What the &^%$ have you guys been saying about "social issues"?

[Ken Burch]

I've not posted in this group before, and haven't followed your discussions. But I find myself in a bitter argument with some posters who keep associating me with your group...and who seem to think that you don't care about racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious bigotry and other forms of group oppression.

A gap is emerging here that, from what I can see, totally doesn't need to exist...people who prioritize anti-oppression issues are also deeply committed to challenging economic inequality and corporate power, and I assumed that those of you who identify as "populists" would also be committed equally to fighting continued group oppression.

What the $%#% is going on here that this divide has emerged? How do we bridge it, as we must if a progressive, small-d democratic and economic populist future for this country and this world is ever to exist.

[delrem]

1. h*mj****n posts similar OPs in the HRC room.

I think that we can all admit, as Dems and outliers, that we're for social justice, social equality.

[Phlem]

12. Exactly and we'd like to feed you and not have you work 80 hr weeks

just to get by.



The gap is fabricated.

[delrem]

14. So we can focus on policy to get it done. Right?

[Phlem]

16. yep.

hunger and stress does not equal a level headed, critical thinking mind. The dumbing down of america was a real and ongoing "thing". Overworked, underpaid, no life, and no way out is nothing but concentrated stress.

It's easy to then fill that mind with propaganda and you start voting against your best interests.

rinse, repeat.

The TPP is going to rachet that up big time.



PS. what you meant was "So we can focus on policy to get it done right."

[delrem]

17. Yes, that's what I meant

[NYC_SKP]

2. Our heroes, Sanders and Warren, have better records on social issues than "The" candidate.

Bernie Sanders on the issues:

Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record:
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm#Civil_Rights

Senator Sanders compared to Secretary Clinton:

Sanders:

Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

Clinton:

Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Senator Warren isn't measured using the same criteria but here's a sample from the same source:

Build future for ALL our kids, including transgendered. (Apr 2014)
Native American heritage from mother in Oklahoma territory. (Apr 2014)
We need a reliable vote for equal pay for equal work. (Oct 2012)
Warren has fought for women throughout her career. (Jan 2012)
Repeal DOMA; repeal DADT; support ENDA. (Dec 2011)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Opposes defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012)
Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women's rights stance. (Aug 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)

[TM99]

3. Blame the Third Way.

They are moderate Republicans from the 80's and 90's who evolved on social issues. They drive a wedge between progressive and liberals by focusing often just on social justice and ignoring economic populist FDR justice.

Why?

Because their economic positions are anything but liberal. They are neo-liberal. They bought into corporatism. They believe in Reaganomics - trickle down. Please you can see this with some posters on the TPP who admonish opponents by saying this will create jobs via the trickle down approach.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal-dont

I have posted this link several times already.

[Enthusiast]

22. +1 You nailed it.

[murielm99]

4. Why so argumentative?

Your post may put some of the members of this group on the defensive. There might be a better approach.

[Ken Burch]

8. I've been getting blasted for stuff the "populist" group supposedly said, that's why.

Haven't been part of your thing here, yet I'm getting blowback and so are a lot of Bernie supporters in other places. A feud that has no reason to exist has somehow been created, and I'm sorry, but I've kind of had it with getting nailed for things I didn't have any part in.

This whole thing threatens Bernie's campaign in a big way.

Here's a thread I started a week and a half ago where it got really bad...a thread that was intended to BRIDGE the gap, yet somehow managed to make it deeper:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026673874

[NYC_SKP]

10. I would argue that the fault is not with members of this group, or the existence of the group.

And I think you handled yourself well in that thread.

Please keep in mind that there were only 3 or 4 who took umbrage, and 2 or 3 of those members have a history of doing that.

We don't need to go into details here, we don't want intergroup wars or drama.

Suffice it to say that this is a safe haven for supporters like you, and I happen to think that Sanders and Progressives have a proven record of supporting the oppressed.

All of the oppressed groups, not just some of them.

I recommend you ignore the members and their drama.

[merrily]

15. In your mind, that requires me to defend myself against false accusations to you why?

Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 02:50 AM - Edit history (2)

People accuse you of posting in a group in which you've never posted and the only way you can think of to respond to them is by barging in here, cursing and demanding we, who have not accused you falsely, explain ourselves to you? Really?

This group is a safe haven for its members, not a place where its members have to defend their basic humanity against false charges. It's disgusting enough when that happens in GD. We don't need those accusations by proxy in this group.

Ask THEM to prove THEIR false accusations against you and us with links, instead of demanding that the members of this group prove to you that we are decent human beings because someone else in another part of the board is annoying you.

Not only are those accusations false, but I would bet the deed to my home that at least most of the people making them KNOW they are false. Take in that one.

That said, there is a hell of a difference between (1) saying that cultural or social issues do not matter, which I have not seen a single DUer say, ever, and (2) saying that cultural or social issues should not be the be the only way in which the Democratic Party seeks to distinguish itself from the Republican Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4130170

one of my many posts declaring that social issues are unimportant. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5582402


And now, all my vile, low life false accusers can kiss my gorgeous, socially responsible ass.

[murielm99]

18. I'm not even a member of this group.

I just wondered why you were so angry with them over things other people, not in this group, have said. It seems unnecessarily aggressive.

[Ken Burch]

19. I guess I did sound angry.

The intent was more to sound puzzled.

[LiberalElite]

28. Well.... the curse in the title...nt

[Ken Burch]

29. You'll notice that I did it as a "Sgt. Snorkel"-style comic strip "curse". n/t.

[Paka]

27. Bingo. You nailed it.

It threatens Bernie's campaign, which is exactly what they are out to do. Divide and conquer!

[Jackpine Radical]

5. The only thing i'm aware of is a belief that

attention to the "social issues" is necessary but not sufficient for the immense challenges we're facing. We need also to attend to the environmental and economic issues. In fact, all of those issues have to move together. Racial, ethnic and gender justice must encompass economic fairness, etc., or they are not complete. Likewise, economic justice must mean fairness for all members of society.

[delrem]

7. +1

That was perfectly said.

[Scootaloo]

6. It's a shitty fake meme

The "argument" goes that since Sanders is talking about economic issues, he must therefor not care about social justice.

The people telling you this are ratfuckers, one and all.

[TDale313]

9. It's a totally dishonest attack.

Mostly from Hillary supporters who are frustrated and frightened that there are many of us on the left who feel Hillary is too cozy with Wall Street interests. So the arguement goes "she's good on social issues- if you don't support her you must not care about social justice". Which is crap- I and most supporting Bernie or who agree with Warren care very much about both. So do Sanders and Warren from what I see. But I also care about income inequality and wealth inequality and feel the two are very much intertwined. And I think Hillary Clinton is wrong on TPP, was wrong on the Iraq war, and I don't see her as being willing to take on the special interests that are destroying this country.

[whereisjustice]

11. I don't know any political or philosophical school of thought that is more egalitarian than what

I read from the people who are members of this group. If anyone claims otherwise, they are just trying to stir up shit were none is to be found.

Here is what I know from my own personal experience. I am not speaking for anyone else at this point.

Recently I was called a "motherfuckin emoprog" by a Democratic conservative who then harassed me by email after I alerted.

For registering my complaints against Hillary's Wall Street focus - I have been called a someone who just hates women.

For registering my complaints against Obama's governing strategy - I have been called someone who just hates black people.

I once remarked that the LGBT community seems very well organized at the grass roots level, they've had considerable success and thought maybe we could use networking skill to leverage support for some economic reforms (which I thought was in all of our best interests), I was told to fuck off and subsequently attacked as being anti-gay.

Ironically,I'm finding the people who claim they are working against "oppression" have little tolerance and a shoot first policy. It's going to take serious discussions to make progress, and that means having the tolerance and discipline to explore and innovate with fresh ideas.

We don't have much of that on DU unfortunately.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. It's utter BS. Ask for links.

They either don't have time to find them, claim they don't know how to search, or DON'T PLAY WITH ME THIS TIME YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

[merrily]

20. Let me get this straight: People falsely associated you with this group, so you assumed their

other claims about this group must be true?

[Ken Burch]

21. No...I'm trying to figure out what got this started. n/t.

[merrily]

23. Some posters on political message boards have agendas other than posting as a hobby and some are

less than honest. That would be my guess.

Given they've been trying to lie to you about your association with this group, I'm surprised that wasn't your guess, too.

[TM99]

24. It was started by New Dems

and actually quite a while ago.

They ultimately lie when it comes to social liberalism and justice. They will talk about support for LGBT individuals and yet it was New Dems with the help of the GOP who started DOMA and DADT. It took them decades to 'evolve' and finally look to over-turning those.

They will talk about social justice for persons of color and yet look at cities like Detroit that were devastated economically by Neo-Liberal New Dem economic policies in the form of NAFTA. And they want to do it again with the TPP.

They will talk about securing Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose an abortion, but then we get a watered down insurance mandate with so many loop holes in it States and corporations are able to find work arounds that penalize all of us.

They have been so focused on Democrats winning at all costs that they compromised traditional progressive FDR style principles for those wins. And honestly, they are not wins. There are many more losses. Most state governments are in GOP hands and it is not just from gerrymandering. When they run as Republican lite like Alison Grimes did, they lose because Truman was dead on right about electing a 'real' Republican over a DINO acting like one every time.

When your position is one of triangulation, you are bound to be perceived as incongruent and inconsistent. This really won't end until Dems elect someone like Sanders and the New Dems like Clinton, Obama, and HRC are soundly defeated within the party.

[djean111]

25. I think that ridiculous and self-serving meme got started when some criticized a politician(s)

actions or non-actions on economic issues and the pretty much unvarying response was "BUT DOMA!!!!!, as if we of course had to have a Sophie's Choice when it comes to economic and social issues. As if we could only have one or the other, as if the politician in question was forced to only address one or the other. For one of the current presidential nominee candidates, any sort of criticism/question about support of, say, the TPP, or cluster bombs, for example, is met with cries of "BUT WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS!!!!!!" and a list of utterances. I get the feeling that a politician could openly advocate for slashing Social Security in half, and the response of some would be "but DADT!!!!!".

What you are describing is classic misdirection. IMO it is a deliberate smokescreen for the open Third Way tactic of being liberal on social issues (because they don't cost much and can be used to divide or as campaign fodder) and being deeply Republican Conservative on economic issues.

After lying about TPP job losses, for example, GOP and some "Dem" legislators submit something that says yeah, Americans will lose their jobs, but we will take money out of Medicare to retrain them. Not out of the MIC Monster, but out of Medicare. Maybe there is some truth in "Keep your government hands out of my Medicare!" after all.

And Obama would certainly sign that. And any criticism would be meant with "but DOMA!!!!" or "women and children's rights!!!!" - oh, yes, women and children will be just as adversely affected by the TPP, by cluster bombs, by slave wages.

What you are seeing and experiencing is, IMO, Third Way claptrap designed to throw a smokescreen over the tightening grasp of wealthy corporations and Wall Street and the 1% over economic issues.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. That social and economic justice issues are all intertwined.

That you can't just separate them out and proclaim that a candidate who is good on social justice while being bad on economic justice is a 'good' candidate. They're giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

That ticks off certain candidate's ardent supporters, because they know their candidate is far weaker on economic justice.

So they take the stance that the two are intertwined and turn it into 'people who care about economic justice don't care about social justice'.

How do we bridge this divide? Well, folks on this side of the 'divide' would say 'Care about ALL forms of justice', and 'support candidates who are strong on ALL forms of justice.' But since that's not going to happen because they're too invested in their candidate, the divide won't likely be 'bridged' until 2024, at which time a new set of candidates representing the left and the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' wings emerge.