. We really out number them but we must out perform them. We must make the media pay attention to us by flooding the streets and parks other family venues. We must not be afraid. Fear is what oppressors of every stripe use to beat down their oppositions.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
oasis
(52,220 posts)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Absolutism and demands for conformity resemble Teddy Roosevelts claim that people in the US are the real Americans. There's room to be inclusive and open to what various individuals say makes them a Democrat, liberal, progressive, leftist.
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)Arazi
(7,726 posts)Who understand that real leadership is inclusive and we fail if we insist on purity.
Dems are the big tent party.
Enjoy your stay
Me.
(35,454 posts)Decided to kick women's reproductive rights to the curb until they were called on it. Black women are now also holding their feet to the fire.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Response to Arazi (Reply #137)
Post removed
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)R B Garr
(17,602 posts)Absolutely correct.
Arazi
(7,726 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Some things are so obvious they don't need proof.
Arazi
(7,726 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BainsBane
(55,849 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts) 
ananda
(31,520 posts)Proud to be a liberal, I must say!
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)But to each their own, right?
aikoaiko
(34,210 posts)....and trying to hijack the Democratic Party?
jalan48
(14,848 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Thank you for this. You said what I was thinking.
Martin Eden
(14,155 posts)-- White conservative Christians voted out of fear/hatred/prejudice against racial/religious/sexual minorities. They think THEIR COUNTRY is being taken from them, and they want it back.
Just because the term "identity politics" has been used as a cudgel to suppress economic and social justice doesn't mean that two word phrase does not aptly describe certain aspects of American politics. The problem is, as is the case with most language, it is used and abused to create narratives for an agenda of divisiveness and injustice.
demosincebirth
(12,774 posts)Many, on du, on many issues, but I've never voted for a republican in my life. Basicly, I'm what you would call a "yellow dog democrat."
Willie Pep
(841 posts)But the Republicans have moved too far right for me to vote for them, especially on economic matters.
IronLionZion
(48,534 posts)
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)You almost have it down.
WinstonSmith00
(228 posts)We need to shun the corporatist the DINOs and the dixie crats. We need true progressive liberals willing to move the party left and fight for individual rights.
The right to healthcare
The right to housing
The right to food
The right to grow food and herbal medicine.
The right to be left alone
The right to prosper
The right to happiness
The right to a living wage
The right to all basic necessities and utilities.
And the rights should apply to all living breathing humans not corporations or organizations.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
mvd
(65,619 posts)Well said.
Also, I am sorry, but I can't reply to a couple posts in this thread since I can't see the posts. Since it happened twice, had to note that.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)against income inequality as well as for civil rights. I do not see why they have to be separate things.
I am pro civil rights and social justice but, also want the party to address income inequality and economic concerns for the 99%.
Why can't you be concerned about the shrinking middle class, the displacement of the working class and also want to address the concerns of various groups like equality for LGBT and the ongoing murder and wrong incarceration of african americans.
I just don't see how any of this is a divide.
When it comes down to it, it all is interconnected
They are interconnected!
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)the side. We argue otherwise.
Sabrinao
(23 posts)What identity politics is?
Rhiannon12866
(232,527 posts)I wasn't entirely sure, either.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9281928
PatrickforO
(15,205 posts)...giggling nervously and wondering if I am able to cut the mustard in your eyes.
But...what about economic justice?
I want expanded Social Security.
What about Medicare for all Americans?
How about equalizing how we finance inner city K-12 so those kids have a more level playing field?
How about more of our tax money to subsidize child care so that young families and single parents can have better lives?
What about lifesaving guidelines that keep our air, water and earth clean?
I'd like to see all kids get to take advantage of taxpayer subsidized college up to a four year degree - that would be financed by both individual AND corporate income tax. Because without the skills to be competitive in a global economy, our kids will languish and our businesses will close down. That will help NOBODY.
And what about trade treaties? Should they be negotiated in secrecy with ISDS provisions that kill democracy at the local, state and even national level?
How about beefing up the Temporary Aid for Needy Families law to get rid of the slave labor provision (it's called 'work related activity' in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA)), and allow occupational training to be a 'work related' activity?
How about more job training available for SNAP E&T (otherwise known as food stamp job search) people so they don't have to have a revolving door and can actually get ahead?
And wouldn't more early childhood education and nutrition programs for inner city kids be good?
See, I think these things I've cited above bring about social justice. In fact, I am as sure of my position as you are yours. Interesting, that. As to civil rights, we've got to focus on ending voter suppression with automatic registration and making election day a holiday so everyone can vote.
Oh, and you know what else would dramatically enhance civil rights, equality, social and economic justice? Is if we actually as a people got balanced news. This means that we'd have to bring back the Fairness Doctrine the snake Reagan vetoed in 1987, effectively allowing the birth and growth of a massive corporate-funded and very sophisticated right-wing propaganda organ.
What about unions? You know what drove the nail in the coffins of working people of all races and ethnicities? The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. It made general strikes illegal and made it harder for unions to organize. And without collective bargaining, we have things like the Missouri state legislature revoking the $10/hr minimum wage in St. Louis and taking them back to $7.70 per hour. I guess that might not qualify in your eyes as an attack on 'equality' or 'civil rights' or 'social justice,' but it sure as hell will disproportionately affect minorities, particularly women of color.
So, you know, more power to you as a resister, but if you don't promote the kind of things I've mentioned above, how will you get that equality, civil rights and social justice? You won't. Not without making the economic playing field a lot more even. This is the very issue that destroyed us during the primaries - which is more valid, economic or social justice.
Truth? They go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. But we sure did stupidly allow ourselves to be divided so we could be conquered. But, hey, the Koch brothers, the Mercers, Sheldon Addelbrain and the rest of the billionaire freaks got to laugh their way to the bank - 33 state legislatures, 32 governorships and the entire federal government in Republican hands. And guess what?
They are getting what they've wanted all along - the money from the treasury that should be funding stuff that helps us is instead getting sucked off to corporate profits. That's why while we are arguing the virtues of economic justice versus social justice, they are gutting the EPA, ruining our alliances, and basically destroying everything that this nation stands for. Bannon wants an apocalyptic war between Islam and Christianity with the winner inheriting the ashes that are left.
But, hey, it's great to have a litmus test to know who the REAL Democrats are!
Thanks.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But some politicians are able to really benefit from them, and extend their careers.
See also Ralph Nader.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)mvd
(65,619 posts)Any Democrat who is not isn't a very good liberal. But economic issues are very important to me and many other Americans. We need to have a strong, progressive economic message. Affordable and quality health care, a strong social security and Medicare, protecting Medicaid, being for worker's rights, limiting corporate power (including taking corporate money out of politics), and a living wage affect a lot of people.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)toward those goals. I do not see the issue.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)To separate them out - or to dismiss that they feed economic disparity is to address only those issues that white straight men deal with.
I think that people forget that white straight men are not the majority of people in this country, as much as they would like to believe the opposite.
mvd
(65,619 posts)Economic issues are about social justice issues since conservative or even "centrist" policies on economics hurt minorities the most. Also, everyone is affected by the economy so it must be well done in our message.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that hurt minorities.
Can you be more specific?
mvd
(65,619 posts)Just to clarify.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Again: I'm curious about what you refer to as "centrist" policies that hurt minorities.
Policies is the operative word. What policies are you referring to when you talk about "centrist policies that hurt minorities" that Democrat have put forward?
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)mvd
(65,619 posts)We've had a lot of it. I am ending on that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Especially from you about your statements.
You give a non-answer and say that you are "clarifying" what you mean, then when you are called out on it, you say "you don't feel like clarifying."
Got it.
You can't articulate what you mean, and get defensive when asked. That's one way to avoid bashing Democrats directly, isn't it?
mvd
(65,619 posts)But I will not when I don't like how you are going about it. You are going off topic and into a centrist/left argument. It's been shown that Third Way austerity, balanced budget focus, over-reliance on market solutions, too much adherence to Wall St., lack of support for labor, thinking education will solve too much has hurt the party. Good day to you.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) I have said plenty already on the subject. I am going back to the focus on Trump. Didn't really want to get into this thread to begin with but glad I said my opinion.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Changing the subject didn't change that fact.
mdbl
(6,210 posts)The only progressive policy passed since that time was FMLA and the ACA. Everything else has been regressive economically and socially. There have been, however, regressive agendas. Getting rid of Glass-Steagall was to me, the nail in the coffin for a socially just economy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Yeah, keeping Planned Parenthood funded was a total neocon screw up.
Dodd-Frank - so regressive...
Supporting public education - such a GOP lite thing....
mdbl
(6,210 posts)not just what was being talked about.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act?
HIPPA?
Those are regressive?
I guess if you want to keep moving your definition of "policies" out further, by all means, proceed.
And if you want to dismiss any and all attempts at legislation by Democrat under GWB as being "regressive" I suppose you could twist your definition yet again.
mdbl
(6,210 posts)even though Dodd-Frank wasn't very effective.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I predicted that, didn't I.
I guess if you need to gripe about Democrats being "regressive" you'll figure out some way to convince yourself of that.
mdbl
(6,210 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And which Democrats are supporting them... And you claim that they've "all" been regressive since the mid 1990's with few exceptions.
Then when someone starts listing all the progressive policies Democrats have put forth, you and backpedal, saying you were talking about "passed legislation."
And then you complain that people are not "being nice," and you are done trying to explain yourself to people who clearly don't have the ability to understand your line of thought, when they point out correctly that you are talking in circles.
Which is it this time? Policies or "passed legislation?" Whichever wasn't in the answer you got, presumably.
Sounds to me like you're avoiding answering the question, in order to vaguely undermine "certain" Democrats, without actually having the guts to own your position on the Democratic Party.
Sounds like JPR would be more supportive of you than Democratic Underground.
And have a nice day.
mdbl
(6,210 posts)but since you accused me of it, I'm done now.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Other than Glass Stegall, you have not specified what the parade of regressive policies you state are the work of Democrats since the mid 1990s, or which Democrats are supporting them.
Still waiting on that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)the "but" in your response?
"Any Democrat who is not isn't a very good liberal. But economic issues are very important to me and many other Americans."
You are implying that others are not saying that "economic issues are important" to you and "a lot of people."
You have not shown where that is - other than vague reference to "Third way" Democrats with some "centrist politicies that harm people of color" that you don't seem to be able to name.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)of people claiming to be the left who divorce social justice from economic justice and rant about social issues, using identity politics to push economic justice under the bus.
Because I value both. What I don't value, what I despise, are rants against "you." "You" being those that don't get into line, toe that line, and strengthen an echo chamber so that someone doesn't have to hear anything that makes them uncomfortable.
I'm especially tired of the constant Orwellian manipulation of political terms so that there are people who have to leave "liberal" and "progressive" behind because they've been usurped by those who are neither liberal nor progressive; and, when those people reach for some term not yet corrupted, like the "left," even when it's not all that accurate, the attempts to corrupt that term by those who just want to demonize and purge everything left of the neoliberal establishment, I'm more than "tired" of it.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or are you saying that as FLOTUS, she was responsible for legislation that she didn't write or vote to approve? Because she was the wife of the person who signed it into law, and did her job as FLOTUS supporting whatever it was that POTUS did?
Is that it?
As I recall, Al Gore, who was VP and head of the Senate that passed it was never held to that particular piece of legislation like HRC was.
Nor Biden. Nor Kerry. Who actually voted yes on the bill.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Something she famously got a lot of grief for, from sexist republican assholes.
The OP was about the last few decades, not just the last election. This is one issue where the democrats were "attacked from the left" on. And Gore did get "attacked" for supporting it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because I'm sure that John Kasich would be really suprised to find that she got the credit for the bill he introduced, after Gingrich kept hounding Clinton for stalling after he vetoed the first two welfare reform proposals.
But do tell how HRC shaped that particular policy. I'd alson love to know your sources on that.
And as we saw from the last election, the sexist assholes giving HRC grief for not knowing her place as FLOTUS aren't just Republicans.
And I don't remember Gore being called out on the Welfare Reform as being a deal breaker on his nomination by anyone but Republicans and Nader supporters.
So what made Kerry and Biden immune from hateful fury concerning their part in PRWORA?
What made HRC different?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/an-economy-that-works-for-everyone/
How did that "purge everything Left of the neoliberal establishment?" Not seeing that at all.
betsuni
(27,775 posts)killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]
These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, unrestricted free trade,[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[12][13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
How the fuck does that not describe the mainstream democratic approach to almost everything since Clinton?
betsuni
(27,775 posts)LOL! It is 2017. I just checked the calendar.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)You realize Obama was flirting with deals with the GOP to "reform" social security, in order to pass his budgets, right?
betsuni
(27,775 posts)Oh dear, heh ... I think you're Baracking up the wrong tree if you want me to get mad.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)betsuni
(27,775 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But Glenn's probably all jealous because nobody buys him drinks.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And Hillary, by virtue of who she married, then taking money for speeches.
Why won't we LISTEN to the TRUTH???
betsuni
(27,775 posts)Yeah, I just don't get it because it's not real. 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So he went to dinner and let them pick up the tab, but didn't put out?
But seriously, please give us details.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html?utm_term=.f2889e450b97
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)even it the people who make them can't.
Looks like congressional Democrats putting pressure on Obama stopped it.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/198815-obama-abandons-cut-to-social-security
So, I don't know why the flirtation is talked about as though he hopped into bed with them.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)And why should congressional Democrats have to pressure their own party's president not to touch Social Security and Medicare?
Also, 'flirtation' does not imply 'hopped into bed with'.
From the article you linked to:
"Obama last year proposed the new formula for calculating benefits as an overture to Republicans toward a "grand bargain" on the debt."
'Overture' is the flirtation, the grand bargain would have been hopping into bed with them.
PS for what it's worth, for some reason none of the formatting tags are working for me. Or else this post would have been more aesthetically pleasing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I knew that there was no actual action on that talk, so I didn't consider it even flirting (which implies actual attempts at attracting), and so it didn't register as "obsession with free market solutions" as it did the posters accusation.
I think Obama was calling the GOP bluff, when it was obstructing on everything that Obama did, and the very public "pressure" from congress both demonstrated the reaction that austerity would elicit from the public and effectively showed that even being offered their wet dream on social security, they would still never work with him. That's my take on it.
I think that he gave up actually flirting after he offered them a compromise health care reform bill, and they spit in his face.
And yeah, since the reboot after the election attack, none of the formatting works. Frustrating.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Secondly, thank-you for tell us that the formatting does not work and it is not just me.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I guess you'd rather focus on what didn't come to pass, rather than what did, if what did happen doesn't "the fuck describe the mainstream democratic approach to almost everything since Clinton" does it?
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/198815-obama-abandons-cut-to-social-security
Dogma seems to win out over evidence again.
R B Garr
(17,602 posts)for his efforts for his progressive climate change VP to steward, but that wasn't good enough for the perpetual anti-establishment echo chamber. The anti everything crowd is obviously divorced from reality.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Can you also define "neoliberal establishment?" That's a rather vague term, many have different definitions, and it helps if you can be more specific as to who and what it covers as far as your post goes.
Can you also give an example of "pushing economic issues under the bus" mostly in terms of this thread, but if you have examples of "people claiming to be the left" who are in elected office doing the pushing, that would be more informative.
Also, since "identity politics" has been defined differently by many here, would you tell me what your definition is?
Also curious if you consider abortion and contraception "social issues."
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)I may well rant. But, yes. People like to define a conversation to dismiss it.
alarimer
(17,139 posts)Other things that make a good Democrat (in no particular order):
Believing in the social safety net
Shoring up SS by raising the cap
Curbs on Wall Street and big banks (including things like anti-trust enforcement)
Network neutrality.
Raising minimum wage (really a living wage).
Actions to prevent/ease climate change
Strengthening labor unions
Prison reform/sentencing reform/getting rid of private prisons
Ending the drug war
Police reform
Reproductive rights, including the right to birth control
Reducing the costs of higher education
Getting big money out of politics
Voting rights/ending gerrymandering (even when it benefits us).
Shoring up public education (and not by sending tax money to private companies like charter schools).
Reducing income inequality.
Health care reform (we are not done just because the ACA exists).
Bettie
(18,170 posts)all of that is important and vital, but believing that a strong economic justice component is equally important?
They work together. They are interconnected.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)They are not the ones trying to focus on just one component. That is the discussion.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)by the Democratic party are those who think that white straight men, (specifically in terms of what they earn) are not getting the amount of attention from the party they think they deserve, and the reason is that the rest of the party is focusing too much on issues that are not affecting white straight men's earnings (which have been called "universal" economic issues.)
Your question, "How about believing that all of that is important and vital, but believing that a strong economic justice component is equally important?" implies that you believe there is an imbalance of attention on social justice issues that discounts economic justice, if you feel a need to "suggest" economics be equally important.
Like asking the question, "Well, how about believing that babies are a good thing, instead of telling a woman that she can get an abortion," implies that the listener doesn't believe babies are a good thing.
Bettie
(18,170 posts)and act as if believing that one is more important than the other. They are terribly offended when someone suggests that their issue isn't getting enough attention.
That goes for both sets of issues.
I see it every day here as people flog those they see as the "other side" with it (and use it as a proxy to continue re-fighting the primary).
They are intertwined. You can not have one without the other.
But far too many are more interested in a proxy war over the primaries than actual progress.
I usually don't even comment on this stuff, I made a mistake by doing so this time. I should just stay quiet and continue to trash all the proxy fight threads.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that "economic justice" isn't being discussed.
When people talk about social justice issues, they are talking about the root of economic disparity. They are intertwined - and you seem to think that they are not, or you wouldn't be accusing people of not talking enough about economic issues.
When one talks about women being legislatively being compelled to carry a unplanned pregnancy to term, or is blocked from affordable Rx contraception - that has huge economic ramifications for her, even if minimum wage ceilings aren't talked mentioned.
When one talks about the school to prison pipeline for young black men, that has massive economic implications for families and entire generations, even if Wall Street is not mentioned.
When one talks about deporting a parent who is a law abiding, working head of a household, that involves economic injustice, even if it the discussion doesn't include corporate outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.
When one discusses transgender persons being legally evicted or refused housing based on their gender, that involves economic injustice, even if it doesn't involve rising health care costs.
When one talks about a disabled child not getting the services that they need in public school to get an education, that results in economic injustice, even if the TPP isn't a part of the discussion.
Is that clearer?
romanic
(2,841 posts)It's the "white people are evulz" rhetoric that continues to destroy any meaningful dialogue on those issues.
Isn't it Rush Limbaugh who says this? I don't know anyone who says "white people are evulz."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Seriously?
Listening to Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh?
romanic
(2,841 posts)My first post was snark gone wrong. Lol
I just think intersectional identity politics has done little to progress social issues while causing a rift amongst the left.
I think intersectionality is the only way those in the social justice community can really support each other.
I think it's the resergence of "reverse racism!"/misogyny on the left causing the rift.
Blaming intersectionality for the rift is like blaming Obama for "divisiveness" between left and right...
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Your opinion sound the same as the tea party....
Gothmog
(161,794 posts)Fluke a Snooker
(404 posts)Bottom line: If you are not for the following:
Socialism over capitalism
Globalism over Nationalism over State Rights
Pacifism over Military
Assertive Affirmative Action over Status Quo
Gender Fluidity over Gender Binary attitudes
Black Lives Matter
90% Taxation for millionaires
100% HUD in every community
100% Immigration, no questions asked
The absolute, fundamental transformation of the United States
...then you are not the base, and you can go screw yourself playing with Trump's twitter tweeter
LisaM
(29,115 posts)bemoan the fact that Trump won because people identified with him! I have yet to wrap myself around that little nugget.
The gaslighting of those of us who dearly wanted a woman president will stick with me for a long time. "Identity politics". "A woman, but not THAT woman". "Unnamed socialist democratic male is more of a feminist than the woman candidate". "Don't vote with your vagina".
It goes on and on and yes, if you hear them call for "Bitter, Party of One" at a restaurant, that's probably me!
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)This was truly offensive.
LisaM
(29,115 posts)Or that you found the gaslighting in the 2016 election offensive?
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)That is what was truly offensive to me. Thank-you for reminding us this happened. Thru out the primary we have instances of this behavior. It is not something we should ever stop talking about.
LisaM
(29,115 posts)It took me a while to realize what happened, actually. A classic symptom of what gaslighting is....
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)LBM20
(1,580 posts)race. Voting for someone ONLY because he or she is of a certain race or gender is no reason to vote for him or her. I supported Clinton because I felt she was the more qualified candidate, not just because she was a woman.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)And that was the only reason. Regardless of how many times supporters laid out all the many valid reasons, especially strong support of middle class and working class, we were told by men that her supporters only voted for her because, vagina.
That was never real. But Sanders and his supporters and the right made it real.
Clinton was hands down, and by far, the better candidate.
doc03
(37,722 posts)
David__77
(24,024 posts)There's nothing wrong with seeing the fundamental contradiction in society being of an economic nature, which expresses itself in various forms, including that of racism.
Who's redefining what? Who's hijacking what? People will disagree and there will be a struggle.