Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:58 AM Feb 2016

40 ACRES AND A MULE – A Political Tale

Social Change doesn't happen swiftly as those who have participated in movements to change the status quo will testify. “Change is Gonna Come” isn’t a song that mentions quick fixes and easy times, but rather emphasizes that change is “a long time, long time coming”. As minority groups have learned when looking back at their history, change takes enormous struggle, perseverance, and often time sacrifice just to take a few steps forward.

What most successful social movements of the 20th and 21st Century share; Whether the Civil Rights Movement, the Gay Rights Movement, the Feminist Movement, the Labor Movement, or the Environmental Movement, the simple truth is, none of these movements are finished yet. Most took decades of painstaking organized work, sweat, tears and even death before being able to claim a respectful piece of victory.

Newly freed slaves were once promised 40 Acres and a Mule, but most received nothing more than words, and little else. We can also recall during the Great Depression, Americans were promised a chicken in every pot. Unfortunately, these promises, if we care to remember, rarely worked out as they had been packaged, sold and bought. Even one of the most progressive Presidents, FDR, still compromised Black people right out of the Social Security Act that he championed. Domestics (read Black women) and Agricultural workers (read Black men/sharecroppers) were originally excluded from the bill as it passed into law. In so doing, they were also excluded from various attached programs, e.g., Aid to Dependent Children which passed under the act in 1935 as part of the “New Deal” (for whom? Some may have asked). There are those who defend FDR by pointing out that Black people were not specifically omitted, neglecting to acknowledge that Domestics and Farming were the primary work available to that minority group.

Now in 2016, we hear of wonderful promises made this election year. Who wouldn’t want Free Health Care, Free College, Free Childcare, and a living wage for every person working? Many of us would also love to get big money out of our politics as we are aware of how it diminishes our vote. The big banks certainly took us for a ride, and it would be great compensation to watch them sliced and diced into tiny pieces. The issues are excellent; a liberal’s dream! So then, what's the catch? Is this really truly possible, we ask? Because as a people, we learned long ago that there is no such thing as a Free Lunch, even once you are permitted to sit at the lunch counter.

When Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, running as President is queried on how all of these promises will be fulfilled, his answer is eerily consistent; there will be a radical Revolution that he will be leading. This term “Political Revolution”, for some of us who have lived that long, harken back to the days of the 1960’s “War on Poverty”. It is a war that we are still fighting today, and in so doing, we are also forced to fight race based stereotypes it put upon us, which have stubbornly lasted to our detriment since. It is the tried and untrue slur of how people of color always seem to want something without working for it, aka, something for nothing. The War on Poverty, while perhaps well-meaning in its intent, left an ugly-spirited stain upon, that we have been trying to wash out ever since. The whole racist connotation of the “Welfare Queen” has, in fact, won many elections, year after year. It is a legacy that may have hurt us more as an entire race of people, than the benevolent benefits it ever intended.

As earnestly as Bernie Sanders may believe in his promises of these great programs to voters, upon closer inspection, there is a solid barrier in achieving the legislation needed for his goals, if he were to be elected. It is an odd but old term called gerrymander. Every decade there is a census taken, and at this time district maps for each state are redrawn. The last Census election was in 2010, which happened to have been the year that Democratic politician all over the nation suffered steep losses countrywide. Pres. Obama used a not so delicate term in describing the loss; a “Shellacking”. Each map is demographically drawn by those in power, and affects exactly how electoral districts within each state are decided. As expected, the Republican majorities in many State Houses managed an artful job of making sure to give Republicans a ridiculous advantage in maintaining their majority. It is an advantage tight as a whistle.

If one is frank and anchored in reality, while reading the fine print of the changes Bernie Sanders offers, it should be known that they do not have any realistic chance of passage until the year 2020, after the next census election (which is a presidential year election, so there is hope there). When asked about the unlikely passage of any of Sen. Sanders’ promises, he does then admit that most likely nothing will likely get through any Congress in his first term. The 75 year old politician does allude to a possible 2nd term and that is when the Revolution, we have to figure, will be in full blast?

It’s hard to believe that those supporting Sanders aren’t aware of this BFD detail, although it may be that some just don’t care. You see, these third party Independents, and Green Party types Liberals (btw, thank you Nader) are ardent supporters who believe deeply in what Bernie Sanders says, regardless of the immediate future outcome.

But what about voters who don’t follow politics closely? Those who simply don’t know the consequences of a gerrymandered Congress and what that truly means; or how it will impact the true realities of this “New Deal”? The working stiff trying hard to make ends meet, but unknown to him/her that their vote won’t change their status anytime soon. They should know the devil in the details, but indeed most are largely unaware of the caveats attached to Bernie Sanders’ plans. Especially since the Media isn’t talking about it? (ask yourself… why?) Guess the corporate media is too busy with Trump’s hair, and Hillary’s emails.

The real question is when hearing all the promises, will the "Revolution of 2016" actually move a Republican Congressional majority to demand that their government administers their constituents’ health care, while doing away with Insurance Companies and Big Banks? Will a Republicans House vote to give young people free college? Because that is who will decide, not Bernie nor his voters. If Healthcare reform was easy to pass, it would have been done long before Obama! Hillary tried it, and they have hated her ever since. Even President Barack Obama couldn’t even get his own party to vote on his original vision, let alone any Republicans! The healthcare fight, as it currently is started in 2009, and generously gifted us with the Tea Party, and is a fight not yet finished, It virtually separated Americans into various groups. Those who are glad to finally get it; those now want something totally different, and those who have attempted to repeal Obamacare 7,000 times, and took it twice to the Supreme Court! Well guess who has the power in congress since 2010, and will most likely have it after the election of 2016?

If, in support of the Revolution, folks are willing to March day after day, while the reportage on Television omits you from our lives, as they did the many marches against the War in Iraq, or the invisible Million Man March just this summer. Are you willing to take a chance to elect a man with flaws not yet uncovered (and there are many, I’ll tell you) nor exposed by either the GOP or the media, only to have to wait until maybe 2020, when he will be nearly 80 years old, or maybe never? Are you willing to hand over your healthcare that we are still fighting for? Are you willing to see the Supreme Court hang in balance? If you are, and you know what you are getting into, then by all means go for it!

In conclusion, ask yourself if there is a lesson learned from past movements and past promises? Back in the days when irresistible offers of 40 acres and a Mule and a New deal was proposed to us? I know what I learned; that progress doesn’t happen overnight, and that anything promised or said is never a given, and that nothing is free.
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
40 ACRES AND A MULE – A Political Tale (Original Post) FrenchieCat Feb 2016 OP
I believe you are mistaken about Sanders' wide appeal. Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #1
You have a right to your opinion.... FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #2
I'd welcome insight from Clinton supporters about the Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #4
I see dishonesty in Bernie Sanders, as he is not leveling with voters, FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #5
Ok thanks Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #7
Welcome! FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #8
Wasn' name calling. Thought the OP was related to electability Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #9
Wow. Two times you've added "dishonest" and once "disingenuous" in your post. BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #10
Then let me explain. Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #11
It's not acceptable to her supporters, but we understand. And no, those are not BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #12
Well if he wins the primaries..... FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #14
And I really don't see him doing that, Frenchie, but IF he win the primaries BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #19
If there is opposition research strongly showing Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #20
Because we don't destroy those running in the same party..... FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #24
I do forgive you but it's true. Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #15
Thank you. I mean that sincerely. That said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #17
Agree Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #21
Sanders' "fatal flaws"? Or just flaws? You can google Shakesville dot com. The woman gives an BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #13
If there's bad stuff I'm sure it will get lots of play. Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #16
If you're hoping for the U.S. media to point out his past, you can wait till Hades freezes over. BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #18
I'm pretty sure there is little to be exposed. Voice for Peace Feb 2016 #22
And I suggest you look up shakesville dot com, then come back to me. BlueCaliDem Feb 2016 #25
K&R FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #27
Old doesn't have to mean bitter. Binkie The Clown Feb 2016 #3
I'm not thinking of myself..... FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #6
KnR. Thanks Frenchie. Hekate Feb 2016 #23
K.... FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #26
FrenchieCat...she rocks! Yes, she does!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #28
 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
1. I believe you are mistaken about Sanders' wide appeal.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:31 AM
Feb 2016

And do you have a secret source for your claiming knowledge of his many fatal flaws? The flaws that nobody in 40 years has discovered?

You are buying into Hillary's campaign of disingenuous fearmongering.

Bernie is not NOT claiming impossible things.
Expand your sources if that's what you've been led to believe.

This campaign is about standing up to the corruption that is preventing progress. Unless integrity is re-estanlished in government, there will continue to be bread and circuses, little more.

I don't understand how you can overlook the chronic, sometimes blatant, dishonesty of the Clintons.

This very ingredient -- dishonesty itself -- is eating America alive. Clinton would lose the general. Bernie's chances are much better. This from real polls.

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
2. You have a right to your opinion....
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:39 AM
Feb 2016

but I have researched Bernie Sanders. I know what will happen to him during a general election.
I know why the media is silent and the GOP too.

I have watched him give his speeches and I know what he's leaving in and leaving out.

You can think that I am "buying" into something, but that says more about you, than it does about me.

But thank you for your input!

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
4. I'd welcome insight from Clinton supporters about the
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:46 AM
Feb 2016

question of honesty. I keep asking but get no response. Not here to argue or prove any points. Do you not see the use of dishonesty by Hilary and Bill?
Or do you see it and accept it?

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
5. I see dishonesty in Bernie Sanders, as he is not leveling with voters,
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:51 AM
Feb 2016

and I find that most frightening. Sorry!

I think my next to my last paragraph sums it up well.....

IF "you know what you are getting into, then by all means go for it!"

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
8. Welcome!
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:13 PM
Feb 2016

If your best response is calling Hillary names,
it doesn't say much, since you actually didn't address what the
Op was about....at all!

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
9. Wasn' name calling. Thought the OP was related to electability
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:45 PM
Feb 2016

And my question is as well.
I don't understand how it doesn't matter to folks.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
10. Wow. Two times you've added "dishonest" and once "disingenuous" in your post.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:20 PM
Feb 2016

That's gotta be some kind of record!

That said, it's also a Republican talking point. Just sayin'.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
11. Then let me explain.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:28 PM
Feb 2016

In ''08, I had no negative feeling toward Hilary until I began to witness dishonesty in her campaign and from herself. It was hugely disappointing and infuriating. 8 years later I am witnessing it again. These are my own personal talking points. I don't understand why it's acceptable practice to her supporters.



BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
12. It's not acceptable to her supporters, but we understand. And no, those are not
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:49 PM
Feb 2016

your own personal talking points although you'll passionately believe they are because the GOP did an excellent job after tens of millions of dollars of propagandizing until the American electorate actually began to believe it. Propaganda works. That said, the "dishonesty" meme has been part of the arsenal of Republican talking points since 1992, so you'll need to forgive me if I don't believe you.

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
14. Well if he wins the primaries.....
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:29 PM
Feb 2016

It will all come out...
and his supporters will be howling,
but it will too late. He'll give a speech on Socialism,
and then get skewered...it will be a lot..
But in the meantime, most unsuspecting folks don't even know what the word Gerrymanders means...
to their disadvantage, as that is being played down in this campaign!

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
19. And I really don't see him doing that, Frenchie, but IF he win the primaries
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:55 PM
Feb 2016

he'll be defeated in the G.E. when the GOP and their billionaire moneymasters hurl out ad after ad after ad about his background that will scare the living daylights out of the average American who might then have a second long look at the Republican candidate whom, I presume, will be Kasich. He looks moderate...just like Ronnie Raygun did.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
20. If there is opposition research strongly showing
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:56 PM
Feb 2016

Bernie in such a bad light -- why isn't her campaign bringing it? ?

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
24. Because we don't destroy those running in the same party.....
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 12:00 AM
Feb 2016

so that we can be accused of destroying our own.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
15. I do forgive you but it's true.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:30 PM
Feb 2016

I've had little exposure to republican anti-clinton propaganda since the 80's. I was never crazy about them but thought it was amazing how nothing seemed to stick. I had no ill will and still don't except in my feelings toward their campaign tactics.

When Obama was campaigning I saw where the Clintons' went, wanting to win. It was a dealbreaker for me back then. But I had put that behind me. I was working on trying to find some enthusiasm for Hilary. Then Bernie popped up and in a very short time it was the same thing, and pretty nasty in my opinion.
I honestly didn't (and still don't) know what claims the R's have against her. Email benghazi stuff like that has seemed purely political witch-hunt stuff.
But for them to distort the character and policies of a good man, in an attempt to manipulate voters, is not honest not ok with me.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
17. Thank you. I mean that sincerely. That said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:43 PM
Feb 2016

I don't see any "nasty tactics" by the Clinton campaign. I really don't. I don't see any of their supporters rushing to FB and Twitter accounts attacking those who support Hillary over Bernie. I don't see their posts get hidden (unless it's beyond egregious - and that takes a LOT these days) here at DU by Hillary supporters. I don't see the Hillary campaign slapping on fake IDs to gain access to union workers where they try to sell Sanders. I don't see GOP strategists and operatives tweeting support of Hillary against Bernie. I don't see the Clinton campaign staffers illegally accessing Sanders files when a firewall drops. I don't see the Clinton campaign sending out e-mails with logos of important groups and writing said e-mail in a way that makes a reader think they've been endorsed by the campaign when that's patently untrue.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say it's been disappointing that the Clinton campaign hasn't done some tough oppo-research on Sanders.

I've read up on Sanders background. I don't like what I've found out - those quiet little votes he's cast that are anything but liberal or Democratic, for that matter. I've read up and done research on Hillary Clinton, and believe it or not, it's only made me love her more than ever before since I, too, fell for the Republican propaganda against her and had a bias against her in 2008. I woke up from it. It's why I changed my support from Bernie to Hillary since June 2015.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
13. Sanders' "fatal flaws"? Or just flaws? You can google Shakesville dot com. The woman gives an
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:59 PM
Feb 2016

accounting not yet done by the GOP or the GOP-luvin' U.S. Media, but she provides dates, times, years, and actual bills. Were I to post them here, I'd be alerted on. It's why Bernie supporters only know the "good things" about his past. The less than good are routinely removed or hidden - and I'm speaking out of experience here.

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
16. If there's bad stuff I'm sure it will get lots of play.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:38 PM
Feb 2016

I have minimal access to follow links these days.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
18. If you're hoping for the U.S. media to point out his past, you can wait till Hades freezes over.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:53 PM
Feb 2016

Take into consideration that the U.S. media is owned by people who would LOVE to see a Republican in the White House, what with four seats ready to open up in the next decade or less on SCOTUS. They'd love nothing more than to put more Republicans in those seats -Scalia's and Kennedy's but also Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer's.

People need to ask themselves why the media has yet to vet Sanders, but have gone all out on Hillary? People need to remember that there IS a media bias - in favor of Republicans. We've talked about it ad infinitum here on DU.

If ever there was any proof of that bias, the Pew Research Study of 2012 exposed them when they reported that President Obama - hugely popular with Democrats - got the least favorable news coverage than his Republican opponents. Rick Perry and then Mitt Romney got the most favorable coverage: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/04/23/469075/obama-has-received-least-favorable-news-coverage-so-far-during-2012-election-cycle/

Curiously, that study has been removed from the Pew's site, but thinkprogress does mention it in their April 2012 piece. Hm.

So if they'd go so far as to report negatively on a hugely popular sitting president, why won't they do that for the socialist-turned-Democrat-for-this-election if he's seen as a threat? Why all the focus on Hillary? And why don't Sanders supporters ask that question?

 

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)
22. I'm pretty sure there is little to be exposed.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:04 PM
Feb 2016

The world is confounded by an honest man.

I do think he can win the general. He didn't decide to run until he had traveled around and listened to people, and felt confidence that his message resonates pretty much everywhere.

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
3. Old doesn't have to mean bitter.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:42 AM
Feb 2016

I'm old (70) and still optimistic, and still able to believe something better is possible, and to believe that you only achieve great things when you set your sights high. I won't give in to the kind of grumpy, bitter pessimism that seems to explain Hillary's appeal to the old folks. And I don't believe that great changes will come by giving in to pessimism and gloom, and settling for more of the same old crap just because you believe that the same old crap is all we can ever expect.

FrenchieCat

(68,867 posts)
6. I'm not thinking of myself.....
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:55 AM
Feb 2016

I'm thinking of the Supreme court and how that will affect 25 years of lives, including Black lives.
My daughters, my grandson, and everyone else's.

The facts are what they are,and I cannot change them,
I can only vote, and hope that others reflect and KNOW what is really being offered,
and the risks and the rewards of running a Bernie Sanders.

But as I said....

IF "you know what you are getting into, then by all means go for it!"

I'm not begrudging anyone as to what they choose to do. If you can afford the gamble
not just for yourselves, but for others, support who you support.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»African American»40 ACRES AND A MULE – A P...