General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat needs to happen to heal DU's unnecessary "social issues vs. economic issues" divide?
I'm pretty sure almost all of us actually agree that social and economic issues are equally important, and that, whatever things we may have said to each other, we're all on the good side on both sets of issues.
How do we put to rest this notion that there's some sort of competition between the need to fight racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, ethnic/religious bigotry, ableism, and other group oppression issues, on the one hand, and the need to fight corporate control of life?
How does the distrust get healed and the shouting match get brought to an end?
We need dialog...and I don't know how to create it.
This is meant to be a healing/unity thread...having started it, I'm not going to post in it any more, so please don't direct your responses to me as an individual, but to the greater need to put this dispute to rest and bring us all together on the basic spectrum of issues...whichever candidate we might support, whichever priorities each of us might have, whatever particular life and group experiences each of us have lived.
Let those who can teach do so.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)DU would be smarter and better off.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)And both absolutely need to be addressed.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Assuming that the remedies to income inequality will "trickle-down" from the solutions that would help white people is not historically accurate.
Civil rights laws often benefit everyone from the middle-out, and poo-pooing these movements as secondary is both alienating and foolhardy.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I'm listening, what does that refer to?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The proposals that are not things that are "identity politics" like abortion rights, or expanding voting for minorities, or reforming immigration.
Since I'm a woman, my opinion is suspect in this conversation as a "wedge." I'm sure you'll understand.
msongs
(67,336 posts)and, now that you bring up that division, women. thanks!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Black women are the most progressive voters, and limiting their rights to vote hurts everyone. The Supreme Court has been stripping voting reforms, which hurts this voting bloc.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/182457/why-black-women-are-voting-bloc-watch-midterms
The Civil Rights Act had the effect of bringing expanded protections to women, especially white women. Protecting those rights via the Supreme Courts is vital.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
Government work has had the benefit of helping Blacks and women into the middle class. The reactionary Supreme Court and republicans have stripped unions and public workers to the point where Blacks and woman have been harmed by the reduction of the public worker sector. I've never seen a single born-again "populist" on this board support protections for unions and laws for this sector. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/business/public-sector-jobs-vanish-and-blacks-take-blow.html?_r=0
I'm sure since you're such a "big supporter" of socialism and minority groups, you can probably list some of your own. 
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)It's rare to have to wait more than ca couple minutes to vote out in suburbia. Yet in presidential elections the news reports numerous cases of urban precincts with waiting times in the hours.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)"Data shows that the law really did work at preventing voting restrictions: Between 1982 and 2006, the Justice Department blocked more than 700 voting changes on the basis that the changes were discriminatory. But experts say it's hard to say definitively whether all of these new laws would have been blocked if Section 5 had still been in place. The new birth certificate requirements in Arizona and Kansas, for example, would likely have gone forward regardless of the Shelby decision. But Katherine Culliton-González, a senior attorney and director of voter protection for Advancement Project, notes, "There is a heavier concentration of voting restrictions in those states that were previously covered."
Three outliers are Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin, all of which passed or implemented voting restrictions this year, and were never covered under Section 5. But Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's voting rights project, argues that they could have still been influenced by the Supreme Court decision. "When you see half a dozen or more states immediately passing laws to restrict voting after Shelby, that spreads to other parts of the country," he says. "It's not like Vegas. What happens in one state doesn't stay there."
Members of Congress have attempted to introduce legislation that would resurrect the key protections shot down by the Supreme Court, but have not yet been successful. And none of this is great news for Democrats, who could lose the Senate in 2014. On Monday, Vice President Joe Biden denounced the GOP effort and urged Democrats to stand up for voting rights. He said, "If someone had said to me 10 years ago I had to make a pitch for protecting voting rights today, I would have said, 'You got to be kidding.'"
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I thought you'd be Johnny on the spot, what with your urgent concern. 20 minutes later and cat's got your tongue.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)if it's about specific reforms then I wouldn't call it identity politics. but im not sure it is that specific. I will keep listening
cali
(114,904 posts)could ensure that a percentage of those jobs are for women and minorities. Debt free college would obviously benefit women and minority groups as well as others. childcare and family leave are other economic reforms that would benefit women and minorities. Investing in schools is yet another measure that would help.
Liberal/Populist economic reform is the opposite of trickle down.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but because of what you said.
basically you said WHITE MEN need to shut up and sit down. That's your idea for ending a supposed divide.
How about if we just leave instead?
Would you like that? I've crunched the numbers before - white men happen to be a huge part of any Democratic electoral victory (except perhaps in some gerrymandered districts).
But at least then the losing coalition would not be divided.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I don't know what to tell you.
Wait, I do, but it's not appropriate for DU.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It's shit like that that makes me post things like that. If you want to put words in my mouth, that is on you for being dishonest.
White men happen to be a "huge part" of Democratic electoral victories--great. They still need the rest of us in the Democratic coalition too. Because white men vote in even more overwhelming numbers for Republicans.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)maybe you need to listen harder instead of calling people dishonest when they tell you what they think you just said.
When a person (or a group) is told to "listen harder" well presumably that means "speak less".
I was listening, and that is what I heard.
Sorry, for having to whitemansplain that to you.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Because that is what you did in the "paraphrase." If you'd like to appear fair and even-handed in your paraphrases, don't make shit up about what people say.
Your whitemansplaining on DU is the stuff of legends already. No need to cover yourself in further infamy on that score.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)nice listening to you.
I was worried I might not get my MDR of insults today.
You seem to not realize I was using the term whitemansplaining sarcastically since the term is just another way of telling whites and/or males to shut up and fall in line.
leftstreet
(36,097 posts)I'm not sure "listen harder" means "speak less."
Every movement has started with people "listening harder" to what's being said
If men and women in the late 19th century hadn't been listening carefully, they may have thought the Suffragettes a singing group or something
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Given they negatively affect minorities disproportionately
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)know the concerns. that requires listening.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Move factories out of the country. Most factories are in large cities. A large proportion of the people who work in those factories live in the inner cities. When the factories pack up and move to Mexico, etc, those inner city residents either become jobless, or move into the low paying service industries.
They get poorer and poorer. As people become poorer and poorer because of free trade, the demise of unions, the demise of the social safety net, and increased lack of opportunities, the oligarchy become stronger and the lower classes are abused. Civil rights erode. The less rights the lower classes have, the more powerful the oligarchy becomes. It's all tied together, you cannot separate these issues.
There is no country on earth without a measure of economic justice that has strong civil rights. Not a single one.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nothing. take it to the economics, and comfort is there.
amazing
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and ignoring the big picture. PThe more powerful the oligarchy becomes (wider income gap) the more police abuses will increase, because the police are their enforcers. You cannot pretend these issues are unrelated.
One only need look to the third world to see where we are headed.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Racist policing is a huge issue.
So is economic injustice. For black people, too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)These are all good things, but the devil is in the details.
People say that there "could" or "would be" protections for minorities, but most of us who are members of the "other" know that these vague pleasantries don't happen unless we, the members of the groups, fight for them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Economic power is the true power of the oligarchy. They protect their power by quashing civil rights. Taking power back from the oligarchy puts it back in the hands of the 99%. When we the people hold the power, civil rights can be properly addressed. Until that happens, we will keep losing ground.
Bigotry is a tool they use to whip their brownshirts into a froth. Frothing brownshirts will do lots of stupid things for the oligarchy. The brownshirts in this case are the Republican rank and file and the religious right.
Education is the key to lessening bigotry. A persons level of bigotry is inversely proportional to their parents education level. Stupid parents raise stupid kids. Hateful parents raise hateful kids. Education is the key to breaking this cycle.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Phraseology like that makes me nervous. Even the most progressive reforms in US history often razored out women and minorities. It's why we had to have the VRA and CRA.
Historically speaking, if women, gays and minorities (and all of the groups that encompass all of the others) don't look out for our interests, it becomes an afterthought.
JI7
(89,233 posts)and this affects later generations since that is a major source of family assets which help later generations .
also much of the opposition to social programs these days is because of people viewing it as giveaways to minorities .
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And in CA, even with our economic recovery, Blacks and Latinos are not part of the economic uptick and are being removed via evictions and foreclosure from the urban cores.
And no one is going to start caring until it starts happening more to whites, unfortunately. By that time we'll have huge structural damage to our communities and racial segregation to the underserved suburbs.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)They need to stick to your agenda, and if they fail to recognize that you and those like you are the only ones fit to determine what issues count, then they are dismissed as "Third Way." I've seen it a million times here. That's not healing the divide. That's telling them their concerns don't matter, and that the self-entitled see them as less.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But you cannot refute what I am saying.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)The OPP asked how to heal the divide. Your answer is to do what you say. I don't object to your opposition to TPP, which I share. I object to the attitude that your response to division is to tell people what they need to do. If you want to make sure that people do not join you in common cause, that's exactly the way to proceed. I feel pretty certain that most people here who go around acting like they and they along have the answer don't have even the slightest interest in affecting any political or social change. If they did, they would act like they wouldn't spend all their time insulting people they need on their side to enact any change.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Education is the only way for the country to get out of the mess it's in. People need to push their kids to go to college or trade school.
As for the 'divide' I don't believe it really exists. I see it as a 'Third Way®' concoction to divert attention away from their economic policies, which they cannot defend.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)and the genral idea of exspendable lives is all the by-product a oligarchy, the desire by the 1% and their sycophant 10% to live in a Gated World .
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)2. Stop pretending to be a Sanders supporter and damning him with faint praise.
3. Stop conflating a tiny number of Sanders supporters with the Sanders campaign.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Is suspicious to me.
Justice, yes...but, for whom?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)No rational political analyst would EVER try to assert that somehow Bernie Sanders, or someone like Liz Warren for that matter, would ever be less committedly "liberal" on social issues than Hillary Clinton. That's fucking ridiculous. Sanders and Warren are not coming from the wing of the party which brought us triangulation, DOMA, and pandering to "values voters". It's a complete crock.
It's a story that someone invented out of thin air for DU, as near as I can tell, because the actual parameters of the actual political field are not favorable to some imaginary "white male Democratic Party elites out to stop Hillary Clinton's express train of social progress" narrative.
It's on the level of Orwell--- "war is peace"- the idea that somehow the people fighting for a livable min. wage or bank reform or a SPHC system, are the real 1%ers, oppressing the masses.
It wouldn't fly most places, the fact that some people have bought into it in GD doesn't speak well for their grasp on reality.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Not to mention it's much more difficult to play divide and conquer with economic justice, you really only have two groups, the .01% and the rest of us.
If you can separate the white working class and particularly the white male working class from the rest of the working class it's much easier to keep the working class as a whole from realizing that they actually have the power in their hands to be transformative if they would but avail themselves of that power.
A great deal of the nonsense that goes on around here is about keeping the working class divided for the economic benefit of the 0.01%.
LuvNewcastle
(16,834 posts)The vast majority of DU care just as much about economic issues as they do social issues. This shit we're seeing from a few here is meant to divide us. The 1 percent has been playing this game for a very long time, and they know which buttons to push to keep us squabbling with each other.
Just because we might not like the other candidate doesn't mean we have to dislike all that candidate's supporters. There's no need to make up a bunch of shit about the other side's motivations behind their support of the other candidate. I've joined in such discussions before, but I'm not going to do it anymore.
Whatever I think about another candidate, I must also keep in mind that their supporters are mostly just poor slobs like me who are doing what they think is best to shape the future. We'll see how it turns out, but we need to make sure that in the process we don't inflict wounds on others that will never heal.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in years took place when the majority community finally stopped discriminating against same sex couples. The paying of those benefits is in fact costly, and the massive amount of wealth ripped off from us under the bigoted rules was massive.
But you say it does not cost, so your straight white male culture does not really care. What utter bullshit.
You say this on DU all the time, you have been asked to support this bullshit theory of yours over and over and instead you just repeat it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Republican party does it constantly and we remark on it here on DU a lot, it doesn't seem to be remotely controversial.
Why is it so difficult to accept that the Democrats might be doing something similar?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's your theory. Back it up. I countered it with specifics. You dismissed everything I said out of hand then demanded that I accept what you are declaring. So rude and privileged. Arrogant.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)So many things are a matter of perspective.
I pointed out that Republicans use social issues to distract from economic ones and they do it constantly, do you disagree with this?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)as a person. You don't have an intelligent response so you lash out. What about the cost of the largest expansion of Social Security in our lifetimes so far?
Then there's ENDA. If none of this matters to anyone, why can't you get your straights to pass ENDA? If it's all about money and 'the PTB' don't care about it, why does ENDA languish since the 70's?
The fact that you feel free to insult me because I speak my mind and you can't win in fair debate is not surprising. It's indicative.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)acknowledge the largest expansion of Social Security benefits in our lifetime? That was a huge progressive victory that any progressive should feel good about, a wrong has been corrected, justice created where injustice had ruled. But I mention it and you can't even discuss it. You should be celebrating it. Instead you claim it was free and no one cared about it anyway.
Just freaky and contradictory.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Literallly. The attitude around here is basically, "What benefits other people is a wedge issue, what benefits me is important."
Sounds kinda familiar...hmm...
Did someone call for a tea party?
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Pardon my ignorance, I was aware that SS was expanded at all, in fact it appears to have taken a beating with the smaller COLAs...
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. As a result, Social Security is no longer prevented from recognizing same-sex marriages in determining entitlement to Social Security benefits or eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments.
We can also recognize some non-marital legal same-sex relationships (such as civil unions and domestic partnerships) as marriages for purposes of determining entitlement to Social Security and Medicare benefits.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples.
Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. By defining "spouse" and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers (18 U. S. C. §115), laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.[1]:23–24
Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA's repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional and that although the administration would continue to enforce the law while it existed, it would no longer defend the law in court. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[1]
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)I was thinking only of the death benefit, forgot about the entitlement to a spouses SS benefits.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's not me bartering anything, that would be your elected representatives.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)might be doing something similar?"
Of course they are doing the same thing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It costs them power.
When we have social justice, the 99% hold the power. In an oligarchy, social justice must be quashed for the billionaire class to hold onto power. This is why we are seeing reversals of the voting and civil rights acts. It is an oligarchist power grab. This is how it works in the third world where the oligarchies hold the power and the governments are subservient to them.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Your first line is disgusting and vile.
Furthermore, not everything in life is an (economic) class war. I don't see how having more money protects women, LGBTs, or persons of color from violence - violence committed by the state, violence committed by men, violence committed by straights. I don't see societal discrimination ending simply by one giving everyone more money.
And in any case, I know what this about. It's about some (mostly) straight white men feeling entitled to their privileged status. They assume everyone is equally as concerned with the relative privilege of straight white men, and will act accordingly. Sorry, no can do.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the 0.01% and the rest of us? Seriously?
Consider the Bush tax cuts then. Who got most of them, by far? The 0.01% or the "rest of us"?
Do you really think that somebody at the 99.4th percentile (for example) is part of the "working class"?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You nailed it. You described exactly what is happening, and obviously so.
And since it is clearly manufactured and inconsistent with reality, it can't be "healed." It must simply be rejected as the obvious "2+2=5" manipulation that it is.
We have a clear campaign theme going on here: manipulation versus honesty.
Corporate advertising and manipulation versus a representative democratic process.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
Thanks!Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)A handful of posters making repetitive, nearly identical OP's as bait. It's disgusting.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The 'Third Way®' want us to ignore their economic policies. This has been going on since Obama won in one form or another.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)To be a Democrat, I believe it is fully assumed you support social justice; in other words, I don't think it is possible NOT to support social justice and still honestly be a Democrat. And, it is a yawning divide between Republicans and Democrats.
The divide WITHIN the party is not over social justice, it is over economic policies as represented by the liberal/progressive camp and the Third Way moderate Republican camp. The attempt by the latter to pretend the former do not care about social justice is a joke.
TBF
(31,991 posts)Anytime I see very divisive subjects on DU I wonder if the idea is coming out of a war room maintained by the Koch Bros.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but I think it IS a real division, and one that some people are vested in.
Clearly, if you are one of the favored groups, then this division - putting your issues ahead of all others, is the way things ought to be.
I don't really fault people on this - if you've got skin in the game, then you've got skin in the game.
In fact those who are not happy with the way things are, are probably a huge minority and we are gonna get rolled in this primary.
Ironically enough, the main reason we won last time was because of identity politics - our supposed champion was a black guy, and he turned out to be a Trojan Horse anyway. Perhaps Bernie wouldn't be a Trojan Horse, but I am not sanguine about his chances or about what that would do to the party if he was at the top of the ticket.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)One thing I love about supporting Bernie, my game is always complete, and real, because it can be.
Bernie Sanders on Civil Rights
Does supporting ^^this^^ agenda somehow make me a misogynistic white trash racist homophobe, despite the fact that I am a mixed race LGBT feminist woman?
War is not fucking peace, and those who spout word salad sandwiches trying to prove War is Peace™ need get over it, and light out and look around and see if they can find a life at the end of the tunnel.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Trickledown, race to the bottom, free market supporters here.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I see it done on a regular basis (and no I'm not going to spend my time searching for links. Today will be a very busy day, and this is common enough that if you don't see it, you're probably part of the problem.)
It looks like this: Example of racism, sexism, privilege, homophobia, whatever is shown, and people say, "No, that's not really racism (or whatever)" who NEVER seem to see ANY examples of racism (or whatever) as racism (or whatever.) We do notice patterns, just like you do. Or when we're called "the perputually outraged." We are not perpetually outraged, and if we do get outraged over something, it probably warrrants it. If you aren't outraged over injustice, maybe you're the problem. Or "you're just a disruptor helping the 1%." (See above.) No, we aren't. We have legitimate concerns about our society.
From what I've seen of Bernie Sanders, he seems to care about social issues. But my God you wouldn't know it from how many of the Sanders supporters here respond to social issues. And it makes me question his campaign when I see so many of his supporters dismiss social issues in the above ways, or other ways. (And no, not all Sanders supporters. . .)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Bernie Sanders' history in the Congress speaks for itself. The asshats on DU who wrap themselves up on Bernie bunting to snipe at others previously did the same attacks under the Elizabeth Warren Banner. Those are people who exploit persons as rhetorical devices. They are not supporting that candidate but using the candidate to prop up their own line of crapola.
People who are aggressively promoting a piece of bullshit often aggressively tie their own bullshit to famous people, candidates, artists.
cali
(114,904 posts)record on social justice.
Your post is nonsense. I could depict Clinton supporters here most unflattering based on the ugly, hateful and sick posts of a handful here. I prefer not to join you on that particular low road
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But it's more than a handful. When I see a post dismissing social issues, it seems to almost always to always have a Bernie Sanders logo somewhere.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)long as "socially liberal (or really moderate and mainstream)" is forwarded.
Fiscally and militarily conservative is not acceptable as long as the politician isn't retrograde socially.
Economics has been dismissed for a generation and it has only made matters worse for the socially disadvantaged.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)say "class, not race" and "class, not gender." But mainly "class, not race." that classisim is the only real thing that affects people in any substantial way, that wealthy people of color can't oppressed, etc. This is more of the same bullshit.
Both social and economic justice are important, but social justice is every bit as important.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)men do not help. They manufacture this bullshit divide out of thin air. You have only straight white men claiming that there is a competition between classes of issues and insisting that civil rights and equality don't matter much and that should tell you something very basic. I could if I wanted to name the handful of men who do this baiting, bullying and bullshitting.
The same OP, every few weeks repeated. Posed as a question 'Can we just have an honest conversation???' Then it's 'civil rights really don't matter much. And a month later, straight white guy will post virtually identical OP's. Why do you think that is?
They say 'rights don't get you a job' then an LGBT person points out the legal job discrimination we want to end and they say nothing. They don't even try to address that fact. It's a cold fact to chew on for the 'social VS economic' people. LGBT seek workplace nondiscrimination, have been seeking it since forever, in Congress since 1978 and yet people here say 'PTB don't care about social issues, they don't cost them much'. So why no ENDA? If they don't care because it is so cheap, why can't YOU STRAIGHTS just pass ENDA?
Cake and eat it too idiots being baited by a handful of bigots. DU is not worth it.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Honestly it just seems like some want to divide and conquer and confuse others into "teams" or something. What the fuck is that going to accomplish other than brownie points in an online pissing contest?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)while using tropes that dupe many other straight white folks.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)divisive and offensive to those of us who are passionate about social justice would be a good start. Oh, he said some shit railing against capitalism? Big fucking deal. All modern popes have.
Meanwhile he heads an organization which has amassed billions in cash and assets and uses it to work very hard to restrict the rights of LGBT and women around the world.
When people here put that asshole on a pedestal and act as if he's a friend of liberals it cuts deep. And then when they try to force us to declare that we agree with that one thing he said about an economic issue, I want to scream. Would you post a meme including a lovely image of David Duke and one thing he said you agree with and try to force POC to say they agree? Nope. Fuck that.
That's my $.02.
cali
(114,904 posts)with the vile Fellowship, a totally sick homophobic fundamentalist group, and her supporters here have no problem with that.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)This isn't about Hillary or Bernie. Bernie isn't the only Democrat to put that asshole on a pedestal. DU has been doing that long before Bernie announced.
I have a "problem with" ANYONE in politics cozying up with the religious right so stop trying to put words in my mouth.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)PeaceNikki, do you want Roman Catholics to vote for Democratic candidates or are you writing them off?
Like it or not Pope Francis is pretty much in lockstep with most progressives on economic justice, environmental issues and issues of war and peace.
A simple, "I agree with the pope on these issues and I'm happy he's raising them even though I do not agree with him and the official stand of the church on women's rights, gay rights, abortion and birth control" would be more productive than disparaging the spiritual leader of millions of people.
Most Catholics, by the way, would probably agree with you.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)being stripped from me.
Honest to fuck, that's unreal.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)That's why I think it is unproductive to make inflammatory comments that will offend Catholics or any other groups that are persuadable voters. I am personally terrified of the future under another Republican president. The last one nearly broke this country. So yeah, I am in favor of coalitions, even with people I don't agree with on every issue.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)but if I can turn an election by saying "fuck the RCC", I'm like Wonder Woman.
Fuck the RCC.
And if a single Democrat tips the scale and votes Republican because DU or I personally didn't kiss their asses enough, fuck them, too.
Did you see this bullshit?
"Cardinal: Abortion is bigger sin than priest abuse"
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)that would help. There are DLC Democrats and progressive Democrats and everything in between. And as with all things that involve people, there are differences. There are some things that are more important to voters than others--whether you or I agree with that stance or not. Yes, all things are intertwined in the fabric of politics and capitalism and social issues but some people choose to focus on the thing that matters most to them.
For example, I'm really focused on the Supreme Court for the next election. IMO, it's the most important issue because the cases they rule on can have effects long past the time I live. As we've seen with Citizens United, some of those decisions can be detrimental to all the social and economic issues we care so much about. If you look at a lot of cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on recently, you can see how their decisions are effecting economics by not protecting the rights of our most vulnerable citizens and how those decisions are going to affect the outcome of future political races.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Cosign your last sentence. We won't even really have unions anymore if some of these cases I'm watching succeed.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Or it will be the start of our long road of remediation towards stabilization.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I'm convinced that what we are seeing is fad progressivism by the same crowd who always tears down Democrats "from the Left" while using the same arguments and language as the far Right. It's almost as if the latter, in combination with their perspective being hopelessly privileged and provincial, is what gives them awy.
"Progressives." Yeah Right.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)some well earned pushback on the failed ideology they profit from..."socially liberal (but often more like moderate or mainstream really) but fiscally conservative which often is economic neofeudalist pretty consistently accompanied by hawkish or hawk tolerant on military matters) and most recently have morphed into disinterested or even openly disdainful of civil liberties.
Healing will take place when the "moderate Republicans" moderate their own toxic party and stop trying to assimilate ours and remake it in their broken image or we unconditionally surrender and get behind a more inclusive version of Reaganism.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Sounds like a lot of straight, white, male people who think "social issues" are a "distraction" or "unnecessarily divisive."
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)Because I don't have any idea how you extracted any such from what I said.
Turd Way desperation talking points of nonsensical dishonesty.
alc
(1,151 posts)I understand that DU is not the Democrat party, but a subset of Democrats. And that certain opinions are not tolerated here even if they are held by many D politicians and voters.
But it seems like a good idea to keep friends (e.g. those who will vote together in the general) even if they only agree on 1/2 the issues. Maybe the discussions here will change their mind on the other issues. Or maybe the discussions will give them ideas they can use to convince others to vote for the D in the general. Electing the President doesn't necessarily take compromise on one side or the other. Getting control of Congress means electing Ds in some areas based on social issues and other areas on economic issues and often the D will look more like an R on the other issues because that's what the district looks like. Those "split districts" are places DU should want members from and should work on making those "split individuals" feel comfortable and able to volunteer or discuss in their community and make other voters feel comfortable voting D even if they only agree with 1/2 the party's objectives.
I don't think distrust is the issue. It's lack of respect. If we're working together towards similar goals (electing Ds) there can be disagreement and respect for ideas that we disagree with (though some individuals do not deserve respect). Disagreement can be healthy since when we go outside of DU we need to know how to interact with people who disagree with us.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)We're never going to heal a divide that we misdiagnose.
Lyric
(12,675 posts)However shall they survive under such oppressive conditions as they are subject to here in the white-man-hating USA?
Let me go gather the other impoverished, abandoned mothers here in my trailer park, so we can cry into our food stamps for the suffering of the white American man.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)NOTSAFEFORWORK
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)speak out for social justice. there is a lot to be said, with what you ask, in your OP. now. just look at the replies and the ugliness and dismissal.
so, when people like i jump into the conversation, being discussed by you and others and say... look at the sanders supporters, and how on the one hand they say it is equal, yet in all ways dismiss it and try to make the subject null and void.
just a start to the process of an honest discussion
just a start.
now. who will hook up on my post and mock, scorn, ridicule and insult me. i wonder
alarimer
(16,245 posts)The whole "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" position is bullshit. You cannot have social justice without economic justice. Many, if not most, social issues have a economic component.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and they are dismissed. a couple three, four examples.
taylor swift talking misogyny. she certainly is economically comforted. populist comment? how dare she gripe about misogyny within her industry. she has hers. she needs to shut the fuck up.
the actress at 37 yrs old told she was too old to be a love interest of a 55 yr old man. misogyny with her industry. again. told to shut the fuck up. she has hers. what is she gripping about.
chris rock. economically comforted. repeatedly pulled over and in todays world? a very real possibility of being shot by a cop.
one of our posters, a black man, that has arrived in economic comfort. his daughter can look out the window and see the country club, but cannot participate in a class bday party in that country club. while the poor white kids were able to be a part of this peer bday party.
he.... was scorned, daughter was ridiculed, whining about not being able to go to a mere bday party.
there are endless examples i have seen in just a couple weeks where economic justice has been met. and social justice is STILL in the toilet.
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)one of our posters, a black man, that has arrived in economic comfort. his daughter can look out the window and see the country club, but cannot participate in a class bday party in that country club. while the poor white kids were able to be a part of this peer bday party
Especially when they quote MLK and pat us on the head and say 'that's all over now'.
Uh - yeah - uh - and I'm just gonna go do my tps report now. Or maybe go see Jurassic World this summer . . .
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)youth.
i called it. it was obvious to those of us paying attention who was listening to sanders. it was OBVIOUS to those of us paying attention in order for sanders to take off, he was gonna have to be more inclusive.
you know. as a supporter.
now, tell me, how well did that conversation work for me.
you and others continually dismiss the supreme court, a third of our govt, as you say you think social is equal. we have an argument why the supreme crt will be the most effective, and fast producing right to oh... WOMEN who are not covered in our constitution PER a supreme crt justice. and gays looking for some basic human rights. i know, i know.... this does not effect you white middle class men and our young privileged, educated white guys.
but, the rest of us get really pissed te number of times you tell me that our supreme crt does not matter, ken, which you did in an OP yesterday.
hence, anomosity from people like me, as i have been very expressive over the last three weeks
as people make comments a sander hater, clinton supporter, puma, divider, troll and so many many more.
what to do?
piece of cake this one. ya think? if you really see the desired effect to be inclusive, what would one do?
talk exclusivey about the economy and making it better for middle class and our privileged university students?
or passionately, as passionately as you talk about peoples $, talk about the blacks BEING GUNNED DOWN IN OUR STREETS, by the POLICE.
or the stupid ass senator in texas passing a law that a DEAD fetus must stay in a womans uterus if it does not naturally abort, cause after 20 weeks she is not allowed to abort.
you KNOW how sick that is?
not just wrong but SICK!
none of this is hard. hardcore sander supporters can keep calling me names and everything else, but, .... i am right. you are wrong
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and leave it at that
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)I didn't see it . . .
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)another. i do not cotton to being dismissed so easily.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026727626
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)I think I trashed it because the bickering between Sanders and Clinton supporters is getting to be over the top and a lot of folks get 'all up in their feelings' as my 16 year old niece likes to say!
Not paying attention to what is happening in the lower courts and local elections - and looking at how close the Republicans came in Pennsylvania in 2012 to dismantling voting rights is foolish. Saying it will all be decided by 2016 - shows me someone who thinks Roe V. Wade has legislation behind it and that the VRA is secure and snug as a bug. It also kind of tells me that well - my vote must not count for much if they are willing to leave me here in North East Republican Hell, paying close to 10K in property taxes alone - without a voice in anything.
Voting rights impacts things as simple as voting in my school board election - but perhaps it will all be wrapped up snug as a bug in 2016 and we will never have these worries again?
Oh seabeyond - now is the time for us both to say fiddle dee and go have some barbecue because well . . . that's pretty much the scenario with a 20/25 year tenure or two on the SCOTUS.
The Republicans have effectively take control of local and state governments and these folks are forgetting that they are ALL about local and state governments and Fed Gov not 'treading on them'.
*sigh*
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so do we just roll over in a submissive behavior and pee all over ourselves. or do we say, been ignoring the states. better fuckin pull our head out of our address and start implementing what we need to, to better bring balance ot the nation.
a couple months ago i had to take niece out of state to get abortion. and learned so much in that experience. for the oppressed, we KNOW, they are coming from us.
putting ALL efforts in our federal to become a denmark is not gonna cut it. we have to go after the states and the supreme crt.
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)In 2016. I'm about 85% of the way there.
I can't wait for other people to help me in Christies' hell. We've got to help ourselves - and getting these networks in play now will help us in our defiance should the Republicans win everything in 2016.
Call me Harriet - because if she could flip 'em the bird - so can I. 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am so with you woman. you, can be out front. me? i have to be behind, organizing and pushing lol. much much too blunt. and i like it that way.
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)
My new thing? Litter. We helped fund some of our neighbors getting signs - but there are a whole bunch of people that are going to be putting up no litter signs this weekend on our properties.
And after cleaning out the sandbox at a park last weekend? I'm fit to be tied. We have a full time police force for our town of 4500 and they need to get off their frigging asses and get a bead on that park at night.
That's where the heroin is being done. Unacceptable that a little kid got stuck by a needle early last week.
What the hell are they doing with my taxes?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I was a homeless street kids for years, and scratched and clawed my way through college in spite of my circumstances. If I could get through it, anyone can. I work in a state college. Probably 1/4 of the students are recent immigrants who have nothing but a strong determination to make it.
Labeling college 'elite' or 'privileged' is a misnomer. College is the way out for this society. Ones level of bigotry is inversely proportional to their parents education level, particularly secondary education AKA college. The only way to get lasting social justice in this country, besides ending free trade which wipes out minority economic opportunities, is getting as many kids as possible into college.
I will have to assume you are talking about 'Harvard' and other Ivy league schools? A person should never, ever discourage folks from going to college. Education is the ticket in this country and anyone can do it if they want it badly enough.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)board with sanders. another issue he has. he should have them all. he does not. the minority and oppressed know even with a college degree they will have to concern themselves being shot in the back by a cop and go to another state to receive a LEGAL medical procedure or have the threat of carrying a dead fetus in their uterus cause it did not naturALLY abort and they are not allowed an abortion after 20 weeks.
who is HEARING sanders is the upper middle class, liberal university student, sittin in privilege.
i have two boys that sit in that world. all their friends.
i love these boys
it is their reality
it is NOT an insult.
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)Is that it ignores that many of our urban and rural 'kids' didn't have the same QUALITY of education that the posh kids have.
I live in the 6th wealthiest county in America. A large part of my local property taxes goes towards education - and I gladly pay it. I'm certain our weakest students could succeed at the University level with tutoring and extra help - because if they came all the way through from primary school - they received a solid foundation.
It's Fall 2017 - and those Sophomores today are ready to be college Freshman.
Down the road in Camden and Newark - I'm not certain they are - because from grade school on - those kids' educational needs were neglected by we the people. I do know several young women though - that have been able to a make a nice living doing metal restoration work, and custom design with a UNESCO certified restoration specialist and juried artist who does commercial work. We are talking the first one coming through and making 80K at year at 25. It's not that she wasn't bright - she was. There was just shit in the hands for her in the early 1990's when she was in grade school. She didn't get the right foundation.
So - someone reached out and helped her 'start where she was at'.
We can't neglect our trades. We need to throw money into that beginning Fall 2017 - so those kids graduating can attend trade schools that will enable them to make solid salaries, so they can pay taxes, so we can grow the economy.
Waiting another 4 years for their peers to graduate is waiting too long. And truthfully their peers may turn out to be brilliant CPAs who don't know a wrench from an anvil and they are going to NEED them for - like - the most basic of things. So for the kids who were neglected by we the people - we need to start where they are at.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)there really is so much we can do. and as you say. it is going to take local and working our way up. we have ignored the local and up, too much.
our educational system is good, regardless of what others want to say. i know others like yours is better. but, ours is solid and the opportunity is there. right next door, louisanna, what jindal has done to the education that was already horrible, is amazing. not in a good way.
my son goes to university there. he sees such a difference in the new orleans education, vs what he had.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Education is the key to everything.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)DU is an aggregator of ideas, thoughts, and news stories.
Focusing on our local elections and "my backyard activism" doesn't require agreement with anyone at DU on approach/thoughts.
Really - we aren't changing each other here - right?
You gave a really high level topic for discussion - and a good one. . . But people still brought it down to their candidate and how their feelings are being hurt by words on a computer screen.
Just ignore the nonsense, block the groups you don't agree with and don't click on the threads of screen names you personally feel to be toxic. Problem solve - fixed the newell post.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that they are one and hte same, they are dismissing the issue without any real thought. most likely to validate their position.
example.
the number of time this has been discussed and the number of times it has been pointed out how with economic security does not come with social justice, in minorities very real life.
you dismiss the very real reality so many democratic voters live, and we will shrug and say, ... you do not have our back. regardless of the number of times you verbally insist you do.
cause you are not gonna be believed.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That has social justice.
There are none.
When I was in Brazil a few years ago, we were on a tour of a Favela slum in Rio. From the Favela we could see rich areas with their gleaming high rise towers and fancy houses and stores.
I asked the tour guide how are those people so rich and everybody else so poor? "They went to college" was her answer. In that country, it is nearly impossible for a poor person to get into college.
In nordic countries, where college is free, there is very little income disparity.
You cannot separate economic from social justice, because the two are intrinsically tied together.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)economic justice and how it was best for all
that is an example of the pat on the head i am talking about.
as blacks are concerned being shot in the back by cops and women have to go to another state for a legal medical procedure.
i am ALL for economic justice. HENCE, me supporting sanders. i am ASKING you to bring social justice to the table and so far, you have not
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That have social justice. None.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)economic populist say it repeatedly to me.
over and over and over again.
so
if i state this is sanders supporters position, do not ask me for a link. it is right here. and if i say it is going to be a problem for his campaign, if minorities are not listened to. do not call me a Clinton supporter.
cause really. yawl do not want to hear it.
dont listen. and we will shrug and take our vote elsewhere. cause we get it.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)So everybody just needs to take your word for it, I guess. 
I'm voting for Hillary Clinton too, but I don't feel the need to be so arrogant and condescending to Sanders supporters. You're doing nothing but making enemies and creating hard feelings.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You keep going back to Sanders, but Sanders is not the problem. There is no 'civil rights vs economic rights' issue. It isn't an either or proposition.
Take your vote elsewhere, but you are just cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am white and in the right economic position to benefit the most.
i was going beyond selfish. silly me.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Economic justice only helps 'white people'? Thus inversely, a lack of economic justice helps the lower class, right?
Care to back that up with some facts?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)lol
You can have the last word!!
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)In Scandinavia it was most certainly social justice that was achieved in the first half of the 20th century that made it possible to get so close to economic justice. For example in Norway as early as 1915 children born out of wedlock got inheritance rights equal to 'legitimate' children. A truly ground-breaking economic justice, right? Women got the right to vote in 1913, you see, so the 1915 session of parliament was the first with women representatives. How peculiar that a law protecting women and children's economic rights came when social justice gave women political power, and not before... (Do I really need the sarcasm tag here?)
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)There are a few dimensions involved, and I doubt it would ever be "healed" (some people are actually invested in the division because it's a useful cudgel), but some of the broader strokes.
1. Economic justice will never be reached without social justice. Even if income inequality were vastly curtailed tomorrow, you'd still have women and minorities getting paid less with less opportunities for education and advancement. Until the social attitudes and institutional prejudices change, the windfall of economic justice will not reach all people equitably. This is a simple reality of the world we live in. While I agree that class issues are important and are at the heart of what is wrong with vast swaths of our society, it is not merely class that keeps people disadvantages. It is institutions, it is our political system, it is the lopsided and discriminatory application of our electoral system. Economic justice is important, but it is not a panacea for all the issues that plague our more vulnerable communities.
2. Part of it is mere identity politics. Very boring. Bernie is an old white guy. Hillary is a woman. Hillary relates better somehow. This is identity politic ideology being applied uncritically. Power and influence trump identity in most real world instances. Someone ask those two gay guys who had Ted Cruz for dinner how much they deeply cared about the LGBT community. There is unfortunately an unassailable idea in some areas of social justice (unassailable because it is a sacred belief and can never be challenged without someone declaring an -ism), that mere identity imparts knowledge, empathy, and wisdom. Hillary is a woman and therefore must know much better what women need, or minorities, or the poor. This is silly on its face, but it's a thought that pops up again and again, and it undergirds a lot of the social vs economic fighting on the board. Fortunately, some people just state this sort of thing outright, so you don't have to spend a lot of time wading through subtext to divine it. And let's be honest, some people want to call Bernie Sanders a racist or a sexist so bad they can taste it, but his record prevents that. So, instead, we get a lot of bullshit mutterings.
3. Some people just don't like progressives. They're not hard to pick out. Been around for years. Since economic populism is a thing, that's what they're now against. Same shit, different year, different candidate. But since being against economic populism would be weird, they dress it up in social justice. It's transparent and boring. This is why we get all these White Vermont posts and whatnot. It's supposed to paint one of the most liberal senators of the modern age as somehow indifferent to anyone not white and male. It would be dumb if it also weren't so anti-liberal and insidious. There's a population on this board that are more or less, "If progressives are for it, I'm against it!" It's fine. I feel that way about ideologues sometimes, too.
4. Some progressives don't understand their privilege, and so don't understand that social justice means a lot more than class. They're too insulated from the experiences of minorities and women. They just plum don't get that it isn't merely a lack of job or income that is holding people back. That somehow, money raining from a sky seeded with the charred remains of the billionaire class will lead to a kumbaya moment, and all the old divisions will be washed away. This is naively idealistic thinking, more appropriate for a college freshman than a mature political class. I would hope what we're seeing the police and minority communities in this country would wipe out this naïveté once and for all, but it persists. I think it originates from a privileged tunnel vision.
So, basically we have a lot of people talking past one another. But we also have a lot of people who are actually invested in this division because they think it promotes their ideology or candidate. It's thinly veiled, and the insincerity comes whistling past from forty yards out.
A lot of silliness from silly people. DU, in other words =)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
fishwax
(29,148 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The 1% can never win elections. They must rely on convincing others to vote with the 1%. They do this, quite obviously, by dividing people into as many subsets as they can, and appealing to each subset with language designed for that subset.
But the overarching theme for the 1% has historically been based on the myth that ANYONE in the US can become rich if only they work for it. Thus all of the non-rich have not worked sufficiently hard or they would be rich.
But many non-rich people do work hard, or feel that they work hard enough. Why then are they not rich? And this is where divide and conquer comes into play. Starting in the Reagan years, the class war against US workers heated up in earnest. The rich wanted even more money, and the easiest way to get it is to take it from the workers. A little from each worker adds up to a lot for the very few rich.
So they had to convince the workers that someone other than the 1% was to blame for the slowly declining standard of living. The answer was division and blaming the OTHER. Simply tell the older, unionized white male worker that he lost his job because a black man was hired. Or a white female. As union jobs disappeared, along with the factories that supported them, the 1% wanted to divert attention from the economic policies that enabled the disappearance. So they needed people to blame.
We have lived through 35 years of blame and 35 years of declining living standards. Like the rats in a cage, when the food supply declines the rats cease cooperating and start fighting.
The answer is education and communication. That is what unions do as part of their mission, educating and organizing people to a recognition of their shared interest. And THAT is why the 1% hate unions and are doing all in their power to destroy unions.
In my opinion.
kentuck
(111,037 posts)We cannot have one without the other...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kentuck
(111,037 posts)And we have to continue to fight to insure that both sides receive equal treatment by society, in my opinion.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the many that will not allow me to sit at the table with the big boys. regardless how i plead, ask nicely, beg, and continually speak out.
again.
are you acknowledging then, there can be economic justice without social justice. which is my statement to you. that says there HAS to be both.
there does NOT have to be both.
and why i am participating in this never ending conversation.
kentuck
(111,037 posts)and cannot survive in an environment where there is no economic justice. Unfortunately, those that have been beaten down will eventually look for a scapegoat or someone to blame for their injustice. I still think we need both to live in a just society.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)If Matthew Robinson, PhD is correct in defining social justice as "... promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity,"* it then seems two conversations, rather than simply one, needs to be addressed.
If the conception of social justice is developed around the idea of a social contract, whereby people freely enter into an agreement to follow certain rules for the betterment of everyone, without considering the implications of these rules for their own selfish gain, then it seems to me that economic justice is merely a tangent rather than a necessary pillar to that that idea, as is the converse.
(*predicated on John Rawls' 'Justice as Fairness' and David Miller's 'Principles of Social Justice')
kentuck
(111,037 posts)It seems to me that both are closely connected.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Tangentially, rather than closely connected.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Meaning that if we want to bridge the divide--if we want other Dems to stop saying "I'll support gay/Black/women's rights only after I've taken care of my family's financial needs" we need to start reading the communists, like Marx and Engels.
Every time one group is forced into undereducated/underpaid serfdom---the way women are--it drives down wages for all and increases corporate profits. Every time a group is scapegoated--the way that Jews were in Nazi Germany and Blacks are the in the US right now---for the economic woes of the worker it allows business owners to continue to commit atrocities since it redirects righteous working class anger and prevents meaningful change.
Sadly, a lot of working class folks in the US have been brainwashed into thinking that communism is bad.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)and the subaltern in particular as the enemy. There is a clear sense that anyone who disagrees with a select few, or who has different priorities, is "Third Way," engaged in corporate propaganda. I even saw one person insist that corporations had sent women and people of color into the Democratic party to subvert it from its true message, which evidently is to promote the interests of the white middle class only. People claim to resent corporate influence, but spend all of their time at war with other Democrats, usually less privileged than themselves. Many here have made the enemy other Democrats, the working poor, women, and people of color. They claim to do so in the name of anti-corporatism (notably, never a critique of capital itself but only their own resentment that they no longer sit atop the capitalist world order as they think is their birthright.), but in fact they make clear that their enemy is the people, those far less fortunate that them who have issues far more central to worry about than which political elite gets what cabinet positions. My point is that those people who believe that only their way is legitimate, that insult and deligimate huge swaths of the population as not true Democrats, as allied with corporations, are waging war on the subaltern. Their speak from a position of class and race entitlement and treat those who dare to believe their rights matter as inferior. They think they are entitled to decide what real black people want, and when people of color tell them their concerns, they dismiss them out of hands. The irony of these people of financial means, of race, class and sometimes gender privilege attacking anyone who focuses on issues related to their lives rather than forsaking all that for the interests of the self-entitled members of the white upper-middle class as on the side of Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent is the height of conceit. It's the kind of bourgeois elitism that is only possible when one comes from considerable privilege, which makes the arrogance of accusing those far less financially well off and subject to daily discrimination as being corporate sell outs shows a shocking level of arrogance.
They are not leftists because their ideology is one that wages war on the subaltern. It is not coincidental that they target the same people the GOP does. Their project is one of class and race entitlement, which seeks to restore their own privilege and refuse to as much as consider that anyone outside their select circle of self-entitled blowhards could possibly have a concern that matters. We see it in this thread. People of color need to adopt their agenda. They say that's what matters. What others think is meaningless. This group of posters on DU who think of themselves as the only true Democrats are a minority demographic, not only within the party but within the nation. As much as they clearly wish it were otherwise, they only place they are the majority is on this website. They can continue to engage in vitriol against Democratic voters; they can dismiss the concerns of women and people of color by insisting "corporations" have planted them in poor communities throughout America to pretend to be Democrats and contaminate the party; they can defend the Klan to make their illicit case against Democratic politicians and Democratic voters, including those from groups targeted by the Klan, but their politics is one destined for failure. Just like the GOP, theirs is demographic that is dying out, and I say that God for that because those self-entitled elitists are no better and no different from the bankers they claim to resent. They are every bit as contemptuous of the needs of the many as any mega billionaire.
Why would I join with people who insist I have no right to articulate my own interests? Why would I join with people who treat me as less than shit on the bottom of their shoe? Why would I join with people who dismiss and target for removal from the site the handful of remaining posters of color and have already been successful in using the jury system to rid the site of many feminists? Why would I join with people who think the only thing that matters is some fixation they have with the machinations of the political elite and express nothing but contempt for the majority of Americans who care about their civil rights and their basic sustenance? There is no basis for common ground because we do not share the same goals. Their goal is to restore the party and the country to a time of "real Democrats" like FDR and JFK, a time period when the majority of Americans were denied basic civil rights and lived in crippling poverty. They seek to regain what they see as their rightful place atop the capitalist world order. They don't challenge capital or inequality itself but rather merely lament the recent decline of their class. For those of us who care about something other than the plight of the white middle and upper-middle class, there is no common ground to find. There is such a great distance between what they claim to care about and how they treat and talk about the subaltern that it's clear to me that that theirs is a narrow class project. I don't embrace their agenda of elitism, and I will not join in treating the poor and disenfranchised like shit because they don't go along with their bourgeois agenda. I build alliances with people who share my values for social and economic justice and equal rights. There are a few here who share those values, but there are also some very active, self-entitled posters who make clear they have nothing but contempt for the majority of the nation. I find them foul, reactionary to their very core, and their values and actions repulse me. Leftism is not rule of the few by the few, which is exactly what they seek to impose. It is all of us having a voice and a say in our political and social agenda. People who cannot recognize something so basic, who work to exclude the majority from the body politic, advance nothing but their own elitist intra-group interests. Even if I wanted to find common cause with such people, they allow no space for it since their entire political ethos is based on exclusion.
Here's a crib note version: if one's sole or primary concern is where power in the Democratic party lies, he/she must lead a pretty charmed life. Most people think about things related to their daily lives--how to get a job, put food on the table, make sure their kids get a half-decent education and aren't shot by police, or trying to keep themselves safe from domestic and sexual violence. The privilege that enables people to prioritize intra-party politics above concerns of daily life doesn't make you a better person or a better Democrat. It just means you're damn fortunate, and really, you ought to realize that rather than demonizing people who see politics differently.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)"
notably, never a critique of capital itself but only their own resentment that they no longer sit atop the capitalist world order as they think is their birthright.)"
Nailed.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)I really need to get off this site until after the election. I'm more ornery by the day.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It deserves better than to just be downthread on a DU post.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts) 
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)Damn
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts) YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Well said.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)That is one HELL of a post. In reading the replies to this OP, I saw this as yet another wasted opportunity. The OP wasn't about Bernie or Hillary but some folks just can't shut the fuck up and discuss real issues and so even this became yet another "But Bernie!!1" post which I am starting to have absolutely no interest in.
Until this post. Good gracious. I know we have butted heads in the past but I am proud to call you an ally. You GET IT. Which explains better than anything why you've got a pack of half-literate wolves on your trail after practically every post you make here snarling at your heels.
This is absolute genius.
I even saw one person insist that corporations had sent women and people of color into the Democratic party to subvert it from its true message
To call this line of thinking "moronic" would be an understatement. But considering who it was that said it, we both know that "moronic" is the only thing that aptly describes it.
People claim to resent corporate influence, but spend all of their time at war with other Democrats, usually less privileged than themselves.
What is up with that? And half of these same people when something racist/ignorant/clueless is said about black people by conservatives, RUN, not walk -- RUN to call it exactly what it is but seem absolutely INCAPABLE of seeing the beams in their own eyes or hearing the "left" wing equivalent of the racist/ignorant/clueless that streams from their mouths or those of their "leftist" friends.
Many here have made the enemy other Democrats, the working poor, women, and people of color. They claim to do so in the name of anti-corporatism
Many have made the DEMOCRATIC BASE the enemy of the Democratic Party! Let's repeat that. Some here have made the DEMOCRATIC BASE the enemy of the Democratic Party!! What sense does that make?? All while they pine for the Good Old Days of LBJ, FDR or whoever was president when black folks couldn't vote or work where they wanted. What sense does this make??
They are not leftists because their ideology is one that wages war on the subaltern. It is not coincidental that they target the same people the GOP does.
Yes. You nailed it.
As much as they clearly wish it were otherwise, they only place they are the majority is on this website.
And seriously, THANK GOD and every deity Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and every other religion for that.
I can't cut and paste anymore. It's too long and I agree with every word. Well done. Seriously, well done. And thank you.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)education for ourselves and our children, not drowning our government in a bathtub by using every cent of tax receipts on murdering brown folks and lining pockets, affordable and accessible healthcare, potable water, clean air, opportunity for ourselves and our children.
Fuck yes it matters who has the power in this party on those matters and no one is not as good as the other. It is not a luxury of the white rich male as you so dishonestly attempt to frame it here but a necessity of the poor and working class black, white, male, female, gay, straight, atheist, believer, old and young.
This argument is twisted and seems to imply that because the country has seen improvements in access during the Reagan Revulsion period that the basic economics of the New Deal Era were oppressive to workers, the poor, minorities and women and Reaganomics a boon which is unadulterated horse manure. New Deal economics needed greater inclusion and Reaganomics will continue to be oppressive and toxic as hell even when and if (a big if too) the oligarchy looks like a rainbow.
The rich white male party loves your voodoo economics, it is indeed their central agenda and the driver of their oppression tactics to maintain the system in place and who gets fat on fucking us all over.
kjones
(1,053 posts)You put a name/label/description to what I (and plenty others)
felt but couldn't quite put my finger on. The foggy source of
my uneasiness is now perfectly clear. Until now, the closest
I could come was something like "hipster politics." Neither
as accurate or eloquent as your explanation.
Thank you
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)So I don't think it will change.
Bryant
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I think that so many out there now are suffering from many different problems in today's society, it's hard to say that one is more important than another, because I think each person has some issue that has probably this year screwed them over as much or more as it has their whole life, and they perhaps have suffered through many years from it too. It's hard to think globally today when so many of these problems are destroying each of our lives and we feel some focus is needed on them.
Many are really heavily affected by immigration issues and really feel that should be our top priority in solving. I'm with them on many of those that could have been fixed with the immigration bill last year. BUT, my big issue that has screwed up my life a lot in the last decade or so has been H-1B Visa programs and how it has been used against IT workers, both Americans who lose their jobs and salary levels along with permanent vs. contract status, and those who work here under them under "indentured servant" conditions in the jobs they work. I have a hard time supporting a bill that would have many like me and my friends suffer even more. We need to find ways to work together so that we do things like get H-1B expansion out of that bill, and then people like me can work doubly hard to help others get real immigration bill reform passed in exchange for the help they give us in getting that mess out to have a cleaner bill in the coming years.
As for social vs. economic issues... Yes, they are BOTH important! And I think the important thing is to realize who controls our system now and is setting the rules in their favor that has created this mess of problems for so much of the rest of us now, and how they manipulate the political landscape to keep their power.
They fuel us talking and dividing ourselves as a populace ("left" vs. "right" on more social issues, because it serves their purpose of distracting us with those issues that the very rich care less about so that they can in stealth push through legislation that the wealthy care about without us noticing or complaining about. Like the TPP. That doesn't mean it is wrong to be involved with taking a side on these social issues. I myself want to help progressives on many of these issues too.
But I step back and ask the question on these bigger and less talked about economic issues, that the corporate media and corporate owned politicians and PTB don't want us to talk about and make issues for people to vote on in selecting their leaders. These are the issues that they DO care about, and they realize that only a small number of people in this country want them decided the way they want them to be decided. That is why they try to have the media and their owned politicians not talk about them or take stands on them.
That puts an added burden on us to make them issues and raise voices when the media won't talk about them, and too few politicians listen to us on them. If we can force the media and politicians' hands by getting them to be talked about so that politicians are forced to take a stand on them, that is what is needed to get the changes made to get this country back to being a democracy again where they have less power over us. Then I have confidence that so many of these social issues will actually get resolved in our way, because I have faith that when our electorate is informed (and not just propagandized by Fox and the likes of Rush Limbaugh), that we'll be less divided and actually work more towards solutions that work for us all. I think that is why the younger generation is a lot more progressive on issues such as women's issues and gay and lesbian issues. They are actually more informed by social media where they can see these being ethical issues for them to be concerned about, and are less propagandized by over the air hate radio.
We're not going to change overnight the nature of how so many of these ill informed righties think about social issues such as gay marriage and even many issues like our civil rights, etc. But on many of these money issues, like prosecution of banksters, the TPP, government spying, etc. I think if we can find a way on each side to in instances where it is important to put away our divisions there and focus on these issues where we both currently have concerns about them, that working together, we'll have the power to overturn the 1%'s power over us on them, and get them fixed, and get politicians to listen to us rather than the 1% money, when they see the deck is stacked when there is REAL bipartisan support against the 1%'s views with their voting populace on them.
I think candidates like Bernie and Liz Warren focusing on issues such as the TPP, bankster accountability, student debt, etc. where we all have a common interest so that they can reach across the aisle and get support where the corporate media is trying to say they don't have a chance to do so as "far left" candidates, that this is a constructive way to change the system in our favor.
I strongly feel that even though someone like Elizabeth Warren focuses less on social issues, that she does have good social issue stances, but is trying to appeal to many people in general to galvanize a true populist movement that works for us all at a time we have some key battles to win on that front, and probably can't win unless we reach beyond the Democratic Party base to get that support. We certainly won't get that support from the 1% and the media and politicians that they own.
I think many of us here that want to emphasize economic issues aren't saying that social issues aren't important, but that our focus needs to be on economic issues, if we as a movement are going to bring about a change that will change not just things on these issues but change the fundamental corrupted system that we have that affects everything now, whether they be economic or social in their nature.
I'm all for Obama through executive order doing things to help with issues like gay marriage, etc. where he probably is given "permission" to push the envelope on by the PTB. We can help him in those areas too. But we need to focus our energies strongly when he takes stances like the TPP against us to work more for the 1% than he is working for us then. And if the focus of what we say here is those issues, when we as a group have to be the ones to do so, then so be it.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Most thoughtful post on our dilemma so far , Thank You .
Marr
(20,317 posts)Liberals do.
Would it be acceptable to say, 'I'm only conservative on social issues'? Why is ok to say the reverse?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)No one on this site, that's for sure. Maybe you're thinking of people like Reagan-Bush Sr. Republican voter Elizabeth Warren? She was apparently so focused on her economic priorities, she didn't realize how much the Reagan Republicans were hurting the poor and the working class, minorities, women, the LGBT community...
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Who is saying the reverse? No one on this site, that's for sure.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)embrace both.
That's why they are known as centrists.
Corporatists....eeew.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There is no separating the two. Hence the so called divide.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Try to cut them apart and they both die.
The divide part is half of the evil twins Divide and Conquer.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)There is a divide, but the divide isn't the problem, people have differing priorities. The problem is single issue Joseph McCarthy types who spawn massive topics of nothing but vitriol and gotcha.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Even though Bernie holds the high social-issues ground over both Clinton and Warren.
We're pretending this argument is something that it's not.
It's about gender.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)crowd.
simple math people.
it will bare out as you work so hard not acknowledging the truth of it. and if i am wrong? meh. i can own that. works for me, either way we go.
more so with sanders, $
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)With lots of explaining to do among LGBTs , women, and POC. Bernie, much less so.
Sorry you missed that.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)white, heterosexual men.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)RunInCircles
(122 posts)We went through racism and push back in the 60's and 70's. We seem to be right back in the same spot again. We ran very fast back to the same thing again. Same with the oligarchs over a slightly longer time frame. People seem to be getting mad and that is OK.
There have been a couple of elegant responses but none addressed healing any divide perceived or real. If I had to rank my personnel concerns better job security, less out sourcing, less pollution in our living space, then stopping the TPP is paramount. But, I can not do this alone. I probably need the help of those who do not share my priorities. I support your issues and ask that you consider supporting mine.
Are you angry? Good! We need to get enough people motivated to push for change. Within your agenda looking for justice within this world of ours ask yourself which other issues you would be OK supporting if doing so would help you gather support for your issues.
There are so many injustices occurring that the magnitude of the task seems overwhelming. Rather than insult each other talk about areas of common interest.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Until that happens, people who support those economic policies will be stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance.
