Support NeoGAF

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Bingo. Hillary and her voters are the racists of the Dem party, they gotta go...but then again we have a birther in the WH

I'm a racist now because I voted for Hilary?

Hmm

 

[El_Tiguere]

Hey guyzzzz...

First, we DO NOT have capitalism in the US as envisioned by Adam Smith or Keynes. We have a state-sponsored oligarchy, and it has been like this for over 40 years now. If you want to read the actual blueprint for corporations taking over our government since the 1970's (including funding/propping up Third Way Democrats like the Clintons and Obama), look up The Powell Memo. It was the birth of neoliberalism, and it was the beginning of the decline of the American middle and lower classes.

The answer is a candidate that will re-BALANCE the power AWAY from corporate cartels and lobbyists, and towards the American worker. The pendulum has swung MASSIVELY in favor of the wealthy since the 1970's (again, it was a rather coordinated coup by corporations), so all we see in the rejection of the failed status quo as we reach extreme levels of inequality, a severe lack of social mobility, and general anxiety (anxiety reflected in things like our opioid epidemic, and inter-racial tensions).

We also need a candidate, in these times of crisis for so many American families, (as in near 60% don't have $400 to survive the next emergency) that promises BOLD steps to accommodate and favor all those struggling Americans. Health care, education, student debt reform, etc. etc. etc. Who pays for it? how about the corporate welfare queens who have robbed our state of TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of our dollars over the last 4 decades (facilitated by government at every step of the way). Imagine a candidate that promises a bottom up approach to American prosperity for the next 40 years!! Centrists utterly fail in thinking that all these American households have the patience (or the resources) to outlast "pragmatic slow progress" that amounted to SHIT under Clinton and Obama, and was being touted by Clinton as her basic message. She lost. We are at a point in American history when solutions need to happen NOW.

The FAST surge of Corbyn, the enthusiasm of young voters for Bernie and Corbyn, the snoozefest of a centrist Democrat promising the heavens without actually tackling the special interests that run our government... all the indications are clear on where the party needs to be. Corbyn made it despite his very own party, and the UK pro-corporate press. Unfortunately for us in the US, our pro-corporate press and the pro-oligarch Democrats were able to keep a tight lid on the progress Americans under 45 are clamoring for.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I get the joke, drum emoji and all, but the survey didn't include foreign policy except for foreign trade, which, obviously, Sanders supporters hate.

I would uh not be surprised if pride in America correlated with support for murdering foreigners

 

[pigeon]

I would uh not be surprised if pride in America correlated with support for murdering foreigners

This is way less reasonable than banning cars

 

[Cyrano]

I actually think that this is wrong, and its wrong in a way that leaves one vulnerable. Capitalism does not create inequality. Before capitalism, there was feudalism. Before feudalism the ancient world had a hell of a lot of slaves. Capitalism is responsible for inequality; it exacerbates it and fights attempts to improve it, but it is not the source of the class divide. I feel very strongly that this is ultra important to be aware of because whatever social reorganization you propose has to have robust systems for fighting inequality and if you think capitalism is the source of inequality it can be easy to say "we solved capitalism so its not an issue!"

This is effectively the same as saying feudalism also created poor people, and ancient systems created even greater inequalities (though worth noting that slavery is not an ancient but modern issue, meaning capitalism is still creating slavery). Saying that it is responsible for inequality just sounds like mincing words. The next system will have inequalities, that system will create those. But the system is creating those inequalities, which means the system is flawed. I would say fundamentally, primarily because a market-driven system is only beholden to itself, but others would argue that it might be salvaged (probably those who became wealthy because of it).

Additionally, capitalism doesn't really have an answer for what's going to happen as automation makes fewer and fewer jobs available. It assumes work is available, and automation is quickly making more and more work unavailable.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

If Abounder is anything but damn near blue-black I'm bout to be extremely pissed off

 

[Tain]

Do you agree with Bernie that we should stop focusing on "Identity Politics" and focus on the white working class (the only identity that apparently matters).

The exchange in question:

"I want to be the second Latina senator in US history, any tips?"

"It goes without saying, that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans – all of that is ENORMOUSLY important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen. But it is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘hey, I'm a Latina, vote for me.' That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class in this country and is going to take on big-money interests. And one of the struggles that we're going to have...in the Democratic Party is it's not good enough for me to say we have x number of African Americans over here, we have y number of Latinos, we have z number of women, we are a diverse party, a diverse nation. Not good enough! We need that diversity, that goes without saying...Right now we've made some progress in getting into politics. I think we've got 20 women in the Senate now, we need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African Americans. But here is my point – and this is where there's going to be a division within the Democratic Party – it is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I'm a woman, vote for me.' No, that's not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel companies...In other words, one of the struggles that you're going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics. I think it's a step forward in America if you have an African American CEO of some major corporation. But you know what? If that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of this country and exploiting his workers, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot if he's black or white or Latino. I know some people might not agree with me, but that is the fight we're gonna have right now within the Democratic Party. The working class of this country is being decimated. That's why Donald Trump won. And what we need now are candidates who stand with those working people...We need candidates black and white and Latino and gay and male...we need all of that, but we need all of those candidates and public officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy."

This, to me, does not at all sound like Sanders calling for "moving away" from representation, regardless of the headlines that reported this.

 

[plagiarize]

The exchange in question:



This, to me, does not at all sound like Sanders calling for "moving away" from representation, regardless of the headlines that reported this.

He says the DNC need to move beyond identity politics.

Why do they need to do that in order to achieve what he wants? I don't get it.

Why doesn't he also say he wants the woman to fight for equal pay and women's healthcare, when he lists off all the economic issues he wants politicians to address?

I know that to Sanders and many of his supporters this doesn't sound remotely problematic.

But to many of us, it sounds very problematic. So more of his supporters think black people are no less intelligent than white people than Clinton's supporters do. That's genuinely great.

But if they get that black people aren't stupid, then they really need to think long and hard about why black people clearly favored Clinton over Sanders.

 

[pigeon]

This is effectively the same as saying feudalism also created poor people, and ancient systems created even greater inequalities (though worth noting that slavery is not an ancient but modern issue, meaning capitalism is still creating slavery).

...what? The post you're responding to literally notes that slavery existed in ancient societies.

Saying that it is responsible for inequality just sounds like mincing words. The next system will have inequalities, that system will create those. But the system is creating those inequalities, which means the system is flawed.

This does not really seem like you're absorbing Technomancer's point here, which is that phrasing it in this way is bad for your thought process. All societies to date have had major class issues, including several societies specifically founded to reject class division. So saying "let's make a system that doesn't have class division" is all well and good, but, like, implementation details are harder.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The exchange in question:



This, to me, does not at all sound like Sanders calling for "moving away" from representation, regardless of the headlines that reported this.

He's emphasizing that minority does not inherently mean working class. In a vacuum that's fine, but considering how strong the messaging was to repackage working class as specifically white and emphasize how the white working class specifically needs all the attention, it doesn't sound great to minority working class voters,

 

[psyfi]

The left extends far being the Democrats. The people I know are working hard to take care of and defend each other. There's fear, definitely, but not panic.

 

[jakonovski]

He says the DNC need to move beyond identity politics.

Why do they need to do that in order to achieve what he wants? I don't get it.

The idea that America is not solved just by minorities getting involved. You could replace Republicans with a diverse cast of minorities, but if their policies stayed the same, America would still be fucked.

 

[plagiarize]

The idea that America is not solved just by minorities getting involved. You could replace Republicans with a diverse cast of minorities, but if their policies stayed the same, America would still be fucked.

But *beyond*?

When you say to me you want to move beyond identity politics, and then you list some stuff you want a woman to fight for, and that list doesn't include anything addressing the specific problems women still face in today's world...

That sounds to me like you want people to move *beyond* such concerns.

And trust me, I don't think Sanders is sexist. But his messaging is very tone deaf, and he continues to make statements just like this that to white people sound all inclusive, but to minorities sound troubling.

Again, I think he lacks the perspective to see how he comes across... but it doesn't seem like a problem he or his supporters want to address.

 

[pigeon]

The exchange in question:



This, to me, does not at all sound like Sanders calling for "moving away" from representation, regardless of the headlines that reported this.

So I actually don't hate that quote. It's not particularly well-spoken, but it's Bernie. To rephrase, he's making the case that the Democrats are already a party of social justice and need to make sure to promote economic justice more at the same time. Put that way, it's not at all unreasonable. I would even agree!

It's a pretty tone-deaf response to the actual question he was being asked, though, which is clearly from somebody who does think social justice is personally important. It's dumb of him to use the phrase "identity politics" at all when that's a dogwhistle for the right. It's clearly just wrong to say that Trump won because of the working class rather than because of, you know, white racial resentment, which is much closer to the data. But that's not Sanders's preferred narrative.

So he's not wrong on the overall point. He's just also fucking up and saying dumb stuff that pisses off people of color who are afraid the Democratic Party is going to abandon them as they tend to do after every loss. But that's pretty much how Bernie does, so.

 

[plagiarize]

So I actually don't hate that quote. It's not particularly well-spoken, but it's Bernie. To rephrase, he's making the case that the Democrats are already a party of social justice and need to make sure to promote economic justice more at the same time. Put that way, it's not at all unreasonable. I would even agree!

It's a pretty tone-deaf response to the actual question he was being asked, though, which is clearly from somebody who does think social justice is personally important. It's dumb of him to use the phrase "identity politics" at all when that's a dogwhistle for the right. It's clearly just wrong to say that Trump won because of the working class rather than because of, you know, white racial resentment, which is much closer to the data. But that's not Sanders's preferred narrative.

So he's not wrong on the overall point. He's just also fucking up and saying dumb stuff that pisses off people of color who are afraid the Democratic Party is going to abandon them as they tend to do after every loss. But that's pretty much how Bernie does, so.

Precisely.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

FWIW the democratic candidate in 2016 won 124,917 votes and Ossoff won 124,893 despite it being

1) in opposition
2) with the benefit of massive fundraising
3) with a lot of hype from progressive/democratic sources

If it didn't look winnable, then it shouldn't have been positioned as such.

Far fewer people vote in special elections(usually) than in presidential elections so without full numbers of voters for both elections it's hard to take just the democrat vote tallies as comparable data.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I mean I've been shying away from this comparison for various reasons but people are talking about them both so much anyway that the hypocrisy is starting to get annoying. Corbyn outperforming expectations to almost achieve victory cannot be an astonishing energizing comback for the left while every Dem run thus far in a special election, from the Bernielike in Montana to the bank exec in South Carolina, coming close to victory represents a "failure of the centrists". Either Corbyn failed, or Dems are poised for a huge success.

I know you think you've found some "gotcha logic" but

Labour won seats and deprived the tories of a majority and have the potential power to take down the government with other parties

Dems haven't won a thing and have no power

 

[pigeon]

I know you think you've found some "gotcha logic" but

Labour won seats and deprived the tories of a majority and have the potential power to take down the government with other parties

Dems haven't won a thing and have no power

If you admit context matters, you need to admit the context of a bunch of special elections in dark red states that were explicitly chosen to be unwinnable for Dems also matters.

 

[plagiarize]

I know you think you've found some "gotcha logic" but

Labour won seats and deprived the tories of a majority and have the potential power to take down the government with other parties

Dems haven't won a thing and have no power

They won back seats and won the popular vote in 2016.

If we had an election right now, I'm sure the GOP would lose their majority in house at the very least, but the constitution prevents the GOP making a boneheaded mistake and calling an election early like Teresa May did.

 

[The Technomancer]

I know you think you've found some "gotcha logic" but

Labour won seats and deprived the tories of a majority and have the potential power to take down the government with other parties

Dems haven't won a thing and have no power

Because Labour was competing for like 800 seats

And the Democrats have been competing for 4 so far

I saw this on Twitter and it was weird there also. Yes the Democrats have not taken back control after the GOP achieved victory, whereas Labour resurged after the Tories won. That's because, since they achieved victory, there have been four elections in the US to do so

 

[jakonovski]

But *beyond*?

When you say to me you want to move beyond identity politics, and then you list some stuff you want a woman to fight for, and that list doesn't include anything addressing the specific problems women still face in today's world...

That sounds to me like you want people to move *beyond* such concerns.

And trust me, I don't think Sanders is sexist. But his messaging is very tone deaf, and he continues to make statements just like this that to white people sound all inclusive, but to minorities sound troubling.

Again, I think he lacks the perspective to see how he comes across... but it doesn't seem like a problem he or his supporters want to address.

Well he was asked tips for becoming a senator, in that context it's alright. I don't think a minority woman wants tips that minorities' rights need to be tackled. But even if it sucks Bernie is just one guy. He doesn't own leftism.

 

[plagiarize]

Well he was asked tips for becoming a senator, in that context it's alright. I don't think a minority woman wants tips that minorities' rights need to be tackled. But even if it sucks Bernie is just one guy. He doesn't own leftism.

There's no 'if'. He's made similar statements time and again. So has Joe Biden who I prefer over Sanders quite a bit, but who I wish would listen to anyone willing to explain the problem with such statements to him.

Both are old white guys who you can't realistically expect to know this stuff from their own experiences, but you'd hope they'd be able to understand all the same.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The exchange in question:



This, to me, does not at all sound like Sanders calling for "moving away" from representation, regardless of the headlines that reported this.

This is true. Technomancer and Pigeon are misguided here.



What is ironic is that Sanders is for identity politics, but not for the toxic communicative terms as its being directed at in an American style branding. Democratic socialism is about restructuring the concept of solitary.
Sanders is trying to create the seed of opportunity for how helping minorities was achieved in western and north european countries was achived.


What most people on GAF don't understand is that a country like Sweden or Denmark did not go towards equality, and helping the sick, the disabled, the elderly, prisoners, single mothers, immigrants, poor people and so on, because people are any less selfish or racist.
That's a misunderstanding. People in Sweden and Denmark and Norway and Australia and Switzerland are all as self centered and focused on their own self interest as Americans.

The difference is this: When politicians in these countries communicated that they were wanted to help minorities, they knew that the privileged white and powerful was not going to share a lot of their wealth and pay a lot higher taxes without getting something in return.
So focus was always on that the privileged would get all these win-win benefit from sharing the pop. It made sense because even though they had to pay a lot more taxes which would be used for helping the poor and minorities (effectively being identity politics all of its own) they would get benefits themselves; free health care, free education, strong worker unions and protections.

In America when identity politics is discussed it is very angry, antagonizing and doesn't speak in concrete terms about how a lower income miserable white family is going to survive if someone gets sick or how their kids are going to get to college without insane debt. These issues take priority over the issues of minorities, and that is not unique to white Americans. That focus of carring more about your local community and your own family and how you yourself benefit from policy is something you see in every country all over the world, but going by the trajectory here, that is being poised by some (technomancer and pigeon) as some obtuse pie-in-the-sky racist mastermind conspiracy.

Bernie knows you have to create a win-win scenario, but you have a scenario where different factions within the democratic party sees the benefit of other groups as detrimental of their own. Which is not really uncommon in any organization. It shows you that you need a strong leader who can effectively communicate and the different coalitions.

Obama was great at this because he was a great and inspiring orator. People independently felt he talked to their group. There was a lot of compelling reasons for self centered economic opportunity/anxiety whites to vote for Obama given all his talk about wall street, campaign fundraising and inequality. Hench the disappointment in Obama post-election when the rhetoric didn't really measure up to the idealism of senator Obama, which promptly is what sets off a Bernie and a Trump in the first place.
American politics is completely broken and it cannot be repaired because elections are bought and paid for campaigns paved by corporate interests.

 

[Father_Brain]

He says the DNC need to move beyond identity politics.

Why do they need to do that in order to achieve what he wants? I don't get it.

Why doesn't he also say he wants the woman to fight for equal pay and women's healthcare, when he lists off all the economic issues he wants politicians to address?

I know that to Sanders and many of his supporters this doesn't sound remotely problematic.

But to many of us, it sounds very problematic. So more of his supporters think black people are no less intelligent than white people than Clinton's supporters do. That's genuinely great.

But if they get that black people aren't stupid, then they really need to think long and hard about why black people clearly favored Clinton over Sanders.

I'm open to persuasion, since I at least agree that Sanders is frequently tone-deaf on intersectionality, but I have yet to see much more than anecdotal evidence that POC voters were actively put off by Sanders' messaging on race and class, as opposed to his campaign making a pretty feeble effort to reach them that was easily overwhelmed by Clinton's name recognition and longstanding relationships with black communities, combined with the general narrative that Clinton was significantly more electable.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Inconvenient Truths and all. Hillary still thinks superpredator wasn't a racist term, and the polls shows her voters are the racists of the party.

Hilary's voting base is primarily PoC so who are PoC being racist to? White people lol?

 

[pigeon]

What most people on GAF don't understand is that a country like Sweden or Denmark did not go towards equality, and helping the sick, the disabled, the elderly, prisoners, single mothers, immigrants, poor people and so on, because people are any less selfish or racist.
That's a misunderstanding. People in Sweden and Denmark and Norway and Australia and Switzerland are all as self centered and focused on their own self interest as Americans.

The difference is this: When politicians in these countries communicated that they were wanted to help minorities, they knew that the privileged white and powerful was not going to share a lot of their wealth and pay a lot higher taxes without getting something in return.
So focus was always on that the privileged would get all these win-win benefit from sharing the pop. It made sense because even though they had to pay a lot more taxes which would be used for helping the poor and minorities (effectively being identity politics all of its own) they would get benefits themselves; free health care, free education, strong worker unions and protections.

Actually, the difference is that Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are nearly 100% white. There's plenty of evidence that it's much easier to pass social programs in homogenous societies because racism doesn't get in the way.

Australia is a better example. Note that Aborigines had no access to social programs in Australia until the 50s, no self-determination until 1972, and ultimately required programs that explicitly selected for and delivered reparations only to Aborigines in order to benefit. And they're still subject to lots of casual racism and hatred.

 

[Cyrano]

...what? The post you're responding to literally notes that slavery existed in ancient societies.

Yes, but it doesn't note that slavery exists now. It's not an issue that was just happening in the past.

This does not really seem like you're absorbing Technomancer's point here, which is that phrasing it in this way is bad for your thought process. All societies to date have had major class issues, including several societies specifically founded to reject class division. So saying "let's make a system that doesn't have class division" is all well and good, but, like, implementation details are harder.

How is the phrasing bad for my thought process? Is it inaccurate to say systems create things, and that they are not just responsible for them?

Which societies have been created to actually reject class division? Because I'd really like to read that history. Near as I can tell, every society has embraced and even encouraged class division.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

This really goes back to the divide that happened when Bernie ran. I'm over how him and Hillary just couldn't freaking align and ally to be for the greater good (i.e. no Trump victory). Go back to when this rift happened, get their voices heard, represent them, the have them unanimously convince each other that they have to work together.

Give up the idealistic perfect government from both sides. Perfect would be the exact vision that Bernie wanted, or the exact version that Hillary wanted. You. Just. Have. To. Work. Together.

They need to hammer that home or make that the damn slogan even. If you don't work together, you wont win. And they need to hammer that home to any divides that are occuring with their voters.

And the DNC should really reach out more to it's base and make it seem being a democrat is an inclusive thing, because it's a lot more "groupie" on the Republican side imo.

 

[pigeon]

This is true. Technomancer and Pigeon are misguided here.

I literally said the quote is fine!

In America when identity politics is discussed it is very angry, antagonizing and doesn't speak in concrete terms about how a lower income miserable white family is going to survive if someone gets sick or how their kids are going to get to college without insane debt. These issues take priority over the issues of minorities, and that is not unique to white Americans. That focus of carring more about your local community and your own family and how you yourself benefit from policy is something you see in every country all over the world, but going by the trajectory here, that is being poised by some (technomancer and pigeon) as some obtuse pie-in-the-sky racist mastermind conspiracy.

That's a totally absurd reading of what I'm suggesting. You don't seem to have any idea what I'm actually saying, and have constructed a straw man to avoid having to talk about the fact that social justice is a moral issue.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Its not a fucking R+20 district. Trump won it by less than 2 and Price beat a guy who raised 0 dollars.

Midterms are gonna be a bad wakeup call for some of you.

Osoff doubled the Dem vote from the last Mid term election.

Stop comparing Presidential election with mid terms/special elections.

 

[jakonovski]

Actually, the difference is that Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are nearly 100% white. There's plenty of evidence that it's much easier to pass social programs in homogenous societies because racism doesn't get in the way.

Australia is a better example. Note that Aborigines had no access to social programs in Australia until the 50s, no self-determination until 1972, and ultimately required programs that explicitly selected for and delivered reparations only to Aborigines in order to benefit. And they're still subject to lots of casual racism and hatred.

What's the excuse for not trying harder? It's more difficult maybe, but that's not the same as impossible.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes, but it doesn't note that slavery exists now. It's not an issue that was just happening in the past.


How is the phrasing bad for my thought process? Is it inaccurate to say systems create things, and that they are not just responsible for them?

Which societies have been created to actually reject class division? Because I'd really like to read that history. Near as I can tell, every society has embraced and even encouraged class division.

My point is very narrowly and specifically that framing capitalism as the source of inequality can lead to the converse thought, which is that by leaving capitalism one leaves inequality. Its something that's been on my mind as I read about proposals for social organization that don't...sufficiently account for the rise of inequality, seemingly because its not a problem "when man is not pitted against man for the sake of the capitalist overclass" etc etc, in my opinion, but its probably also outside the scope of this thread

 

[The Technomancer]

What's the excuse for not trying harder? It's more difficult maybe, but that's not the same as impossible.

There's no excuse for not trying harder. We should try harder. I actually think the coming anti-Trump backlash wave is a huge opportunity to get through a bunch of progressive stuff that would otherwise face a tremendous amount of friction. But the reasons why things haven't happened yet are usually deeply tied up in the population itself

 

[pigeon]

What's the excuse for not trying harder? It's harder maybe, but that's not the same as impossible.

The "excuse" is that Democrats did try repeatedly and racist whites stopped them. Truman tried to pass universal healthcare in the 40s! Racist southerners helped kill it to avoid integrating hospitals.

Our social programs have actually moved steadily backwards since the 70s, except for the ACA. This is not an accident. The Republicans put together a coalition of whites with racist dogwhistles and told them that social programs needed to be cut to make sure minorities wouldn't benefit. That's exactly what happened.

I'm not offering some justification. I'm explaining why public support for social programs in America is so low. The answer is that many white people don't support social programs if people of color will benefit.

 

[jakonovski]

There's no excuse for not trying harder. We should try harder. I actually think the coming anti-Trump backlash wave is a huge opportunity to get through a bunch of progressive stuff that would otherwise face a tremendous amount of friction. But the reasons why things haven't happened yet are usually deeply tied up in the population itself

Cool. I just wanted to say that because it's really demoralizing when someone says, we can't do this good thing here because there are racists. We need to fight those fuckers.

 

[pigeon]

Cool. I just wanted to say that because it's really demoralizing when someone says, we can't do this good thing here because there are racists. We need to fight those fuckers.

Oh, sure, I agree.

My point is that there's actually a tactical explanation for why social justice became a primary focus for the left -- winning battles over social justice, in the long term, makes economic justice palatable by reducing the opposition to it that comes from institutionalized support for racism. Arguably we are seeing the benefits of this now.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

I'm open to persuasion, since I at least agree that Sanders is frequently tone-deaf on intersectionality, but I have yet to see much more than anecdotal evidence that POC voters were actively put off by Sanders' messaging on race and class, as opposed to his campaign making a pretty feeble effort to reach them that was easily overwhelmed by Clinton's name recognition and longstanding relationships with black communities, combined with the general narrative that Clinton was significantly more electable.

Despite what hillgaf would have you believe Bernie Sanders had a 72% approval rating amoung African Americans last time I checked. The idea that minorities hate Sanders is objectively not true.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...nders-countrys-most-popular-active-politician

 

[Theonik]

Oh, sure, I agree.

My point is that there's actually a tactical explanation for why social justice became a primary focus for the left -- winning battles over social justice, in the long term, makes economic justice palatable by reducing the opposition to it that comes from institutionalized support for racism. Arguably we are seeing the benefits of this now.

This approach only ever lasts a decade or two before the whole system is torn down again. Either you make a wellfare system that targets everyone equally or the people who are not recipients of said system will tear it down. Especially if it's targetted at minorities because it's well, minorities, and thus electorally non-viable by definition.

 

[The Technomancer]

This approach only ever lasts a decade or two before the whole system is torn down again. Either you make a wellfare system that targets everyone equally or the people who are not recipients of said system will tear it down. Especially if it's targetted at minorities because it's well, minorities, and thus electorally non-viable by definition.

The people who are recipients of said system are trying to tear it down anyway because they get it but don't want minorities to. Red states receive the most federal aid

 

[pigeon]

This approach only ever lasts a decade or two before the whole system is torn down again. Either you make a wellfare system that targets everyone equally or the people who are not recipients of said system will tear it down. Especially if it's targetted at minorities because it's well, minorities, and thus electorally non-viable by definition.

We have welfare systems that target everyone equally.

White people target them and destroy them anyway because they want welfare systems that explicitly bypass minorities.

Alternately, they implement them in such a way that they silently bypass and exclude minorities. See the GI Bill.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Actually, the difference is that Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are nearly 100% white. There's plenty of evidence that it's much easier to pass social programs in homogenous societies because racism doesn't get in the way.

While not as diverse as America, Sweden, Denmark and Norway all have between 10 and 20% ethnic minorities today which them in the upper 15 of most diverse countries. Top 10 if you screen away the colonial powers.

Secondly, you're focusing entirely on race, which is not the singular barrier for giving up privilege. Thirdly you're ignoring the actual 100% homogenous socities that are some of the most racist and hostile in the world. You can see that on the eastern flank.

I do have heard what you're talking about, and I am not going to claim that homogeneity doesn't have anything to do with it, but I think you're being unfair if you're not going to give benefit to the doubt of all the other possible factors going into social democratic reform.

That's a totally absurd reading of what I'm suggesting. You don't seem to have any idea what I'm actually saying, and have constructed a straw man to avoid having to talk about the fact that social justice is a moral issue.

I'm not trying to construct a straw man, and if I misunderstand you, I apologize.

Let me reframe:


What I am hearing when I see your post is this: "I love the term identity politics, and I'm willing to burn down everything to keep the term".


What I am saying (and claiming that Bernie is saying) is that we need to move away from the term in communicative efforts and focus on a win-win spiel that gets some of those 90+ million registered voters who couldn't give enough of a fuck to go out and vote.

I hear what you're saying that abandoning minority issues is risking annihilating minorities. I'm not suggesting that is an option. I just don't understand how Bernie wanting to focus on health care, education and inequality reform first is not also to the overwhelming base level benefit of all minorities.

 

[Father_Brain]

Despite what hillgaf would have you believe Bernie Sanders had a 72% approval rating amoung African Americans last time I checked. The idea that minorities hate Sanders is objectively not true.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...nders-countrys-most-popular-active-politician

Right, that's a large part of what I'm referring to. His failure to do better with black voters definitely points to serious weaknesses in his primary campaign, no one should dispute that, but I don't see a lot of evidence that "Sanders wants to throw you under the bus" is a widespread belief outside a disproportionately vocal (and powerful) 8-13% of the party.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Black voters are in here trying to explain the issue and you guys are ignoring us but whatever

What I am hearing when I see your post is this: "I love the term identity politics, and I'm willing to burn down everything to keep the term".

Come the fuck on man

You're clearly not willing to hear what anyone not in agreement with you is saying

 

[jakonovski]

Right, that's a large part of what I'm referring to. His failure to do better with black voters definitely points to serious weaknesses in his primary campaign, no one should dispute that, but I don't see a lot of evidence that "Sanders wants to throw you under the bus" is a widespread belief outside a disproportionately vocal (and powerful) 8-13% of the party.

Ok I gotta know where you got the weirdly specific 8-13% from.

 

[Angelus Errare]

The "excuse" is that Democrats did try repeatedly and racist whites stopped them. Truman tried to pass universal healthcare in the 40s! Racist southerners helped kill it to avoid integrating hospitals.

Our social programs have actually moved steadily backwards since the 70s, except for the ACA. This is not an accident. The Republicans put together a coalition of whites with racist dogwhistles and told them that social programs needed to be cut to make sure minorities wouldn't benefit. That's exactly what happened.

I'm not offering some justification. I'm explaining why public support for social programs in America is so low. The answer is that many white people don't support social programs if people of color will benefit.

Don't forget when America's social welfare system was first it was pretty much only for white Americans for the longest time. And the moment it was granted to African Americans, white America's views on social welfare did a 180 and how conservatives capitalized on that racial animosity. The same views and issue are present current day.

Everyone should read The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty .

Also Dorothy Roberts wrote a thesis on it called "Welfare and the Problem of Black Citizenship" that's worth reading as well.

Black voters are in here trying to explain the issue and you guys are ignoring us but whatever

There are few things more American than "speaking for" black people while ignoring black people. The few things that are more American all deal with dehumanizing or hurting black people in some way.

 

[Theonik]

The people who are recipients of said system are trying to tear it down anyway because they get it but don't want minorities to. Red states receive the most federal aid

That many safe red seats are net benefactors doesn't mean that these voters are occupied by welfare recipients.

We have welfare systems that target everyone equally.

White people target them and destroy them anyway because they want welfare systems that explicitly bypass minorities.

Alternately, they implement them in such a way that they silently bypass and exclude minorities. See the GI Bill.

There's a reason why the GOP's attempts to take down the affordable care act has so far encountered stiff opposition even by republicans you know.

 

[Cyrano]

My point is very narrowly and specifically that framing capitalism as the source of inequality can lead to the converse thought, which is that by leaving capitalism one leaves inequality. Its something that's been on my mind as I read about proposals for social organization that don't...sufficiently account for the rise of inequality, seemingly because its not a problem "when man is not pitted against man for the sake of the capitalist overclass" etc etc, in my opinion, but its probably also outside the scope of this thread

I think that capitalism is creating inequalities, but it is not the only source of them. There are many things that create inequality, and capitalism is a large piece of that given its inherent structure and values, as well as the fact that it girds many of the systemic qualities - it is in many ways the river that also has tributaries of inequality.

 

[Father_Brain]

Ok I gotta know where you got the weirdly specific 8-13% from.

That's the range of the percentage of Democrats with unfavorable views of Sanders, from all the polling I've seen since last December.

 

[Toparaman]

Is it fair to say that Clinton/Pelosi is more socially liberal than Sanders, and Sanders is more economically liberal than Clinton/Pelosi? I feel like that always gets lost in the midst of these conversations. We haven't really had someone prominent (recently) in the Democratic party that embodies the full gamut of liberalism, which is probably why there's so much infighting right now.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

The people who are recipients of said system are trying to tear it down anyway because they get it but don't want minorities to. Red states receive the most federal aid

That is a specific charge. Do you have link you could share showing that exact point? I know the second sentence is true, but I have some doubts about the first sentence.