General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClinton Not Progressive Enough? Depends Upon What You Mean By Progressive
The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard. Women comprise more than half the world’s population, 70% of the world’s poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write. We are the primary caretakers for most of the world’s children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued -- not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.
From Hillary Clinton's Address at the Fourth World Conference in Bejing, 1995
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Considering all those who hold power in our world, from podium to pulpit, here is this woman who had chosen to use her place of power for a greater good.
She is ages beyond what idiocy we hear from those who use their power to suppress, demean, and cruelly delegate the mere existence of the female race to subservient roles in society.
No GOP pastor nor politician we hear today, boasting on about the size of his list of power friends, bank account, nor his great appendage, will ever share the worthy place above them all, that Hillary Rodam Clinton holds forever for the constant work she has done with women's issues worldwide.
She has earned the honor she receives on this worthy issue.
Kudos to Hillary Clinton.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Go after the bankers, shut down Wall Street, etc. They don't care about anything else. They really don't. Social equality, women equality, welfare, none of that matters to them.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)What we really need is a mental realignment. If no American could look at a hungry child and say "That is someone else's child, not mine, so it's not my problem" then we could achieve Western European style socialism, complete with a living wage for all, universal health care, maternity leave. Engels was right when he said that the US would never achieve socialism as long as we could be divided and conquered along ethnic lines. People see a child of the same color suffering, and they care. It matters. They see a child of a different color--say a Black child being attacked by policemen wielding fire hoses in Birmingham---and they either have a political awakening or they switch the channel. We need someone who could not switch the channel.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They are completely and utterly related. There are two ways to produce economic equality, one was is to redistribute from the wealthy to the less wealthy, taxes, which are unpopular as fuck. Not to say not to try redistribution, but it's hard.
The other way to produce economic equality is to work on social policy. This means welfare for impoverished people, this means equality of labor conditions, this means student loan forgiveness, this means many things that aren't "going after bankers or Wall Street." They don't care.
RobertSF
(13 posts)I think the best way to reduce economic inequity (which is what it really is and not "inequality"
is to change how the system does the original distribution. In a society where people are paid fairly according to what they produce, you don't need welfare. In a society that invests in its young, you don't need student loan forgiveness nor student loans for that matter.
The problem with not going after bankers and Wall Street is that it sort of aligns with a misconception too many Americans have, a misconception fed and kept alive by politicians. This misconception is that you can leave the rich just the way they are, not affect them in any way, and somehow lift up the less wealthy. But that is not possible. The rich are as rich as they are precisely because they've managed to effect a wealth transfer from us to them.
We are going to have to put the hurt on the rich if we are to reduce inequity. It's going to have to hurt them.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)They will still have more gold than everyone else and they will still enjoy a very luxurious lifestyle.
Unlike the HURT that the rich continue to inflict more and more with each passing year on the poor, working class, and middle class.
When the rich lobby to pass policies that transfer wealth from the poor to the ridiculously wealthy (which they have done for decades and continue to do today) they actually do hurt many people (and the lack of economic resources actually kills in some cases).
I agree with you that we will need to transfer BACK some of the resources the wealthy have taken, but I disagree that it would hurt them. In many cases it would be money that they would not even be able to spend in this lifetime.
marble falls
(56,996 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)take care of the disabled like my daughter - who cannot talk, cannot walk, needs 24 hour one to one total care and medications? Anyone who thinks we do not need welfare is not in touch with the real world.
I do think that Hillary understands the need for welfare but I have my doubts that she understands that if that people do not have a good paying job that pays for that welfare with their taxes they and the rich pay then there will not be enough money for it.
Hillary is indicating she does not want to go after the banksters and Wall Street and she actually wrote some of the TPP. Like President Obama, who wanted to bring the nation together by working with the gop, she thinks she can play with the banksters and Wall Street and work something out. She is making the same mistake he made and she is making it even before she is nominated.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)No. We "understand" it just fine: economics first, social issues second.
Bill Clinton and President Obama try/tried like hell to cloud the issue, but it's all too clear: If you're for free trade and corporate welfare: You're against the population. All the other issues balance it out only on paper. Social issues don't matter if you can't survive.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)than people, without money family, love and life itself is without value' and I fully reject that thinking. If you are willing to trade civil rights for some profit, you are against the people.
Not sure where you folks picked up this binary world view. At all. I am sure that it is a world view that does not value all human beings equally and which has never benefited minority communities at all.
Money matters most to you. People and equality come a distant second to wealth building for you and your peer group. Straight, white people. 'We got ours but we want more before you get any'.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)And yes, that matters more to me.
I could perhaps argue the opposite of the strawman you seem to have made of me. I could say certain people think social issues matter more because they are economically secure.
I could say that. But I won't.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Student loan forgiveness *is* redistribution of the wealth and someone will pay.
There is no other way than redistribution given the levels of income inequality we are seeing, at or beyond the income inequality of the Gilded Age.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)If you look at something like SNAP for every dollar spent it creates two dollars of economic activity.
Going after the bankers = having a decades long prosecution to arrest a few top guys with mixed results.
Reigning in Wall-Street = more regulations in the style of Dodd-Frank.
Breaking up the banks = Bains' Capital style fire-sale and restructuring of the banks.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Leaving the biggest criminals alone because prosecuting them would be sooooo hard gives the appearance of a two tiered system of justice and leads to more cynicism regarding government.
Sure, if making the American people more cynical than they already are is your aim then leaving the banksters alone is a good plan.
I would think you would want actions that reduce the cynicism of the average person if you wanted them to feel favorable to their government. The average person knows if they screw up to any great extent they will be judged harshly indeed, the appearance of a class of people who suffer no judgement at all for deliberately fucking up the economy of the entire world can do nothing but turn people off to government because it makes government appear completely corrupt.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)If one group--women, Blacks, immigrants--lives in fear and poverty and accepts a less than living wage, then everyone has to accept a less than living wage. And the groups that are not the victims of the "ism" blame the oppressed rather than the employer. That's the current American way.
But, until white folks understand this, they will continue to get mad as hell every time they suffer economically---and sort of feel sad but not let it bother them too much when people of color or unwed mothers or immigrants suffer. Which means that they will never rise much above shit wages themselves.
If people got as mad at the isms as they are at the banks, maybe we could fix this broken system of ours.
meow2u3
(24,757 posts)We should treat the superrich the way most moms and dads treat the selfish kids in the family who refuses to share their most prized possessions with their brothers and/or sisters. Know how moms and dads deal with kids who won't share? They make them share their toys, video games, etc., to teach them not to be selfish, and that selfishness is for small babies, not for big children. Only kids 2 and under, who are too young to share, should be allowed the "It's mine" mentality without being called out on it.
Here's how we can bring this economic inequality to its knees: publicly shame the billionaires--especially the Koch Bros. and the Walton family--who want to fatten their already overbloated net worth by comparing them to tantrum-throwing, toy-hoarding toddlers. Subtly suggest that RW billionares have have arrested emotional development that cause their addiction to wealth, and that conservatism is a sign of stunted emotional development. Imply that RW billionaires have been 2 years old since they were 2. No self-respecting adult would allow toddlers to walk all over them, so why are we in general allowing overgrown toddlers with too much wealth for their own good tell us what to do, think, and feel?
The childish billionaire oligarchs may not get the message, but the voters just might, if not immediately, over time. And no, we can't just preach to the choir; we eventually have to go into enemy-occupied territory to win RW voters over to our side with the message of economic progressivism.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The concept of politics around separated philosophies of social liberalism-economic conservatism currently functions best as rhetoric that obfuscates the damage pro-corporate economic policy is doing to society.
It isn't hard to understand how the pro-corporate view came about in the southern democratic politics post WWII. It isn't hard to understand how in politics success of some politician was copy-catted by others.
So, it isn't hard to see how many democrats got very comfortable with the idea that trying to entice corporations to states and regions to bring about development was a good and permanent thing.
But it isn't permanent. It worked in its context of the pre WWII development of a US that had created great asymmetry in industrialization. It works for some countries because asymmetries exist on a global level. It works for corporations not bound to nations and with no restrictions to trade.
But, that policy doesn't work well anymore for US domestic economy and US standard of living and access to and security of education, health-care, housing, nutrition etc.
And with respect to sovereign rights to control commerce within a national border, for the good of a nation, the policy that promotes TTPT treaty and TTAT&I, that approach puts oligarchs structurally/institutionally in charge of the entire world.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Saudi's all get a stipend. Their society would not be desirable to progressives.
Show me socially equal society that has regressive economic policy, I can't think of one.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Keeping people poor limits their ability to improve their condition on social issues.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Name one fucking state that "keeps people poor," and show how it isn't' social policy.
One state, Scuba. I've given you every country on the planet to make your case. All it takes is one. One.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)No more deregulation of businesses like was done during the Clinton administration.
I don't want to see her "go after" Wall Street but I would like to see more regulation on market activities that generate money for traders but don't really do anything to help the economy. I'd like to see a stock transaction tax.
I'd like to see her pass legislation and speak in favor of unions because if we have unions then the gov't does not have to take from the rich and give to the poor. The workers can do it themselves.
I would like to see her come out for national sick leave and vacation legislation. Pay double time for any work done on Sunday or an hours over 45 in a week.
I would like to see her propose paid mandatory maternity leave, greater tax credits for children, expanded gov't funds for day care and early childhood education. I want to see her reduce the need of people to have an abortion and remove the economic burdens to having a family.
Basically I would like to see her focus on MAKING WORK PAY for those that work. We are losing the middle class. This article is becoming true:
http://www.salon.com/2010/07/27/american_people_obsolete/
If she doesn't address the problems in this article then she's not doing what I'd like her to do.
FINALLY, and the thing I am most worried about Clinton over and the reason I voted for Obama is she just seems way to damn hawkish.
You cannot help the less fortunate when you are picking fights and waging war all over the world.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Social policy is sometimes economic policy, yes-- but economic policy is always, and profoundly, social policy.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The 1% are hollowing out our economy and threatening our stability. Why isn't that a priority?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I hear a lot about reigning in Wall Street but no substantive thing that should happen and that has the votes.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)And we need to campaign for meaningful corporate regulation and an overhaul of the tax system that makes sense. Most politicians are afraid to even broach the subject of taxing the rich at a higher rate but we're not going to fix the problem any other way. We need to stop pretending that we can give businesses "incentives" which will trickle down goodness upon the poor. It does not work, and has only made things worse.
None of that will happen overnight, and none of it will happen unless we have politicians willing to campaign against and shame the ideas that are rotting our democracy.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Why do you think it failed? Because the priority was the ACA. Dodd-Frank wound up being mostly it but with Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 removed, and the Vockler rule added in there.
If they didn't have the votes for the Banking Integrity Act of 2009 should they have just given up on the ACA (social policy) and put their thumbs in their ears?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)or social justice. We need both, and should work to have both, and really, they're intertwined.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)So we put priority on health policy, and got what we could with economic policy.
The result being millions being insured and there being some meager semblance of regulation back in Wall Street.
Now, those achievements should be shouted from the rooftops, but because it was missing two sections from Glass-Steagall nothing good was done, the Democrats are Wall-Street corporate sellouts.
Do you see how this would look to an everyday voter if they heard this kind of pessimism all the time?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)But the Volcker rule is certainly on a precipice, thanks to recent changes in the parties (ie, The Republicans gained seats). You Better Believe It!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)On Thursday, The Times’s Nathaniel Popper reported that Goldman Sachs is using the bank’s money to make big bets in real estate. That appears to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of Dodd-Frank, which aims to avoid bailouts by reducing concentrated risks at banks.
Similarly, the still-unfolding fallout from the unexpected surge this month in the value of the Swiss franc — including huge losses at brokerages and hedge funds — serves as a reminder that certain foreign-exchange derivatives were allowed to escape regulation under Dodd-Frank. The argument against such regulation, as put forth by Obama officials, was that foreign exchange trading is staid and stable, a view that never made sense and that has since been undermined, not only by the volatile Swiss franc episode, but by recent revelations of widespread manipulation of the foreign-exchange market by big banks.
Unfortunately, those regulatory challenges are not the only ways in which Dodd-Frank’s promise has gone unmet. The law required regulators to write hundreds of rules and conduct dozens of studies before the law’s many reforms could be put into place. In the process, some regulators found room to indulge their pro-bank biases. Regulators were also subject to unrelenting pressure — by bank lobbyists; by Republicans, who have been hostile to the law from the start; and by several Democrats, who want credit for passing the law but also want to please their Wall Street contributors.
The result has been delays, weak rules and political setbacks, including budget constraints that impair regulatory enforcement of the law and, recently, the outright repeal of a provision to curb excessive speculation by banks. In a maneuver that hints at things to come, that repeal was achieved by attaching the provision to a spending bill that President Obama and many congressional Democrats said was more important than standing firm on the reform....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/an-uncertain-future-for-dodd-frank.html?_r=0
Facts over fiction used to be what our party was all about. Lets look at what is, and change it for the better, for our country. We need Dems to be Dems once elected to fight the rethugs.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And we go in circles. I didn't say Dodd-Frank went all the way.
The Dems got back in 90% of what the Republicans leveraged away. Rather than shitting on Dems and saying they're not fighting, how about praising them and encouraging them to implement the other 10%?
Oops, that would be too normalized and wouldn't carry water for Republicans, because in the end, we gotta carry water for Republicans to neglect to mention Democrats achievements.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Paying attention to current events helps, but there's no shame in catching up.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It looks like we think it's okay to put more more money in insurance companies' pockets and call it "healthcare", when all we've done is give people crappy health insurance some of them can't afford to use, while leaving millions still uninsured.
It looks like we're so afraid of being seen as politically ineffective that most won't publicly campaign for measures that would help the 99%. We will not succeed in changing things via quiet incremental triangulation. Most politicians follow, not lead. Only by making it politically toxic to keep cutting deals with the people who put corporations over people will we effect change, and trying to "protect" the everyday voter is a recipe for failure. The everyday voter already knows that things are fucked up. Unless we call that out and are honest about where we are and where we need to go and how we can possibly get there, we're going to look like another cog in the system that's oppressing them.
We've been worried that being seen to fail of our aspirations will make us look like "losers". What's far more damaging to the party is that we now look like we're not even willing to try. Spinning our failures as successes does nothing to correct that perception.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)You epitomize why Democrats lose midterms, and it's what Republicans count on. Congratulations. You did it.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)People didn't vote for them in 2014, although they voted for things like minimum wage increases.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)People always vote their pocketbook, or at least what they perceive is most advantageous to it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And if we are engaged in constant wars around the world, the Iraq war that Hillary urged her fellow Democrats to vote for will end up costing over $3,000,000,000,000 that's money which could have gone to the 99% but Hillary had to maintain her political viability and her position as one of the Very Serious People so we spent the money kicking the Middle East fire ant nest..
We may wind up equal but it will be the equality of poverty.
I have several granddaughters and I want them to be equal, I also want them to have a reasonable shot at a decent income. They might get the first with Hillary but she will do nothing for the second.
Equality isn't enough, my granddaughters also require opportunity. We are coming into an age where any job that doesn't require a great deal of human judgment can be done by a machine that doesn't eat, sleep or take breaks, doesn't need health care and does not require a paycheck. It's going to take a complete rethink of the means of distributing the benefits from the machines or the vast majority of humanity will be reduced to a hand to mouth existence at best while those who own the machines that do the production will have riches that would turn Croesus green with envy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I read posts from straight white folks like yourself with a sort of awe. Because you don't even understand how much of my earnings have been unfairly taxed for my entire life due to bigoted tax laws. Because of that inequality, I did not have the opportunity to invest that money or to save it, or to spend it on education or travel or toys. My straight counterparts got those opportunities, but not me.
You don't get it. At all. Without equality, all things are remain unequal, including opportunity, expenses and geographic options. 29 States do not offer protections to some of us in housing or employment. More than half the country is not really open and free to us. You get the whole nation, I get 21 States and the rest are not really available to us.
Jesus. The fact that the majority does this shit to us is bad enough, realizing that they don't even know what they are doing to us is chilling.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Any and all, you might recall I made a positive comment regarding one of your posts pointing out the same or a similar set of facts just recently.
Nations with a more equitable distribution of income tend to also have a more equitable distribution of rights, living in an oligarchy won't make either you or I more free, only less so.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)As long as you have people fighting over the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich, then politicians will be able to divided them over those crumbs, convince them that some group that is really discriminated against is the recipient of special gov't largesse, or is somehow taking what they had from them.
When you make all people more prosperous, then it is harder to divide them over social issues.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)are the countries with the most brutally unjust treatment toward women, LGBT people and those of faiths outside the majority faith. So the equation you make is far from consistent.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"We may wind up equal but it will be the equality of poverty." That's just rhetorical nonsense based on the idea that equality is compartmentalized, that you can get the equality you seek without others getting any equality at all.
It's not binary, equity is not situational nor simply financial, you can not have economic equity with social inequality, it is not possible.
I'm all for more equitable distribution of income, but I sure as fuck don't see that as separate from the equitable distribution of rights and of justice as many of you very clearly do. I also do not see any potential candidate speaking in terms of 'equitable distribution of income' nor about making systemic changes to our economy. What I do see is people rushing to trade away the rights of others for some money, as if that's how you get money, by oppressing others.
You guys who think that social justice is separate from economic justice are incorrect.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That's not my argument but I can see how it can be construed that way.
The oligarchs don't care if there is more social justice, what skin is it off their nose if gays get married or have equal rights (with the other poor people)? On the other hand they do care about economic justice, they want it all for themselves.
In the end we are being divided deliberately and played brilliantly against each other. I'm reminded of this bit of wisdom I read a while back...
I'm not one of those voters.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)about oligarchs. You present rhetoric absent of actual specific policies and continue to behave as if by advocating for equal rights for all I am also advocating for economic injustices.
To trade my legal rights away I require to be shown more than some magical rhetorical beans. Want to make human rights and legal equity 'secondary'? Then tell me what it is specifically that you wish to make the primary concern, a policy not just happy talk.
People who say civil rights don't mean squat next to their priorities need to state exactly what those priorities are. We all dislike oligarchs and we all want a more fair world. Those who make the claim that a more fair world is created by ignoring human rights in favor of fiscal policies need to have very clear fiscal policies and goals, as well as a strong set of reasons why those goals can only be met while being sanguine about civil rights injustices. These people are asking for something large, but they offer no actual reasons to make that trade.
I think of Mel Brooks' quote on comedy and tragedy when I see these priority discussions on DU- "Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
This thread is about Hillary Clinton and my remarks are in relation to the fact I think she is there to distract us with social justice issues while helping the oligarchs solidify their already overwhelming economic dominance.
That was my point on this thread, perhaps I didn't use precise enough language but I learned long ago I'm not going to be understood by everyone all the time and I'm by no means a perfect writer anyway.
MH1
(17,573 posts)Can your candidate win the GE?
These are real questions, not "rhetorical". I'd like to have an option other than Hillary. I'm not seeing one. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
If the Democratic candidate doesn't win the GE, your granddaughters will not only be not equal, they won't have that opportunity you want, either.
Simple math. You want 1 + 1. If your choices are 1 and 0, which do you take?
Obviously if you have a candidate that you think will deliver 1 + 1, then you are going to support that person. More power to you, and I hope that candidate exists and you can help them get to the White House. But who is it? Your post only mentions Hillary's negatives. Who is your candidate and how do their positives contrast with Hillary?
(sorry if you have mentioned your candidate repeatedly on other threads, I don't keep much track of DU posters in my head)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)MH1
(17,573 posts)Speculation surrounds Sanders (not a Dem, right? but I guess he could run as a Dem); Biden; Webb; and a couple others that I can't remember off the top of my head.
Other than Sanders, not a lot of ideological differences in that list.
I don't think Sanders could be elected President in a country that just gave the Senate back to the Republicans. But I could be wrong. Certainly if I see strong enough support for him and it looks like he is serious about running as a Dem, I could support him. Otherwise I would probably support whoever he endorsed.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)You act as if Hillary Clinton or any other "corporatist" Democrat wants to see the world go to shit and everyone lose their jobs to machines or something absurd like that.
It's like some grand conspiracy when in reality all they want to do is what they think is best and, most importantly, viable.
And I guarantee you that getting the votes for SNAP, unemployment, stuff like that, is far far easier than getting the votes for raising taxes on the top 5% or even the top 1%.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They don't know me or my grandchildren or anyone like us and they don't care what happens to us, we are less than the dust beneath the wheels of their armored chauffeured limousines.
Bill and Hillary's grandchildren will want for nothing, they will be taken care of and showered with the best educations and opportunities that my grandchildren can't even dream of.
The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Social issues add up to nary a pinch of monkey shit when it comes to the very survival of the working class.
If this means a civil war within the democratic party, then so be it.
Bernie Sanders rocks.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)See my post above. The American worker has been divided and conquered right out of his/her fair share of the proceeds of his/her labor. As long as there is one group of workers who are so oppressed that they can not get what they are due, every worker's wage will be low----and the workers will blame each other, not the boss. Engels and Marx rock.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I like Bernie as well. Bernie understands the unity of the people and the full meaning of equity, which is not and cannot be merely financial. Bernie understands the financial stresses that have been unfairly heaped on minorities in this country and he understands that social and economic equality are inseparable elements of justice.
Nothing will throw ice water on a more populist movement like rhetoric which is dismissive of vast segments of the populace. Folks who explain that their financial desires are more important than rights for other people are indistinguishable from Republicans. And of course, it's always rights for others, rights they themselves already have, which they see as fodder to be traded away to win them a few dollars more.
People who don't care about my rights and equal standing do not care about me, nor about my household economy, nor about my community. Period.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Desires? You're framing this as as an argument of wanting to be wealthy vs socially open-minded?
No, it's a matter of life or death. social issues matter little to one who has lost their job, home or health.
eridani
(51,907 posts)
nxylas
(6,440 posts)I've never heard of a Sanders or Warren Democrat who doesn't care about equality and social justice. I've come across plenty of Clinton supporters who agree with red state Republicans that it's fine to vote against their economic interests if a candidate holds the correct view on things like abortion and same-sex marriage.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)social justice is secondary to and separate from economic justice. At this point there are no actual candidates with actual platforms, we have only supportive cohorts around certain persons.More than one straight white person in this thread has openly typed that civil rights and social equality don't 'mean squat' to them, their concerns are about finances. It is a Republican meme they present 'Money first, people second' but they wrap it up in verbiage about poverty but the message is 'your rights are of no concern compared to the financial well being of myself and my family'.
I'm sick of straight people speaking as if they understand the lives of others and of them being aggressively dismissive of those unlike themselves when we speak up. There is no way I will go back to that oppressive past just to make money for straights.
I'll gladly vote for Bernie, but Warren's cohort gives me the cold chills. They see Civil Rights as fodder for them to trade for financial rewards. Dangerous.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)The social issues are now the bare minimum requirement that's needed to begin to be considered good for the Democratic Party in my opinion.
I don't understand why so many people can't see that TPTB are using social issues to allow for economic redistribution to the wealthy. There are far too many people who only seem to care about social issues here and within the Democratic Party, and as long as that continues we (the 99%) WILL continue to lose economic resources. It makes it so very simple for the robber barons.
Interestingly, I don't know of a single Democrat who is an economic progressive that is not also socially progressive. If there is one please point them out. On the other hand, there are LOADS of socially liberal Democrats that bow down and cater to Wall Street, the multinational corporations, and the top .1%. It doesn't quite work the other way around.
So, to be clear, I would not provide strong support to a Democrat who was not socially liberal/progressive period. This person would almost certainly not be an economic progressive as well, but ultimately it wouldn't matter for me. The socially liberal positions are the easy parts for a Democratic politician to hold (since a large majority of Americans support these issues). Interestingly enough, the economically progressive positions are ALSO supported by a large majority of Americans (so these should also be easy for Democratic politicians to adopt, but they aren't for some reason, I wonder what reason that could be...).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)being what you deem 'the easy part for Democrats to hold'? I can show you DU threads from '08 in which most Democrats were favorable to civil unions only, equality was impossible, not Biblical, unthinkable and that was on DU.
Is reproductive choice really 'easy' for them to hold to now? It's no longer a 'wedge' or 'hot button'? How did that happen?
Those things did not happen by magic. They were the results of years of political and cultural effort of organizing and of persuasion.
In this Party we have many thousands of people who knew how to do that and got it done. We could do the same for other issues, or others who observe the progress might educate themselves and learn how to make 'hot button wedge third rail issues' into something super easy to support.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is to raise them out of poverty by shifting the flow of money back down to the vast majority of Americans, rather than leaving them in poverty by keeping the money flowing upwards to the rich and corporations.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Economic justice is at the heart of actually addressing most of the social issues that DLC-types claim to care about. If you're only willing to act on these social issues so long as they don't impact the 1%, you aren't a political ally-- you're just a pandering politician.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Cause that is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The disconnect just screams.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)That can not be any farther than from the truth. But how is one supposed to enjoy said social progress when one is struggling to make ends meet?
Living brings a host of priorities than thinking about the long term. A vote is a vote but if it's ineffective, what's the point? Ones mind focuses on what matters, family, children, they're futures. How does all the progressive socialism, of which I'm ecstatic for, how is that to be enjoyed when one's family and self, struggle to put food on the table?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)All these struggling people seem keen on sitting out midterms time and time again, so what is it that is so appealing about Republicans that they let them run roughshot and why isn't the struggle trumping that?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)You are mistaken that a non vote for a Dem equals a vote for Republican, A non vote is a non vote and it happens on both sides, I've witnessed that. So this " if you don't vote Democrat = a vote for Republicans is bullshit.
"keen on sitting out the midterms"? It is painfully plain to see you are not listening. Have a good night.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts) Widget2000
(32 posts)Jesus.
RobertSF
(13 posts)That's just political globetrotting, like when the wealthy fly 1,700 private jets to Davos to eat caviar and talk about the poors.
I guess I'm one of those who expects "progressive" to mean "economically progressive." We need FDR-type politicians, politicians who care about the economic concerns of the working and middle classes. Unfortunately, because we are a plutocracy, because the class of Great Wealth controls our political system, such politicians cannot exist except as tokens allowed to maintain the illusion of democracy.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)And a proWall Street, corporatist DLCer. Pretty much the antithesis of progressive except in a couple social justice issues.
The lower & middle class need real help. We won't get it from HRC.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Saying she is only progressive in a "couple of social justice" issues is like saying Einstein was only smart "in math and science." If all workers stood united, if no one felt so shit upon that he or she was willing accept less than a living wage in order to barely survive, we would all be better off.
Wanna know who was willing to defend the Scotsboro defendants when no one else wanted to be associated with them? The communists. When you understand why only the communists would defy popular prejudice in that case, you will understand the true stakes of "a couple of social justice issues."
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Sept 2012
...But while welfare reform may have initially reduced poverty, it left those still living at that income level worse off than they were before, reaching fewer of them and giving those it did reach less. And our poverty rates didn’t stay low. When they began to rise again, the program couldn’t offer them the support it used to. The recession has been a crystal clear, and incredibly painful, demonstration of this fact.
Dylan Matthews has already taken a look at the claim that millions moved off of welfare’s rolls and poverty was reduced. As he writes, the program’s numbers have steadily fallen since 1996: “Since reform, the rolls have shrunk from 12.6 million to 4.6 million.” The number of people in poverty “fell by 6.4 million people under Clinton, whereas the number of people in poverty increased by 7.4 million between 1981 and 1993 (and the rate went from 14 percent to 15.1 percent).” There is a catch, though. “But it’s worth noting that welfare reform led to a huge spike in extreme poverty, as defined as the number of households making under $2 a day,” Matthews adds.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has done excellent work to track TANF’s failures. “While the official poverty rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceeds its 1996 level,” it reports. “Over the last 16 years, the national TANF caseload has declined by 60 percent, even as poverty and deep poverty have worsened.” In fact, nearly 70 percent of poor families with children received cash assistance in 1996; in 2009, less than 30 percent did. And the families who are able to access benefits aren’t getting much.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169788/clinton-touts-welfare-reform-heres-how-it-failed
And much like Third Way is now saying NAFTA was bad for American workers but the TPP will be good, they're now saying Clinton's Welfare "Reform" should be fixed. Bill Clinton himself is saying it, which clues us in on how his wife will approach the issue...
May 2014
Earlier this week, former President Bill Clinton delivered a 90-minute defense of his economic record, which some are analyzing through the prism of Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign.
But within that defense, Clinton admitted to a big mistake: the five-year time limit on welfare benefits for parents with children.
As Clinton noted, it’s not necessarily a problem when jobs are readily available, but it’s just plain cruel in the middle of a jobs crisis.
"It did far more good than harm. But now, given the changed climate and the aftermath of the crash, the poorest welfare families, about 15% of the total, are worse off. And we should do something for them. And all of us who supported it should admit that … We shouldn’t have a five-year time limit that includes prolonged recessions."
http://ourfuture.org/20140502/bill-clinton-says-big-flaw-in-his-welfare-reform-should-be-fixed
And that "crash" was brought about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was his doing...
Can we really afford another Clinton's supposed caring on social issues? There's what is said while campaigning, and then what is done in office.
They seem to be more in line with Republicans, and it has hurt our country.
Marr
(20,317 posts)issues for all they're worth politically. That cannot legitimately be labelled as support.
David Axelrod's recent revelations on Obama's private vs. public positions on gay marriage is a perfect example. He came around publicly when the public had done all the work to turn it into a winning issue.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)are ALWAYS associated with decreases in empowerment for vulnerable groups.
What you are trying to sell here is not just incompatible with logic. It is incompatible with what we see in the whole of human history.
Neoliberals do not improve the welfare and civil rights status of women annd minorities by dismantling the very democratic and economic systems that make it possible for vulnerable groups to be empowered.
Neoliberalism harms everyone, but it savages vulnerable groups most of all.
http://www.awid.org/Library/Women-Facing-Globalization-The-impact-of-neo-liberal-globalization-on-the-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-of-women
Neoliberalism’s Deleterious Effects on Women
https://genderandsocs13.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/neoliberalisms-deleterious-effects-on-women/
NEOLIBERALISM THRHOUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN
http://focusweb.org/publications/2001/neoliberalism-through-the-eyes-of-women.html
Racial Aspects of Economy are Significant for White House to Address
http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/28/racial-aspects-of-economy-are-significant-for-white-house-to-address
The Astonishing Collapse of Black and Latino Household Wealth
http://www.alternet.org/economy/black-and-latino-household-wealth-has-collapsed
The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf
Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/07/SDT-Wealth-Report_7-26-11_FINAL.pdf
Marr
(20,317 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Then she was SOS.
Has the situation for women in the Middle East and Iraq got better or worse?
eridani
(51,907 posts)If a pregnant woman gets kicked out of her house due to mortgage fraud, but she can still get an abortion? Helpful to be sure, but not nearly adequate.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You don't get to redefine what progressive is. Warhawks and corporatists don't qualify. Period.
Hillary Goldman Sachs MIC Clinton is both. No sale.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Actually, they do more than shit on them. They drive them into grinding poverty and despair, and they murder them. Austerity and looting hurt all human beings, but they harm marginalized groups including women and minorities most of all.
Probably the *most* revolting, dishonest lie of Third Way politicians is their shameless, outrageous claim to be the ones who *especially* care about poor people and women and minorities....even while they are aggressively and relentlessly dismantling the very democratic systems that allow minority groups to be empowered. The growth of authoritarianism and rampant inequality, and the destruction of democratic protections for the people, are NEVER compatible with protection of civil rights for minorities. Look at history, for god's sake. Look at the ACTUAL results of policy.
Hillary stands for the malignant corporatism that is, quite literally, dismantling our Bill of Rights, implementing mass surveillance, criminalizing investigative journalism and whistleblowing, looting the masses into poverty, and protecting a criminal, warmongering elite. Her "trade agreements" are antidemocratic and fascistic at their core, because they are *designed* to allow predatory corporations to override our ability to use our own democratic systems to defend ourselves against predatory corporatism.
Predatory corporatism harms all of us, but it ravages disadvantaged groups most of all.
Women Facing Globalization: The Impact Of Neo-liberal Globalization On The Economic, Social And Cultural Rights Of Women
http://www.awid.org/Library/Women-Facing-Globalization-The-impact-of-neo-liberal-globalization-on-the-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-of-women
Neoliberalism’s Deleterious Effects on Women
https://genderandsocs13.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/neoliberalisms-deleterious-effects-on-women/
NEOLIBERALISM THRHOUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN
http://focusweb.org/publications/2001/neoliberalism-through-the-eyes-of-women.html
Racial Aspects of Economy are Significant for White House to Address
http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/28/racial-aspects-of-economy-are-significant-for-white-house-to-address
The Astonishing Collapse of Black and Latino Household Wealth
http://www.alternet.org/economy/black-and-latino-household-wealth-has-collapsed
The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf
Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/07/SDT-Wealth-Report_7-26-11_FINAL.pdf
The truth is that women and minorities can't afford more corporatism and are already dying because of it. The effects of *continued* corporate warfare on this nation and other nations will be a disaster for all human beings, but *especially* women and minorities.
It's all a viciously cynical rhetorical game, and the corporate propaganda doesn't fly anymore. The Third Way will not protect values of racial *or* gender equality by supporting candidates whose policies are dismantling the very economic and democratic systems that make it possible for women and minorities to be empowered. They certainly won't do it with policies like Obama's and Hillary's that protect bankers, starve schools and communities, grow exploitative industries including private prisons, and militarize the hell out of police in marginalized communities.
If people think things are bad now, just wait until we see the status of women and minorities in this country when we are all working for Third World wages, Hillary's trade agreements have ramped up corporate power and the ability of predatory corporations to override our democratic laws and protections, and dissent in the new corporate America has been crushed.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)They are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Working two jobs going from one low paying job to another low paying job or struggling to make ends meet on SS. When people are struggling to survive they sure as hell aren't going to give a damn about "social policy". Fix the financial inequality and then the people will give a damn about social issues.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Autumn
(44,972 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
aspirant
(3,533 posts)we all repeat the mantra,"we are rich and equal" will poverty disappear?
Autumn
(44,972 posts)who bow down to the MIC, the ones who support endless wars while our infrastructure falls apart , the ones willing to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations and stand for what Wall Street wants going so far as to have a banker darling whipping votes on the senate floor for a big old giveaway to them. Now the "ordinary people" and the middle class get a bone tossed at them once in a while. Not so much he the Poor, the Elderly and the disabled. Hell when is the last time you heard the president or a politician other than Bernie or Liz even mention the poor? Taking care of them should be a "social issues" but it's not. No one, absolutely no one has said "we are too broke to care about "social issues"", other than you.
Fix the financial inequality the rest will follow. Have a nice day.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)disenfranchised. Years of struggle motivated by the stalker known as AIDS and hard labor of organizing politically and creating cultural platforms for progress has brought many victories and many more are within reach. Those who call those victories 'a bone tossed to them' are denigrating the people who accomplished those victories.
Poor LGBT people have all the issues other poor people have, plus the discrimination often faced in employment and housing, discrimination that is perfectly legal in 29 States. So those who claim 'social issues' and 'economic issues' are separate from each other are incorrect and showing how little they know about other people's lives.
Autumn
(44,972 posts)I made no claim that those issues are separate, I believe you can't have one without the other. I believe if the poor don't expand all their energy struggling to survive they will take up the fight on social issues. Just my opinion.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)How much social justice did Hillary's vote for that bring, eh?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)there was social policy gain.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)That's not what I call 'progressive'. These issues trump all the possible progressive positions Hillary may have taken on other fronts.
Phlem
(6,323 posts) winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Support her, don't support her, but don't bullshit us about her being a progressive.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)2+2=5.
Good god, the talking points have grown insulting.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... a placebo that you can feel good about while she starts another war and hands over another chunk of the nation's wealth to the banksters.
Some people are really easily placated. All of your social issue placebo goodies will be pretty useless when you cannot feed your family.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)issue' or a 'hot button' or 'the third rail' and it was not until 2012 that our nominee for President did not openly denigrate the notion of marriage equality both personally and in the name of his God.
Now it's a placebo. That's so insulting to the millions who worked so hard, for so long, in the face of so much hostility to make progress.
In 29 States, your heterodoxy still allows open, legal discrimination against LGBT people in employment. Now tell me how social equality has nothing to do with feeding one's family again. Tell me that LGBT rights are not about economics again. Do you think we have no families, do not need jobs?
Not sure how 'populist' it is to dismiss workplace discrimination as an economic issue.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... who would accept such things as a substitute for economic justice.
I'm very pleased to see gay marriage become an almost universal right almost overnight.
But that has nothing to do with wanting an end to corporations running EVERYTHING. And guess what, the ONLY reason you got your gay rights is CORPORATIONS DON'T CARE ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES, THEY ONLY WANT THE MONEY. And the "wedge issue" stuff is ludicrous when faced with the fact that both parties are overrun with corporatists, HRC for example would, just like her husband, give them every damn thing they want.
mercuryblues
(14,521 posts)progressive enough for me? No. Then again I knew Obama was not either when he ran in '08. I voted for him then and if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. My primary vote is another story. There will never be a candidate that checks all my boxes, nor do I expect one. If Hillary runs and wins the nom she will be a damned site better than any republican nominee.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)and have been for her entire career.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)For instance, a lot of good it does LGBT people to be able to get married in all 50 states, if very few of them can afford the marriage license.
We need someone who will champion economic change.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)We've gotten to the point where we expect Dems to be socially progressive, but economic progressiveness is optional. That should not be the case.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)Both should be a given, with any Democratic candidate.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)We are talking economic issues in this thread, but for straights 'gay marriage' is the entire universe of LGBT equality. What about the lack of protection from discrimination in employment? 29 States, legal to fire LGBT people for being LGBT or to refuse us employment on that basis. Most LGBT people can in fact scrounge up the cash for a marriage license, however to do so most of us need jobs, and equal opportunity and protection in the workplace.
When LGBT people speak for ourselves, many of you just ignore us and proceed to lecture us about ourselves and our lives. It's old and tired.
We can have all the social change we want but if we can't feed, cloth, and house ourselves what good is that?
It's basic math but apparently to complicated for some.
man, someday's the ignorance just blows me away.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Progressive "enough" is a personal judgement.
The most telling part of this whole area of opinion is perhaps that the people on the democratic right worry about how they are perceived by the people on the democratic left.
I think this speaks to the recognition that the democratic right recognizes it needs the progressive left. It feels the pull and isn't particularly comfortable with it.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Lovely pic, two great women.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)She dramatically evolved on same-sex marriage after only 51% of Americans were in favor.
Ramses
(721 posts)Women in this country are still paid 80 cent on the dollar to men. Sex trade and trafficking has exploded around the world. Abortion rights are eroded everyday in this country. Millions of women and female children rely on food stamps in America to survive everyday. Education for girls is being undermined and cheapened by privatization that Hillary supports.
Hillary supported wars that cost America hundreds of billion of dollars that could have gone to support womens rights in this country and worldwide.
Nothing has changed. except for the worse economically, socially, reproductively and politically for women.
charles d
(99 posts)Or any other Republican!
