Exchange between Bill Clinton and New Mexico Resident Illustrates Deceptive Framing of Key Issues

[Baobab]

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/31/meet_the_bernie_sanders_supporter_who

This is really well put.

"AMY GOODMAN: So, continue with the issues that you raised and his responses.

JOSH BRODY: Well, so, one of the reasons I wasn’t satisfied with his answers is because he rooted a lot of them in economic data. He would talk about how the African-American unemployment rate reached its lowest point under his administration and how median household wages peaked in 1999. But there’s two problems with that. First is, both of the statistics are misleading. Wages peaked in part because people were working more hours. In fact, the average median hourly wage has been basically flat since the '70s. And then, in terms of another often-cited statistic that both he and Hillary Clinton have used on the campaign trail is that African-American unemployment was at record lows. But as authors such as Michelle Alexander show, that's because African Americans were being arrested in record high numbers. And if you look at the unemployment rate including the prison population, it actually wasn’t all that low.

The other thing I found shocking, though, if I may, about this was, what I had asked him about originally was Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which was our welfare legislation at the federal level, that he basically gutted. And when I asked him about it—and I shouldn’t have been so surprised, because the bill was called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, "personal responsibility" being the operative phrase. He kept invoking a "culture of dependency" argument, similar to what you will hear anyone from Ronald Reagan talk about, when he discusses the mythical welfare queen, to Paul Ryan, when he talks about dependency in our inner cities. It’s a racially coded argument, and he was blowing into that dog whistle very hard.

And his essential argument—and I was really surprised to hear this; I would have thought he’d change the rhetoric over the last 20 years—but his essential argument was that poor people are lazy, and if you give them welfare, they’ll be dependent on the government, and that he was told this by people on welfare, and therefore it needed to be cut and turned into block grants for the states. There used to be 68 out of every person below the poverty line—out of every hundred people below the poverty line on welfare. We’re now at 26. And I had responded that maybe the reason people don’t have jobs isn’t because they’re lazy, but because there simply aren’t jobs, and his administration had moved away from the notions of the government interfering in the economy to improve the lives of the people, such as the federal jobs programs that came under FDR. Bill Clinton essentially ripped the heart out of the Democratic Party and abandoned that notion that the government can make the lives of its people better and should invest in a robust social safety net. So that’s how the discussion started. It went many other places.

AMY GOODMAN: Josh Brody, as we wrap up right now, you were talking to President Clinton about his policies. How do you feel about Hillary Clinton?

JOSH BRODY: I mean, she’s in many ways responsible. I think it’s a little hypocritical for people to say that it was his administration and not hers, given that she was known for the transformative role of the first lady, where she was more involved than any other first lady. So, I do not deny her agency. I think she’s culpable for all of the policies we discussed, whether it’s shrinking the government, getting rid of welfare, allowing corporations to have more power to offshore jobs through NAFTA, the deregulation of Wall Street, which, by the way, deregulating derivatives occurred just a few months before her Senate campaign. She then received a lot of Wall Street donations. And then I also object to her record in the Senate, where she again would deregulate Wall Street and was actually more hawkish in her votes in terms of foreign policy than the Clinton administration, although I would disagree with his foreign policy, as well.

So, overall, I’m very disappointed. And if—and I plan to vote for Jill Stein, because I believe New Mexico will win by double digits; however, if the race does seem close, unfortunately, I will have to vote for her, which is not something I’m happy about."

[Uponthegears]

1. If I am reading this correctly

It appears Josh Brody is accusing the Clintons and the DLC/Third Way of outright racism.

Is that what he is saying?

[Eric J in MN]

12. No, he's saying Bill Clinton cited misleading statistics

...to make his economic record seem better than it was, including the impact of his policies on black people.

[highprincipleswork]

2. Democratic Party did so much better with the policies of FDR, holding majorities in Congress for

decades.

Just look at this chart, and see when our prospects grew weak, sour - the second terms of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - when each had shown they would not stand up strongly and securely for FDR style economic policies that would benefit the people versus the 1%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

When you triangulate, obfuscate, lie, play with the rules to the point of risking indictment, play around with Big Money, waffle, waver, say different things to different people, refuse to let people hear about your transcripts or your testimony, call your base "f'ing retards", and so on, that has a distinct tendency to mess with your brand and to discourage your turnout.

[Baobab]

3. Words don't describe the damage they have done to this country.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Why do you insist on promoting the same myth ... over, and over, again ...

White people (particularly, white males) of/in the Democratic Party did so much better with the policies of FDR, holding majorities in Congress for decades.

Black and Brown folks (and Japanese-Americans and Native Americans) were, largely, excluded ... when their/our conditions weren't made worse (i.e., the Housing Authorities).

[cui bono]

8. While what you say is true, it doesn't negate the fact that ALL people are doing worse after

Bill Clinton sold out the Democratic Party and went the DLC way. In fact, his policies made life a lot more difficult for black people with his welfare 'reform' and mass incarceration. And Hillary is part of all of that and continues a connection with the private prison industry.

The New Deal happened before the civil rights movement so while it is wrong to have not made it more about equality for all, at the time it was still a very good thing for most people. One could use your strain of thought about many groups of people throughout history, women, homosexuals, Japanese, etc... Everything comes from the time in history when it occurred.

Would you rather have had no FDR and no New Deal? The policies were very good, it was the state of our culture or racism that allowed them to not benefit PoC as much.

And if we had another New Deal today you know it wouldn't be the same as before even though racism is still a very serious and prevalent issue in this country.

.

[highprincipleswork]

9. I assume PoC benefitted in the end from Social Security and Medicare and numerous other programs

that were offshoots of the New Deal? Haven't heard of exclusions in that area. Should these be diluted or taken away, as has been proposed by some Democratic leaders, including Bill Clinton?

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. No one is saying ending or diluting these programs; but, if you haven't heard of ...

the racial exclusion in these programs; perhaps, that's the problem ... you have romanticized the era that wasn't to kind to people of color ... and like most romance stories you ignore the blemishes of the protagonist. Whole employment sectors that were largely sectors dominated by PoC, were specifically excluded. And that head-start/delayed start, has present day effects.

All four of my grand-parents were excluded from these programs, despite having worked there entire lives.

BTW, neither SS nor Medicare were "off-shoot(s) of the new deal".

[highprincipleswork]

15. There is talk about PoC being the most rational of all this year, and I hate to say it, but

I find them absolutely the least rational. Why? Possibly because the first Black President is about to leave office. That has to be the occasion for a great deal of sadness, whether or not he has truly fulfilled anything like a Progressive term of office or one that served even PoC in a particularly admirable way. He has been historically the first Black President, and that is amazing. Objectively speaking, many of us feel he could have gotten far more if he, like the Clintons, was not under the sway of Republican-lite policies begun during the times of Clinton, policies that have lost us the House and Senate more often than not.

In the midst of this sadness, Blacks have decided to crap on an admittedly White presidential candidate who was arrested in service of civil rights, stood out as one of the few to endorse Jesse Jackson, and is a clear fighter for racial justice. They have lobbied against economic Progressivism, because they seem to think racial justice must be put first. Obviously a huge issue that must be addressed, but in dealing with an entire populace, how do you put this first, and is that the wisest course of action? In all this they have sided with the person who arguably was far less pro-active in dealing with groups like BLM than Bernie Sanders. Also to denigrate the traditions of the New Deal and FDR, in favor apparently of Clintonian economics, a soundly regressive and unsuccessful skewing of Democratic thought. This does not seem rational in any sense to me.

I don't see how you can take Social Security out of the hands of FDR.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-signs-social-security-act

As for Medicare, I know FDR didn't establish it. In fact, he left it out. But the people who were behind it when it did pass were largely inspired by principles of the New Deal.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/medicare-made

I put the New Deal up, not because it was perfect, but because it was the foundation for Progressive majorities in Congress and for governmental policies that were most socially responsible for decades. I put this up in direct contrast to the economic foundations of the Clinton presidency and of New Dems ever since, which have been largely based on Ronald Reagan!!!! Not that they completely mimic them, but they vary them slightly or they compromise with them or they incorporate them as much as they feel necessary to win over the electorate that they posit is so far to the Right.

What a recipe for capitulation and lack of success, which brings us to where we are today.

Does it really make sense to you to see PoC defending policies that are largely reactionary policies based on ideas fomented by Ronald Reagan versus going with the tried and true New Deal principles put forward and defended ardently by Bernie Sanders?

That is apparently where you and I differ. I will go with the New Deal principles every time, implemented for all people, versus the corrupted policies and economics of the New Dems which hurt us all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Okay ...

Obviously a huge issue that must be addressed, but in dealing with an entire populace, how do you put this first, and is that the wisest course of action?

Yes ... That is the wisest course for ME; just as, addressing the issue of "an entire populace" (read, YOU, personally; a position that leaves PoC, even the most impoverished, in largely, the same relative position) is the wisest course of action for YOU.

don't see how you can take Social Security out of the hands of FDR.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-signs-social-security-act

I don't ... He took it out of the hands of my grand-parents ... that's the unromanticized truth, and the point I've been making.

But that said, I had written a much longer response to your post; then, deleted it because I realized that you (whether consciously or unconsciously) really believe that YOU fighting for YOUR interests, and trying to get me to believe likewise, is the only moral position; whereas, me fighting for my interests is less moral ... because it does not include a benefit to you ... even as history has demonstrated that bottom-up solutions trickle up (a lot faster) than, the trickle down ("trust me" fiction) justice that you offer.

(See: the Civil Rights Act of 1964-originally drafted for African-Americans; but, within less than 10 years, gave birth to laws that included/protected the entire populace.)

So ... I will leave it right where we stand. It is my sincere hope that you can/will step outside of yourself (your direct and immediate interests) in an attempt to understand, just how rational Black voters are being.

[highprincipleswork]

19. Thank you so much for your thoughtful and generous answer.

[cui bono]

16. Discussed here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2099377

TBH, I think this is another case of you just wanting to argue against something Bernie stands for just as you wanted to pit social justice against economic justice in an attempt to justify choosing a centrist/corporatist candidate over Bernie, the "FDR candidate", who was being smeared with this argument. That was a false dichotomy in which you were asking people to choose who has to die, PoC or poor people, when in fact, the two are intertwined and can easily be fought for at the same time, which makes the most sense anyway.

Everything is a product of their time in history. Doesn't make it right, but that's how it is. PoC would be worse off had there been no New Deal for several reasons. As racism eased back they get the benefits and also, people in general can't fight for progress if they are not in a god/decent economic place and the creation of the middle class created a place where people were able to fight for civil rights. That's why TPTB don't want people to be too comfortable economically, because when they are they fight back. When they are struggling they are too worried about survival.

.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. And you would be incorrect in your thought ...

my "pit(ting) social justice against economic justice" began long before I had even given a thought to Sanders. That is easily researched.

That was a false dichotomy in which you were asking people to choose who has to die, PoC or poor people, when in fact, the two are intertwined and can easily be fought for at the same time, which makes the most sense anyway.

That's a bullshit frame ... as those "fighting the 1%/"Oligarchs" are neither poor, nor in danger of dying. You want to pretend that it's about those poor, poor impoverished people ... but, it's really about your own purse.

Here's a thought experiment (that requires a measure of self-honesty): Would your fight be the same if the 1%/Oligarchy, "put a dollar in the poor's pocket" fight set the bar, $1.00 below what you currently earn?

[cui bono]

20. I never saw it until you constantly used it to smear Bernie. But let's drop that.

It's really beside the point. I was going to say other stuff about it but let's just move on to the topic at hand.

You don't think people die due to poverty? I don't even know where to begin with that. People die all the time from lack of resources be it from malnutrition, dying from heat because they can't afford a/c, dying from cold because they can't afford heat, lack of access to medical care, lack of housing... sometimes it's a slow death, sometimes it ruined lives over a long period of time.

Where do you get this idea: "it's really about your own purse"? I don't even know what to make of that. I'm fighting for things that would probably cost me more somehow, so why are you wording that as if I'm selfish? How is fighting against the 1% selfish?

And if I understand your last question correctly, I'm fine with making less if others can benefit from it. I give to those in need on my own anyway. I'm fortunate to not have to worry much financially and I would like to see everyone in that same position.

It's not the left that is fighting to keep their riches to themselves, it's the right wing and the centrist/corporate wing of the Dem Party that does that. That's what you do whenever you try to pit social justice against economic justice. It's inherent in your framing of the argument. The truth is there is no need to choose one over the other. They both benefit from being fought for side by side.

Now I really am curious where on earth you got the idea that "it's really about your own purse". That is baffling to me.

.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Yes ... Let's move to you making up stuff I didn't say, nor, have ever thought ...

You don't think people die due to poverty?

I KNOW people die as a result of poverty ... Why would you think I wouldn't?

Where do you get this idea: "it's really about your own purse"? I don't even know what to make of that. I'm fighting for things that would probably cost me more somehow, so why are you wording that as if I'm selfish? How is fighting against the 1% selfish?

And if I understand your last question correctly, I'm fine with making less if others can benefit from it. I give to those in need on my own anyway. I'm fortunate to not have to worry much financially and I would like to see everyone in that same position.

It's not the left that is fighting to keep their riches to themselves, it's the right wing and the centrist/corporate wing of the Dem Party that does that. That's what you do whenever you try to pit social justice against economic justice. It's inherent in your framing of the argument. The truth is there is no need to choose one over the other. They both benefit from being fought for side by side.

Now I really am curious where on earth you got the idea that "it's really about your own purse". That is baffling to me.

That's where the self-honesty part comes in.

[cui bono]

23. You didn't address anything I said and now you are pretty much calling me a liar.

This is what you get when you try to have a discussion with you. I forgot to stop trying.

You posted:

That's a bullshit frame ... as those "fighting the 1%/"Oligarchs" are neither poor, nor in danger of dying. You want to pretend that it's about those poor, poor impoverished people ... but, it's really about your own purse.

So that's exactly where I got the idea you don't realize people die from poverty. That and when I've asked you in the past why we have to pick which people will die you never respond.

Now back to "it's really about your own purse". Show me where anything I've said has led you to believe that, or at least to think you are justified in stating it. Not sure you really believe it or if you are just trying to smear me without cause.

.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Yes I did ...

And yes I wrote that.

So that's exactly where I got the idea you don't realize people die from poverty. That and when I've asked you in the past why we have to pick which people will die you never respond.

This is what I'm talking about a bullshit frame ... I'm talking about you, in the generic sense, as an economic primacy advocate ... after looking at the demographic of those advocates ... they are not dying as a result of poverty.

And, I have respond to the "pick who dies" question ... numerous times.

Now back to "it's really about your own purse". Show me where anything I've said has led you to believe that, or at least to think you are justified in stating it.

Take a moment to notice how you switch back and forth between, "it's not about me ... it's about the poor (who I am not)" and making it about you.

Does that mean anything to you, vis-à-vis, my "it's really about your own purse" comment?

[cui bono]

31. I'm not an economic primacy advocate. I advocate for everything as I have just said in my posts

today.

Again, you are not explaining why you keep saying "it's really about your own purse" about me. Please show me what I've said that would lead you to keep saying that. Don't keep responding in cryptic code, spell it out. I really don't know what you are talking about and do not believe I have ever said anything remotely close to that.

And you asked why I thought you didn't think people died from poverty and I explained it by showing you what made me think that. It's not a bullshit frame, it's what you just said in an earlier post on here that mostly made me think that. And the time or two when you didn't respond to me. Perhaps you have responded others, I don't follow every single post on DU.

But to that point, why are you singling out advocates? Why do poor people who are not advocates not matter? I don't understand why you keep compartmentalizing people. The discussion is about economic policy and who benefits, not about who is fighting for it and are they dying. It matters not whether someone is an advocate or not, it matters if they are affected by the policy.

.

[Baobab]

25. We cannot have another NewDeal today, all of the things done are against international private law.

For example, starting I think just this year, depending on the state, in some areas we can no longer have spending (anything that uses government money) that only hires US companies and US subcontractors. Unless they were also the cheapest.

This is why increasingly we're seeing road and bridge construction done with foreign firms workers.

[cui bono]

35. Yeah, so much more that needs to be done now to fix this country.

[highprincipleswork]

10. First of all, look at the chart and you will see that what I am promoting in this post is no myth -

Democrats held majorities in Congress from 1933 -1995. The only two exceptions were 1947-1949 and 1953-1955 (by a little).

Guess which genius managed to turn this around? Bill Clinton, in his second term, when the count went to 204-230 in the wrong direction.

Since then we have been in the minority every time, except between 2007-2011, just before Barack Obama and for one term in we were still in the majority.

Clintonian triangulation and the strangulation of the New Deal policies and values that made for the middle class and better living conditions for everybody have been disastrous thus far, and will prove particularly disastrous in 2016 if the familiar playbook is used.

The majorities are absolutely no myth. The conditions for PoC and whether or not they shared equally in all the benefits? I feel sure you are right that they did not, but they did share, because they also are the recipients of Social Security and Medicare and other social benefits that are the direct offspring of FDR and the New Deal.

I would really like to hear your take on what great added value the Clintons have every brought to the lives of PoC. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'd like to hear anyway. And then I'd like to get some perspective - how do these compare to dismantling the advantages of New Deal economics?

[oberliner]

5. "I plan to vote for Jill Stein"

Maybe he could've led with that.

[riversedge]

26. Seems like a Bernie or Bust chap!

[Raster]

28. Taken out of context.... why don't you refer to the actual quote...

...doesn't fit your narrative, eh?

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/31/meet_the_bernie_sanders_supporter_who

<snip>

AMY GOODMAN: Josh Brody, as we wrap up right now, you were talking to President Clinton about his policies. How do you feel about Hillary Clinton?

JOSH BRODY: I mean, she’s in many ways responsible. I think it’s a little hypocritical for people to say that it was his administration and not hers, given that she was known for the transformative role of the first lady, where she was more involved than any other first lady. So, I do not deny her agency. I think she’s culpable for all of the policies we discussed, whether it’s shrinking the government, getting rid of welfare, allowing corporations to have more power to offshore jobs through NAFTA, the deregulation of Wall Street, which, by the way, deregulating derivatives occurred just a few months before her Senate campaign. She then received a lot of Wall Street donations. And then I also object to her record in the Senate, where she again would deregulate Wall Street and was actually more hawkish in her votes in terms of foreign policy than the Clinton administration, although I would disagree with his foreign policy, as well.

So, overall, I’m very disappointed. And if—and I plan to vote for Jill Stein, because I believe New Mexico will win by double digits; however, if the race does seem close, unfortunately, I will have to vote for her, which is not something I’m happy about.


I'm sorry I don't detect the so-called "Bernie or Bust" mentality.

[oberliner]

29. I was just saying the writer could've started with that

I am not sure what you think my narrative is.

I think the piece would've been better leading with "I plan to vote for Jill Stein, and here's why..."

[cui bono]

32. Except that wasn't the point and it's not an OpEd it's an interview.

He answered what was asked.

.

[oberliner]

33. Q: What happened? What did you ask? And were you satisfied with President Clinton’s responses, Josh?

"Well, let me just start off by saying that I plan to vote for Jill Stein, so please understand my comments in that context."

Something like that is what I meant.

[cui bono]

34. That's what you would like, but then he would not be answering the question.

He wasn't asked who he planned to vote for. Seems you just want to label him prior to hearing his opinions which leads you to then listen to what he says with a preconceived notion in mind. Objectivity requires one to actually listen to what someone says and digest it and decide whether their points have any merit on their own, regardless of what "team" they're on.

Politics as a team sport is one of the reasons our election process is in such disarray. The "news" treats it as a team sport as well and because of that we don't hear the issues, we just get play by play action reporting.

.

[oberliner]

36. I'm just saying he could've led with that

A lot of times, people will say, up front, before they start answering a question, "You should know that I am for Hillary/Bernie/Jill Stein, etc..." before they go into their response so that folks will know where they are coming from and understand their responses with that initial context provided.

Not a huge deal, really, though, so I am happy to drop it!

[cui bono]

38. Again though, there's no reason to start that way. It shouldn't matter unless one wants to prejudge

whatever comes out next.

.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Just watching this now.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Can anyone post the video?

[Jitter65]

11. Under Clinton at least within the Federal government, Affirmative Action and Equal Employment

laws were enforced and the POC employed by the federal garment fared much better than under the GOP.
In the private sector the employment gained by POC under Bill Clinton was much better and those gains were not lost because of Clinton but under the economic crash and total dismantling of EEO enforcement under Bush/Cheney.

"Putting people first" was the motto of the Clinton/Gore administration and Federal employee benefits set the tone for the private sector with Family Leave, Leave banks and donations, re-vamping of Social Security Administration with services brought closer to clients,increased consumer protections, and a total and beneficial overhaul of FEMA. Crime did go down, more police were put out of cars and into the neighborhoods and, at the time, POC in many neighborhoods around country were grateful. Despite what many allege, many women were able to get decent childcare and a path into the workforce especially within the Federal and state governments. Only the private sector reneged on helping those women once on welfare to get meaningful employment.

The main problem with the crime bill was that it was not enforced equitably and blacks and Latinos were dispropor tionately arrested and imprisoned. Had whites been arrested at the rates they committed the same drug crimes that law would have been changed within 6 months.

Of course we would rather recall the Lewinsky affair than what actually happened.

[AtomicKitten]

13. here's the video

[riversedge]

27. He is a Bernie or Bust mentality

[AtomicKitten]

30. Which means what exactly? Is it that he found Bill's answers validate everything you've read here

- and railed against? Like Bill's a fucking racist and inferred black people are lazy? Is that it?

The fact that you are FINE with the punitive welfare reform among many other shitty policies both Clintons championed that were harmful to the American people is not deserving of the dismissive, cavalier attitude some of you conservative "Democrats" have. We give a shit, you don't.

And by the way, if she does make it to the White House and starts wrecking the economy like her husband did vis a vis deregulation, if she starts putting corporate-friendly policies in place that hurt the American people - just like her husband did with policies she supported - better get used to some blowback because there will be a might one.

[bobthedrummer]

21. K&R + some more history

Democratic Leadership Council (RightWeb) "TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER"
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[vintx]

37. He knows what's up. The bullshit rhetoric and tortured statistics the new Dems use

doesn't work on all of us.