General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Clinton Not Progressive Enough? Depends Upon What You Mean By Progressive [View all]stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)The social issues are now the bare minimum requirement that's needed to begin to be considered good for the Democratic Party in my opinion.
I don't understand why so many people can't see that TPTB are using social issues to allow for economic redistribution to the wealthy. There are far too many people who only seem to care about social issues here and within the Democratic Party, and as long as that continues we (the 99%) WILL continue to lose economic resources. It makes it so very simple for the robber barons.
Interestingly, I don't know of a single Democrat who is an economic progressive that is not also socially progressive. If there is one please point them out. On the other hand, there are LOADS of socially liberal Democrats that bow down and cater to Wall Street, the multinational corporations, and the top .1%. It doesn't quite work the other way around.
So, to be clear, I would not provide strong support to a Democrat who was not socially liberal/progressive period. This person would almost certainly not be an economic progressive as well, but ultimately it wouldn't matter for me. The socially liberal positions are the easy parts for a Democratic politician to hold (since a large majority of Americans support these issues). Interestingly enough, the economically progressive positions are ALSO supported by a large majority of Americans (so these should also be easy for Democratic politicians to adopt, but they aren't for some reason, I wonder what reason that could be...).