General Discussion

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

115. The whites who turned right didn't do that because social programs were open to all.

Tue Sep 12, 2017, 09:42 PM

Sep 2017

At that point most white people were far more prosperous than they were in the Thirties, so that by itself would have turned them to the right and against social benefits, unfortunately. The ones who turned right would have turned right if Great Society programs were whites-only. They were just as hostile to the idea of poor whites in Appalachia receiving assistance as they were to African-Americans or Latinx-Americans receiving it.

It sounds like you're close to arguing that the Democratic Party should simply write off the vast majority of white voters as a group-or that you think Dems be on the side of white people OR people of color, never both.

What chance does that give us to make anything better if we work from such assumptions? What possible way does that give us to create progressive change to any important degree?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

155 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where did the idea come from that support for a second New Deal means support for Jim Crow? [View all] Ken Burch Sep 2017 OP

It is an attempt to poison a revival of progressivism in the Democratic Party Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #1

No, it's the truth... The Democratic Party changed under LBJ when he passed civil & voting rights MrScorpio Sep 2017 #2

first, LBJ was part of the New Deal era Democratic Party Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #5

That process of change also included Truman, Humphrey, and Kennedy Jim Lane Sep 2017 #16

Actually, it started to change big under Truman. Blue_true Sep 2017 #35

Yes, but LBJ's anti-poverty programs were New Deal-like Ken Burch Sep 2017 #41

they were an extension of and the end of the New Deal Era. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #150

Yes melman Sep 2017 #3

yep. They needed something to go after Bernie on during the primary. nt m-lekktor Sep 2017 #9

I didn't realized Sanders had already declared JustAnotherGen Sep 2017 #151

Yes. HughBeaumont Sep 2017 #20

BS may not be a racist heaven05 Sep 2017 #131

Bingo! This thread is finished. n/t QC Sep 2017 #26

Yes it is. elleng Sep 2017 #128

+1 leftstreet Sep 2017 #135

Here's the thing melman Sep 2017 #4

It's the common strategy of picking one thing to demonize Lee-Lee Sep 2017 #6

Pointing out the shortcomings in an historical era doesn't "Poisoning" everything in that era. ehrnst Sep 2017 #13

"And no, I am not comparing The New Deal with Confederate monuments" melman Sep 2017 #14

Yep, and you did just what I said someone would who didn't get it. ehrnst Sep 2017 #17

Except they are not just pointing out shortcoming of the past Lee-Lee Sep 2017 #24

Can you provide a link to one of those posts? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #28

Link? emulatorloo Sep 2017 #29

You'll of course, support your allegation with evidence and provide a link LanternWaste Sep 2017 #67

But nobody is denying the shortcomings of the Thirties. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #58

No, it doesn't go without saying that wouldn't happen. ehrnst Sep 2017 #76

That's horrible about the kid. And we need to protect choice But we have federal civil right laws. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #108

we sure don't have those laws for gays dsc Sep 2017 #114

And we need them. AFAIK, nobody on our side of the spectrum is minimizing the need for them. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #119

you made the claim that we don't have to worry about government programs discriminating dsc Sep 2017 #122

I take your point with regards to antidiscrmination measures for the LGBTQ community. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #123

Excellent analysis. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #106

K&R. n/t ms liberty Sep 2017 #7

WTF? kentuck Sep 2017 #8

You CANNOT have economic justice until you establish Social Justice. Lee Adama Sep 2017 #10

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #12

Exactly! leftofcool Sep 2017 #15

We aleggedly have had both loyalsister Sep 2017 #43

An excellent response. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #62

this heaven05 Sep 2017 #132

Wonderful post. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #139

in all honesty clu Sep 2017 #52

Or maybe she would be your boss if she wasn't Kenyan or a woman. KitSileya Sep 2017 #81

no my boss for a time there was also black clu Sep 2017 #88

I'm not assuming anything. You are presuming lots, though. KitSileya Sep 2017 #130

Perhaps. And don't assume clu doesn't see an injustice in that fact. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #138

There was not a hint of that in the post, Ken. KitSileya Sep 2017 #146

We can't totally establish social justice first, in complete isolation from economic justice. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #59

"And economic justice, today, would never be whites-only. " Lee Adama Sep 2017 #60

The reason that happened in the Thirties was that the Democratic congressional leadership Ken Burch Sep 2017 #64

"We don't have any segregationists in our congressional leadership today" Lee Adama Sep 2017 #70

I meant the Democratic congressional leadership Ken Burch Sep 2017 #73

And that brings us back to the fact that there can be NO Economic Justice without Social Justice Lee Adama Sep 2017 #74

Social justice issue drive economic justice for those who aren't white straight men ehrnst Sep 2017 #92

Since there has never been true desegregation Lee Adama Sep 2017 #99

There's no difference between doing both at at the same time, which we would do Ken Burch Sep 2017 #109

The only candidate I have ever heard that from is Hillary Clinton. Lee Adama Sep 2017 #113

We both want both. And Bernie wanted both as much as Hillary. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #124

That's not what I get from Sanders. He is all about economic justice & nothing about social justice Lee Adama Sep 2017 #125

Tell that to those who are yelling at anyone who won't sponsor "Medicare for all." (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #143

Again... have you seen the news? Dems are waffling on whether women's health care ehrnst Sep 2017 #80

Womens health clinics are being shut down JI7 Sep 2017 #89

Until women have Choice, there is no economic justice for them.st ehrnst Sep 2017 #94

A tiny handful are waffling. But choice, at this point, isn't covered by federal civil rights laws Ken Burch Sep 2017 #97

A very public and vocal group is advocating for waffling. One of whom is the most vocal of all. ehrnst Sep 2017 #144

Reps were racist because people electing them were racist - not vice versa. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #93

There was a lot of racism-but if it hadn't been for the Southern committee chairs Ken Burch Sep 2017 #100

You mean economic justice for white working class men. ehrnst Sep 2017 #79

I mean economic justice for ALL-I've never meant it exclusively for white men. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #101

So now you understand that people can indeed say that the New Deal was made smoother by ehrnst Sep 2017 #142

BS heaven05 Sep 2017 #105

they WON'T go together heaven05 Sep 2017 #133

+1000 nt Fresh_Start Sep 2017 #78

How in the hell are these two things separate? DemocraticWing Sep 2017 #145

It's not an actual idea, it's a huge misunderstanding of the point that is made that ehrnst Sep 2017 #11

+1 FakeNoose Sep 2017 #18

New Democrats Different Deal. melanctha Sep 2017 #45

have you seen killer mike's monologue on bernie sanders? clu Sep 2017 #54

Not focusing on race but blacks and women make up large part of the democratic party. melanctha Sep 2017 #83

so he moved to vermont clu Sep 2017 #85

Historical context American history melanctha Sep 2017 #95

Excellent post erhnst, can't recommend it enough. JHan Sep 2017 #32

And all of us agree with you on that. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #66

Nobody is claiming that the same 1930s Jim Crow laws will come back in the ehrnst Sep 2017 #82

It's not just white men who work in the Rust Belt Ken Burch Sep 2017 #103

I always thought Libertarians and AnCaps were the group of FDR Revisionists. HughBeaumont Sep 2017 #19

It's a distraction.. disillusioned73 Sep 2017 #21

We should discuss the health care we can get now...the ACA with a public option down the road. The Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #23

All things have a starting point.. disillusioned73 Sep 2017 #25

When there is no chance of getting it for the foreseeable future and every chance that support for Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #27

I don't intend to be rude.. disillusioned73 Sep 2017 #30

There is no chance for progress as the GOP won't even bring it to the floor... Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #96

I read these threads, and no one said that. However, the idea that the 'new deal' was the be all Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #22

organized labor supported The Democratic Party during the New Deal decades DBoon Sep 2017 #31

Were did the idea that isolationism-nativism-populism-protectionism-and anti-capitalism... Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #33

Except Sanders, despite his title, isn't a socialist in the sense FDR understood the term white_wolf Sep 2017 #36

Nor was Huey "Share the Wealth/Every Man A King" Long, who was FDR's mortal enemy. Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #48

Name one conservative stance Sanders supports white_wolf Sep 2017 #69

Blacks benefitted little from the New Deal. Blue_true Sep 2017 #34

so blacks don't get social security? i did not know that dembotoz Sep 2017 #38

Not when SS was implemented. Blue_true Sep 2017 #39

And we all agree that it was wrong that people of color were left out of the original New Deal Ken Burch Sep 2017 #51

guess we need to tear down the fdr statues along with the other confederate generals dembotoz Sep 2017 #77

And they didn't get a living minimum wage Warpy Sep 2017 #104

to be clear dsc Sep 2017 #117

Do you think the occupations not covered were random? former9thward Sep 2017 #126

That is right. And that shouldn't have happened. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #49

Ken, you seem like a decent person. I know you and I disagree on some issues. Blue_true Sep 2017 #149

OK. Those are valid points. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #152

New Deal as a name is acceptable. Blue_true Sep 2017 #154

For too many, it is impossible to separate the New Deal label from 1930's racism and sexism Ken Burch Sep 2017 #155

Who has written anything of the sort on DU? MineralMan Sep 2017 #37

You haven't, but it has come up a lot. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #42

As I said, I have not seen such at thing on DU. MineralMan Sep 2017 #44

This is pretty close: TCJ70 Sep 2017 #46

Here's another, more recent, example: TCJ70 Sep 2017 #47

Both of your examples are of people saying that we need MineralMan Sep 2017 #50

They're not just saying that melman Sep 2017 #53

I'm saying that. I have been saying that for a long time. MineralMan Sep 2017 #56

And there's no possibility that New Deal-type measures passed today would exclude people of color Ken Burch Sep 2017 #61

You have easily movable goal posts... TCJ70 Sep 2017 #55

OK, modernize it-but that doesn't have to mean settling for smaller programs Ken Burch Sep 2017 #72

It's all over the 2016 forum. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #57

lol at the people asking for links melman Sep 2017 #40

No one is saying that. GulfCoast66 Sep 2017 #63

OK. LBJ did a lot of excellent things domestically. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #68

And fdr had japanese internment JI7 Sep 2017 #90

And LBJ had a segregationist past and what he did to Vietnam. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #107

On economic justice he included all and the fact you dismisd JI7 Sep 2017 #110

I praised LBJ for the good that he did. It's not LBJ Vs. FDR. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #112

You said it...he does not get talked about as much which is surprising GulfCoast66 Sep 2017 #127

Look, I just now praised the guy. Why are you sniping at ME on this? Ken Burch Sep 2017 #136

"you moderates" betsuni Sep 2017 #140

Not moderate...liberal social democrat GulfCoast66 Sep 2017 #141

How about "Great Society without Vietnam", then"? Ken Burch Sep 2017 #153

Exactly. JI7 Sep 2017 #91

The whites who turned right didn't do that because social programs were open to all. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #115

The whites who turned against it included poor whites JI7 Sep 2017 #118

The 2016 election was fifty-one years after the Great Society started. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #120

FDR took TR's Square Deal, added more, removed much more and re-branded it as the Fair Deal LanternWaste Sep 2017 #65

### NurseJackie Sep 2017 #71

That's not what I was saying. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #111

Sounds like the unholy marriage of the radical right marybourg Sep 2017 #75

Exactly WHO is saying that? It appears that this particular "objection" exists only in your mind. NurseJackie Sep 2017 #84

there is a post in this thread clu Sep 2017 #86

Who is saying this? Squinch Sep 2017 #87

Sounds like the deceptive ploy of turning a positive attribute into a fault eleny Sep 2017 #98

We can have both Social & Economic justice at the same time. IF WE fight for both! JoeOtterbein Sep 2017 #102

It is a cynical tactic to try to avoid supporting progessive economic issues. Willie Pep Sep 2017 #116

Pretzel Logic jalan48 Sep 2017 #121

some people just make shit up. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #129

"Some people just make up shit. betsuni Sep 2017 #147

I like my version better. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #148

Executive Order 8802 Docreed2003 Sep 2017 #134

The people who back New Deal-type measures now have acknowledged the past. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #137