General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThose who look to the New Deal as a possible model for Democratic economic policies in this era...
...are NOT nostalgic for Jim Crow or any of the other forms of social oppression of the New Deal era and don't in any sense want THAT stuff brought back.
Fortunately, we don't have to bring back the horrible parts to use some of the ideas from the good parts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Like it or not, people didn't get all that great opportunity without being part of a systemic oppression of women and poc. That was such an intrinsic part of it, the whole thing was tainted by that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)To my knowledge, the New Deal didn't make that worse than it would have been if we had stayed with the sort of economics we had under Coolidge or Hoover.
White people were and are better off than black people due to historic oppression, not due to government intervention to protect people from the worst consequences of market economics.
Your historical reasons for distrust are understandable, but do you truly believe that people who would want New Deal-style economic policies(or economics to the left of those policies)can't be trusted not to be closet segregationists?
For that matter, do you believe that the black freedom movement achieved what it did in the Sixties because the Democratic Party had moved to the right of FDR on economics by then? I always interpreted LBJ's War on Poverty, for example, as a means(among other things) to include black America in the New Deal programs the black community had been generally(but not always)barred from benefiting from in the Thirties.
What you're expressing here is not a new thing...but I'd like us to try to get to a different way of communicating about this.
To that end, let me ask:
What would you personally say needs to be said to put that historical distrust to rest in the present situation?
What would satisfy you that wanting New Deal economics does NOT mean wanting segregation and lynching back?
None of us DO want those things, but I respect it that you don't feel you can trust that yet.
If you could list a few statements that would start the process of establishing trust on this, you'd be doing us all a great service-because this is a time when we could move from confrontation and call-outs to dialog, and in so doing could be much more effective at our shared goal of defeating Trumpism.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Didn't improve things- it perpetuated and exaggerated the effects of discrimination by institutionalizing it.
Before you answer- ask yourself if I actually said what you responded to, because you wasted a lot of time typing responses to irrelevant shit I never said.
Segregation and lynchings? Is that all you think happened?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I mentioned segregation and lynchings because those were what happened BEFORE the New Deal(and yes, continued during it) and because they were, to my knowledge, the WORST things that happened. I would never simplify the problem to just being those two things.
I am aware(as is virtually everybody else on the Left)of redlining, and that a lot of the problems excluded blacks and Latinos. Neither I nor anybody else who cited the New Deal as an example defends redlining or the exclusions, and none of us want that replicated in any future set of programs created on the New Deal model.
It's horrifying that you'd think we were even capable of wanting to replicate any of the things you are justly outraged about from that era-an outrage all of us share.
Redlining should never have happened. It was inexcusable that African-Americans and Latinos were often excluded from those programs in their 1930's incarnation.
And I didn't say you had SAID any of the things I asked you about. I asked you if you believed them. That was an entirely different set of questions, and I regret asking them.
If there were any effort to revive New Deal-type programs in 2017, they would be revived without the exclusions and injustices of the Thirties.
What would you need to see and hear in order to trust that?
What would you need to see and hear to convince you that those who want the New Deal back DON'T want Jim Crow back?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's just acknowledging it's not something that's going to resonate with those who didn't benefit! Why is this so hard? Just read all the anger and denials that it was anything g but the best for everyone. Shit is crazy.
I regret even trying to discuss this w all the nonsense you put in my mouth.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and that it shouldn't.
What I'm asking is this...
Is there a way to call for programs on the New Deal model that DOESN"T sound, to the ears of communities of color, like a call to restore Jim Crow and bring back redlining?
A way that would take it out of a call to restore the entire era, the bad as well as the good?
I'm making a good faith effort to address what you're saying and have a dialog with you.
Could you please at least consider trusting that?
(and I'm talking about ideas...not any particular personalities. "Economic justice" doesn't have to mean "Bernie in '20". for God's sakes.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Is pretty telling- as long as you got that chatter about "wait until the economy stabilizes and then it your turn" . Yeah that kind of crap ain't helping- and it's not coming from me. You have fun reasoning with that- I'm done.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Is there a way to call for programs on the New Deal model that DOESN"T sound..."
Redefine the proposition summaries needed, re-examine the breadth and width of any policies, and create a branding image under consistent theme of parity and equality.
The New Deal was effective at branding itself and its identity within the scope of its intended recipients. No reason an overhaul that meets the needs of today instead of yesterday rather than simply re-branding can't be done in the here and now.
It's simply not difficult at all to both examine and allow for the contrast between the here and now and the "good old days of yore," and begin there rather than simply changing the color of the wrapping paper on the box.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)historians, AFAIK. Not that such petty concerns matter here, mind you. But read C. Vann Woodward's The Strange Career of Jim Crow before you spout off on matters you know almost nothing about.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... may I ask you this?
Do you think the impact on women and people of color under the original Social Security Act was good or bad by its exclusion of domestic and agricultural laborers from protections?
Yes, there were a number of white agricultural laborers in the '30s -- my grandfather was one -- and white women did work as domestic help too. But 60% of the nation's people of color were among that group of excluded workers, and the exclusion for domestic workers ended only in 1950 (1954 for agricultural and hotel work). For many that meant they were 20 years behind in work credits.
Essentially, yes, it did codify protections first for people with education and training enough to be employed in other sectors of the economy -- to people working in "commerce and industry". Which left many people behind, intentionally or not.
From this white person's perspective, I can see it feeling at least somewhat annoying to think of the populist message of "Y'all can pull yourself up by your bootstraps with this help for everyone, and everything be fine" when your bootstraps have between decades and centuries more wear on them.
Economic justice must go hand in hand with social justice. That's what distinguishes Democrats and American liberalism from other political paths.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)One of my favorite things about Hillary's policies was to expand SS benefits for those working as care givers for an extended time. There's a huge amount of unpaid labor going on that many people want to ignore- and it props up the system where women and POC get screwed to this day. I just read somewhere that we've achievers full civil rights and equality! I wish people would wake up.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Other than it apparently being drier than books on Egyptology.
But the big thing we need to learn is that some might say "Oh, but those people are dead".
Yeah, my grandfather is dead. But he was able, in the South, to get a job in "commerce and industry" a good 10 years before a man who couldn't join the Masons and get the connections might have been able to. Which means when he became disabled, he had the work credits, was able to pay off the house, and my mother and I live there now.
What about the generational effect on the people who got sick without enough work credits?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You see a lot of that. Disheartening.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I think we can assume that Jim Crow is NOT a "matter (she)know(s) nothing about".
Please consider self-deleting that post...because what you posted there represents the attitude that cost of most of the African-American and Latinx vote(and therefore cost Bernie the nomination)in 2016.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)WAS the govt intervening to help some people while keeping others down."
The New Deal was NOT the govt intervening to help some people while keeping others down. That is prima facie absurd.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Unfortunately, it did at times have the effect, due to the exclusion of African-Americans from many of the programs AND due to the introduction of "redlining" during the FDR era...
FDR didn't go in WANTING that to happen, but it was a consequence. And need to acknowledge that the communities of color have a right to be bitter about it and to want to make sure that anything modeled on the New Deal would not repeat any of those betrayals.
It's not about saying FDR was evil...just that some horrible things happened along with the good.
melman
(7,681 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He had no right to respond to you like that.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The problem is, when we said "our model is the New Deal", it ended up sounding like we were saying "we want to bring back EVERYTHING from the Thirties". We didn't mean that, but that's how it sounded.
It's about how African-Americans perceive this...we need to be attentive to that and, as a movement, we haven't been.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
David__77
(23,367 posts)...
radius777
(3,635 posts)Look, there are many problems in this country with the middle class getting crushed, but as long as the populist-left (i.e., the Sanders/Warren wing) seems overly focused upon the concerns of white hipsters and rural whites, it'll never sell to the modern/diverse Dem constituencies.
The New Deal era was not a good time for PoC/women/gays, and essentially was a formula for white male patriarchy (best exemplified by the 50's). America rejected that paradigm over the course of several decades whereby the parties realigned and their constituencies (and focus) shifted dramatically.
The modern day Dems are a metro centric, diverse party that gets most of its votes from metropolitan areas, which are hubs of trade/capitalism/immigration, and thus have opposite views/needs to those of white populists in the heartland.
Response to radius777 (Reply #4)
melman This message was self-deleted by its author.
melman
(7,681 posts)First of all, 
Second, where do you think 'white hipsters' live? Hint: not on a farm. Second hint:probably those same metropolitan areas you're so concerned with.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)the economic plight of all working Americans, it helped lay the groundwork for the rights movements in the 50s and 60s.
When the economic condition of the American people is precarious, they do not have the patience or understanding or time for people who want to better their own lives. Its dog eat dog.
Because life was made more secure, it made people less hostile to those who demanded a better life.
It has been proven that when the economy is not working for the people, they tend to turn against each other and especially are prone to scapegoating minorities.
Just because the New Deal took place during the same time that Jim Crow and others were not equal does not mean that the New Deal and its ideas are anti equality.
It was the era, not the policy
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Goes THAT theory, and any dumb idea that people should wait around for equal rights.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)
Some people have done a bad job of communicating with communities of color.
But no, nobody is saying the fight against racism doesn't matter.
Even Bernie(though he does sometimes need to think more before he speaks).
The Left agrees that we need to fight hard for both justice struggles
Neither of which is whites-only.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Struggles. Why don't YOU reply to THEM. I honestly can't believe I'm reading this nonsense. Yeah it's all economics and then people will be nice- after they get theirs. Heard this crap many times.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Sorry that I didn't realize that there'd been such a post, because it takes an inexcusable position.
I'm going to have a word with THAT poster now.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I get it that you were just trying to defend Bernie here, but you may be to young to remember the freedom movement era in the Sixties, and all the long years of Jim Crow before that, when white "allies" of blacks told black people, over and over again, through slavery and then through eight decades of Jim crow to "be patient", that other things had to come first.
It is the WORST thing a white person presenting her or himself as an ally in the anti-racist cause can possibly say to a black, Latino, or Native American person, or that a man who claims to be pro-feminist can say to women, or that a straight person can say to an LGBTQ person.
I respect your passion, but please study up on American history before you post further on anything remotely connected to race or identity.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Christ, you act like problems for those groups started with the New Deal. Its ludicrous.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)was the one who integrated the troops and recognized Israel as the land of the jews.
And FDR's wife tried to get more for African Americans. They were blocked by the Southern Democrats.
It was the beginning however of the great civil rights fights for equality
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"It was the beginning however of the great civil rights fights for equality..."
That's simply not accurate at all. The nascent beginnings of the Civil Rights movement was sparked by AfAm veterans returning from Europe in WW1 (e.g.,this is when the NAACP was formed, when the Harlem Renaissance began, when Eugene O'Neill penned 'All God's Chillun Got Wings' and 'The Emperor Jones', etc.).
Let's not allow our salivation over tin gods and sacred cows blind us to the reality and accuracy of the historical record.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...and redlining started then, which(although it wasn't the New Deal's fault)made things worse in a lot of communities of color.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But doesn't it go without saying that programs on that model, if they were set up today, would be FREE of such outrages?
If you don't trust in that, what would it take to GET you to trust in that?
BTW, it's not as though the country would be LESS racist if the New Deal hadn't happened(that is, if the country had stayed right-wing on economics in the Thirties and no effort had been made to use governmental means to get people back to work).
Life was just as bad, if not worse, for peoples of color in the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover Thirties.
And the Sanders campaign never wanted blacks, Latinos, women or LGBTQ people to be LESS important to the Democratic Party than they were under Obama. We wanted the Obama coalition AND working-class people of all races(as well as the young of all races)to matter, and for the poor to matter as much as the rich.
We were never fighting for rural white privilege.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)Bernie always believed in equal rights for all.
It was a vicious smear to make him out to be unsympathetic to minorities and women.
Someone like Bernie, who has fought for the rights of people all his life, this was a smear that was horrible.
Because it smeared the very person he was.
Bernie believes that New Deal Style policies would make for a better society - where it is not dog eat dog. Where people had a share in the economy and a stable life.
As such, people are much more open to those who want and demand better things.
When people are economically scared, hurting, ect., they become closed to new people and new ideas because they see it as someone tyrying to take away what little they have.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)When he said "I'd model my administration on the New Deal", it was natural for communities of color to react with distrust to that statement, because they were left out of the New Deal(an exclusion that was only partly rectified by the Great Society programs in the Sixties)and because redlining was introduced in the Roosevelt era.
It was also an era in which the federal government did nothing to combat lynchings or other forms of white terrorism against communities of color.
Bernie needed to find the way to say "We want New Deal-style programs combined with Sixties values on civil rights" or something along that line, and he never found that.
Your intentions are good here, but you need to do a lot more study about the history of race in this country.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)Times like that are the era. Why can't the New deal work in this era where people have rights, where civil rights and women's rights are now standard.
Afterall, the later part of the New Deal was still in effect in the late 60s and early 70s.
Just because you are pro New Deal does not mean you are pro Jim Crow.
Get real.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that the New Deal era left blacks(especially Southern blacks) and Latinos(and Native Americans) out in the cold.
There were exclusions based on race in most of the programs.
And it was an official in FDR's administration who came up with the idea of redlining(that is, instructing banks and insurance agencies not to offer loans or insurance policies to people living in certain neighborhoods-these were usually black or Latino neighborhoods, although sometimes they were working-class white neighborhoods as well). These were horrific, indefensible injustices.
NOBODY who wants the return of New Deal-style policies wants the exclusions or the redlining brought back.
Yet the communities who suffered in that era have historic reasons to distrust that.
It's a question of establishing trust.
That is crucial, because nothing short of the New Deal programs is going to achieve anything or be worth doing.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Yes, those exclusions happened as part of the political tradeoffs necessary to get the programs passed(although it should have been possible to correct those exclusions in 1937, when the Democratic majorities were at their largest and FDR was at the peak of his power and popularity).
Those who want something on the model of a revived New Deal need to address those wrongs, acknowledge that communities of color have every right to be angry about them, and make it clear that the exclusions would not be repeated in new programs.
The failure of the Sanders campaign to deal with the justifiable historical anger peoples of color feel about the New Deal era played a major role(thought it was NOT the only factor)in that campaign being unjustly characterized as uninterested in fighting or trying to gain the votes OF historically oppressed communities.
If the economic justice movement is ever to move beyond the showing it made in the 2016 primaries, we have to cop to our failings on this and learn from them.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,853 posts)The very first reply in this thread indicated that despite how you worded the OP well, making your desire to improve both economic conditions and social justice very clear.
On the other end of the political spectrum, if "civil rights" triggers in someone the memories of riots and innocent people having their property destroyed, there's probably little reason to press the matter with that person or ask them how it should be worded so they only see the good.
I know what you meant with your OP, so... 
lovemydogs
(575 posts)They held the line against helping minorites. FDR needed them to pass his programs for the country and eventually caved to their demands of leaving out african americans.
But, it was southern democratic who would not allow the programs to help all americans
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's entirely legitimate for those communities to see those exclusions and the introduction or redlining as injustices.
They are owed apologies.
And they are owed a commitment that such wrongs will not be repeated.
We can't expect them to just take our word for it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They are under immediate attack.
Please educate yourself about what is happening with race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity in this country now.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's a round about way to get your answer but I think some of these replies are pretty illuminating.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Results - results that have impacts generations later!- you'll notice this is standard behavior when it comes to discussing sexual and racial discrimination. Some will always claim it's an accident or unrelated... and insignificant. Happens every damned time.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)knows little about the era about the policy and about history.
It was the era regardless of what policies were in place.
But, the New Deal did stabilize the economy and it made peace and prosperity for a long period possible for other to have a voice.
You must understand history.
The period was an unequal period.
But, with the peace and prosperity, it did make the rights of others to demand justice possible.
When the economy does not work and people struggle for bread, they are prone to scapegoat others as today they do those who are new immigrants.
Blame the era not the policies.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The intent obviously wasn't "anti-equality".
However, there were exclusions in the programs and there was redlining, a practice that happened to start during the FDR years.
It is crucial that economic justice advocates acknowledge that wrong was done to people of color in the New Deal era, and to make it clear that it new programs on the New Deal model are ever created, they will both avoid repeating those injustices AND will be designed to take into account the effects of historic oppression.
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)And did everything the could to blunt the military might of rising fascism in Europe and Asia against the opposition of isolationists on the right and on the left.
Then he lead the nation in WWII. In contrast Bernie Sanders in a modern day isolationist.
Being a nativist-isolationist was one of the BAD parts of that era. Neo-isolationists don't seem to have a good grasp on the legacy of FDR.
Fear mongering, setting Americans against one another through class warfare, fear, scapegoating, and demagoguery is the antithesis of FDR's message of optimism and understanding we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though the ONLY way this country can have influence in the world is to kill people-and it's not as though there's much of anything else we can ever make better in the Arab/Muslim world through the use of force.
We can't get into a military conflict with Russia or China without ending the world, either.
Bernie would have supported World War Two...he's not an absolute pacifist.
It's the wars we fought before that(all of which, other than the Civil War, were reactionary and useless) and most of those we fought after that, few if any of which achieved anything, that he is skeptical about.
He's fine with engaging with the world...just not in ways that do damage to the world.
Can you really think of any place on the planet where the use of American or European force is making anything better or WOULD make anything better...at least for anybody other than the owners of armaments countries?
As to class war...you may have missed the part where FDR called the rich "the malefactors of great wealth". Roosevelt's greatness was that he was a hereditary multimillionaire who became a class traitor, and PROUDLY so.
And he's right that we should acknowledge that pretty much everything we ever did in Latin America(with the sole exception of the non-military part of the Alliance for Progress)was reactionary, unjust, and a waste of money, resources and lives.
(This thread isn't ABOUT Bernie, btw...it's about the idea of creating new New Deal-type programs-an idea that isn't unique to Bernie or his campaign. So I won't be posting any more about him in this thread and would ask everyone else not to try to turn this into a Bernie thread, either.)
JI7
(89,244 posts)the reason support for govt programs has gone down is white people resent blacks and mexicans getting things .
so until you deal with the bigotry you aren't going to go anywhere.
and we just wait until demographic changes like in california .
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie never said that. His supporters(although some of them in this thread have shown some embarrassing tone-deafness for which I can only apologize) never said that.
What do we need to do to SHOW you that we don't mean that?
There are a lot of Sanders people taking part in anti-racism activism. They may not always advertise that at the events, but it is the case. Would it do good or harm for them to announce they were there AS Sanders people?
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)No doubt, that POC did not get a fair shake during that time in any way at all and for many years afterwards In my opinion, POC get short shrift today as well...so it is understandable they don't have nostalgia for those times and we should develop a plan as Democrats to end the continued discrimination once and for all...The new deal, while remarkable, was designed for a different time...Firstly, it it would never pass Congress. Secondly, it would not work now. America is different and the world is different.
People don't like unions...there is strong resistance to helping your fellow man and God knows we are a divided nation... again it was a plan for its time...now we should take the lessons learned in history into account when we develop our own policy that will hopefully do as much good as the New Deal did and be more inclusive... but our times are different and require different solutions...as Thomas Wolfe said, " you can't go home again". We must learn from the past and let it inspire us, but not ever think we can find complete solutions in the past because we won't, and to think we can relive the past is foolish. Let's move into the future and make it better for our own kids and grand-kids no matter what their skin color with a progressive bold and innovative 'deal'...let's discover a 21st century 'new deal'.
LeftInTX
(25,209 posts)The South went all Republican, giving the Republicans a huge voting bloc.
Edit: Added "indirectly" to killed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)it's not as though Jim Crow would have ended earlier without the New Deal, or that the New Deal shouldn't have been done.
It would have produced a far-less-racist outcome if we'd just had a socialist revolution, but I'm not sure that's what we'd have seen if there'd been no FDR.
The history is complicated.
JI7
(89,244 posts)start to benefit .
government programs were ok until black people started to benefit. then it was all about the welfare queen.
former presidents have been paid for speeches but now that a black one is going to benefit we need to change things.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)People trying to prove they are PURER than others.
This - "Just because you are pro New Deal does not mean you are pro Jim Crow.
Get real."
I'll take FDR's Second Bill of Rights applied to all Americans and single-payer healthcare and guaranteed income and let equality flourish. If you want the opposite, congratulations, with Trump and company you're looking at it.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)and modified to the detriment of many. The racist anti-welfare rhetoric exploded under Reagan. But, some of the worst damage to the New Deal was wrought in the 90s. Not only should Democrats be willing to fix what was broken as a result of giving in to racist rhetoric, we should do better.
Oddly enough, Nixon had an idea worth exploring. He and Jimmy Carter both supported a guaranteed basic income as a part of New Deal expansion.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)
Not buying it. People exposed themselves by resorting to dishonesty in order to justify undermining equal rights for women. Then when you refused to address the evidence presenting showing that your claims were false, it became clear it was not simply an oversight. You chose to reveal yourself.
I also saw someone invoke FDR against Obama in the most bizarre and mendacious manner to claim that their contempt for him was because of opposition to the wealthy elite. Invoking a man born into extreme inherited wealth as a club against the first black president, born to a low-income single mother, who unlike the "progressive" hero FDR has to work for a living. FDR never had to work to support himself, yet despite that he worked as a Wall Street financier and bond trader. Yet he is the hero of those who pretend, completely unconvincingly, that they hold some mantle of opposition against the wealthy elite. They do not. They would not continually and repeatedly invoke an aristocrat if they did. What they resent is that people they think unworthy have money, proven by their continual defenses of far greater wealth held by others.
Throughout the history of this nation, liberty and opportunity for white men always came at the expense of enslavement, subjugation and poverty for the majority. The relationship was not incidental. It was central. Racial slavery enabled white men to have access to land. Jacksonian Democracy--the expansion of the franchise to non-propertied white men, was enabled through the seizure of Indian lands. Jim Crow did not simply exist alongside the New Deal. It was an integral part of it. Economic prosperity in the post-WWII era was paid for by taking women's jobs away, relegating those not attached to middle-class men to poverty.
We have seen history used to deceive far too often. It's one thing to be ignorant of US history. It's another to persist in that ignorance. When people are repeatedly informed that their use of historical mythology is not based in reality, the question arises as to why they persist? Why keep talking about FDR? What possible purpose does it serve, except to communicate a desire to return to that era? You say it's not about Jim Crow. It's not about Japanese American internment camps. It's not about the denial of equal rights for women. Instead, it's about... opposition to the wealthy elite? Opposition to Wall Street? None of that holds up. Or is it the days of 25% unemployment you long to return to, unemployment eased only through US involvement in a World War? Is that what you are so nostalgic for? The only thing that does hold up is a restoration of a government that served the interests of white men to the exclusion of the majority. And after the stunts we saw around abortion rights and Obama's speech, it's becoming difficult to see signs of any other concern.
When people repeatedly refuse to acknowledge they are wrong on key points, ignorance is no longer an excuse. Rather, it becomes a deliberate tactic.
The gas lighting isn't working. I have seen a great deal in the past few weeks, and it can't be unseen.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We need to fight historic oppression...I and a lot of the rest of us have always agreed with you on that...it's just that it can't be ended within conventional capitalist economics and fiscal conservatism. The economic institutions we have now will always reverse liberation.
Some people have said horrible things here in this thread and I'm sorry those people ever had anything to do with the Sanders movement. They don't reflect that's movement's true self, but what they've written here is a blight.
I agree that the FDR-Obama comparison was a cheap shot.
And I acknowledge the history. Always have.
My only point of disagreement with you ever was over who we should have nominated in 2016. I did campaign hard for our nominee in the fall anyway though, and am just as horrified as you are about the result.
What I'm trying to do here is to get us past personalities and the primary and towards a common-ground program of justice for all, a program that acknowledges the betrayals of the past and commits to not repeating them.
We can't beat Trump if we DON'T get to there...we can't beat Trump if we anathemize the entire economic justice movement as being indifferent to historic oppression. Outside of the internet, the overwhelming majority of people who prioritize that set of causes doesn't dismiss historic oppression and want to learn how to communicate that better.
