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
 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 12:16 PM Dec 2016

So the children have won

Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2016, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

After a flurry of tantrums, the following crowds:

(1) "Oh my god, Hillary was the best candidate in the history of candidates and ran the best campaign ever and only lost because working white men are misogynistic, xenophobic, racist, homophobic (and, once an a while Islamophobic but that's not so bad because Muslims are misogynistic and homophobic too so us "progressives" don't really care that much whether they are hated and feared ) AND so was their leader Bernie Sanders;" and,

(2) "Oh my god, Hillary lost because she was the worst corporate shill who ever ran, she didn't have an economic message, and Bernie is just so righteous, and the DNC was on Hillary's side, and Hillary stole the primary, and, and, and . . . WE TOLD YOU SO . . . BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON."

looks like they have finished their respective primal screams and retreated to their little balkanized enclaves where they can tell each other how smart they are and how evil everyone else is.

Were those little blaming fits cathartic? I hope they were, because unless we face up to some hard facts about the political theory we have been relying upon since 1992 and chart a path forward, we will literally have to wait another 40+ years for those of us who are members of the only relatively monolithic Democratic voting blocs to increase as a percentage of the population to the point where we can pretty much just tell everyone else to do a Cheney. (That is, of course, provided that the newly empowered racist minority doesn't kill all of our community in the streets or pack us into American versions of Soweto)

Unless that's what you want, you need to quit mourning and get engaged in building a future for this party.

Contrary to the early memes (accepted without question by BOTH pro-Bernie and pro-Hillary factions because it fit both of their narratives) working people who were concerned about the economy did not turn this election. In fact, they voted for Hillary in about the same percentage as they voted for President Obama. In fact, working people AND people of color stood by Hillary in a percentage which attests to their loyalty to this party. Hillary had an economic message and working people answered her call

So how in god's name did we lose?

Welcome to the story of the Third Way and their predecessor/alter ego, the Democratic Leadership Council (the DLC). Without getting into the hot-button issues surrounding the Third Way or whether they were correct, the DLC/Third Way was founded on the premise that our Party would flourish if only we could just get back those Reagan Democrats living in the suburbs who it believed had left the party because it had become "too liberal." (I mean, let's be honest here, in between McGovern, the second election - post-becoming a great human being - Carter, and Dukakis, it would be hard to argue that the Party was not much more liberal before Bill Clinton took it over).

In his first campaign, Bill epitomized the DLC strategy . . . strong on the death penalty and law and order (Bill returned to Arkansas to personally be present for the execution of a black man, Ricky Rector, who had shot himself in the head immediately after his crime and was so f'd up by the time they executed him that he left himself a slice of pie in his cell to eat afterwards AND then Bill sat there without saying a word while prison officials (NOT DOCTORS) cut deep slices in his arms without anesthesia for almost a half an hour because they were too stupid to properly set an IV line.) . . . strong on making sure that "those people" on welfare were "getting back to work" (because, as them "non-liberals" in the suburb knew, people on welfare are only there because they are lazy) . . . strong on how picking another (and not-yet liberal) Southerner as VP . . . strong on "I'm just a poor white boy who made it good (just like you folks in the 'burbs)" . . . and fundraising, fundraising, fundraising.

In 1996, he epitomized the DLC strategy but to the n'th degree . . . coming off of the Lewinsky scandal, he appropriated every MAJOR position of a Gingrich-led GOP, not just forcing them to run solely on his conduct, but making the "Contract for America" and the government shut down look petty and purely partisan. He actually pushed the most blatantly racist criminal justice reforms since those enacted at the state level in the South after/during Reconstruction, and eviscerated capital habeas corpus (which was pissing off Southerners to no end because Northern attorneys were using the federal courts to keep them from killing black folks) Combining this with a booming economy, Bill dramatically outperformed even 1992.

Setting aside whether they were, the DLC became convinced they were right . . . in other words, those Reagan Democrats were ripe for the picking as long as we just tone it down on "criminal's rights," and discrimination, and gay folks, and all those other "liberal" ideas.

Those two elections reveal the political philosophy which has dominated the Democratic Party ever since. Sticking with my promise not to focus on whether DLC/Third Way policies are correct, or represent our Party, I think we need to have a serious discussion about whether they work.

I suggest they do not.

Since Bill Clinton, our party has been decimated at the state level. It has been decimated at the Congressional level. It has lost three elections against relatively weak (and in two cases incredibly weak) GOP candidates. In every one of those elections we have had everything the DLC/Third Way thinks we needed to win. We had truckloads of money. We had candidates who played to the middle and talked about unity. At least in the general elections, we kept our mouth shut about hot-button "liberal" issues (with both Hillary and Bernie departing from this practice, BUT ONLY during the primaries).

With two important exceptions (which bear some independent discussion) the DLC/Third Way strategy has got our ass kicked. We are currently in such bad shape that not just Republicans, but hood-wearing, cross-burning, Matthew Shepard murdering, dominionist Christian "Tea Partiers" are on the cusp of being able to re-write the Constitution of the United States. How can anyone in their right mind think this is working?

Before I get any further, no supporter of the status quo should think for a second that they get to ride the coattails of Barack Obama. Yes, Obama kept quiet in 2008. Yes, he talked unity. Yes, he essentially followed the DLC/Third Way playbook. But he was Barack Hussein Obama, one of the greatest human beings, one of the most transformational human beings, and one of the most inspirational human beings (particularly to people who looked like me and had waited our lifetimes) to ever walk this planet. Obama won in spite of the DLC/Third Way, not because of it. He didn't just pull the same monolithic Democratic voting blocs as we always have, he pulled them out in numbers we will never see again. He overcame the weakness of the DLC/Third Way strategy that local, state, and congressional candidates could not overcome. HE won those elections, not the Party.

Now back to why Hillary lost and why we've been losing for decades. It's right there in the exit polls. The base assumption of the DLC/Third Way strategy is wrong. WHITE SUBURBANITES ARE NOT COMING BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and no amount of attacking righteously angry people on the streets of Ferguson, or telling rich folks that we know they are "good people" too, or not federally prosecuting blue on black crime, or not standing up for ACORN, or prosecuting the NBPP when they tried to stop right wing voter intimidation in black neighborhood in Philly, or leaving it to the courts to protect our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, is going to change that. These are the people who moved out to the suburbs to get away from us. They are the people who make sure that the only black or brown faced kids their kids see in school has been "screened" to make sure their parents "care about education as much as they do." They are the people who have been scarfing up guns like there is no tomorrow because they actually believe that their privileged lives are in danger WHEN IT IS REALLY OURS. A majority of THOSE PEOPLE walked into a voting booth and put a check mark next to the name of one of the most reprehensible people in the United States. While I hate to sound alarmist, but if you look like me, or you're a Muslim, or you're a Spanish-speaking immigrant, they voted for a man who is going to try to kill us, imprison us, and disenfranchise us. AND they voted for a man who openly admitted that HATE is exactly what he was running on.

What's more, they did this when there was no reason whatsoever to vote against the person on the other side of the ballot (whether you think she is courageous hero or a corporatist shill). She went to great pains not to offend anyone during the GE. She hammered an idea that SHOULD (save for something which I admit I did not consider until it was too late) have convinced EVERY sentient human being that she was the right choice (sexual predators don't get to be POSU should be something everyone can agree upon). They voted FOR hate, not against Hillary.

The DLC/Third Way is wrong. The Reagan Democrats are not redeemable. No amount of "middle of the road-ness" is going to bring them back. They hate black people, brown people, gay people, Muslim people, women (well, women who expect to be treated as the equal of men) on an innate and visceral level. They hate anyone and everyone who is trying to get ahead. THEY'VE PROVED IT.

IMHO, we are a party of the oppressed, the poc, women, religious minorities, immigrants, the poor, and the worker. We are the coalition envisioned by Dr. King. We can have equality AND advancement. We just need to remember who is our enemy. What's more, WE ARE THE MAJORITY not just overall, but in almost every congressional district in the country. We may not be a full 99%, but we're close enough that there is no reason why we are not in power.

Quit crying. Start fighting.

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So the children have won (Original Post) Uponthegears Dec 2016 OP
Recommended. With reservations. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #1
So, you set up a false equivalence and demand that everyone meet in the middle... TwilightZone Dec 2016 #2
Thank you for pointing out the typo Uponthegears Dec 2016 #4
Hmmmm... many, many words. What was that you were saying about "little blaming fits?" Squinch Dec 2016 #3
Yea, it does require some reading Uponthegears Dec 2016 #6
Even if I agree with your interpretation, you are at odds with yourself here. JCanete Dec 2016 #5
It has nothing to do with the Clintons Uponthegears Dec 2016 #7
It is a good history lesson, and again I'm in agreement with your argument. JCanete Dec 2016 #9
I think you have a point Uponthegears Dec 2016 #11
What was Hillary's economic message? Exilednight Dec 2016 #8
It is true. Clinton and the DNC thought they could pull this out without JCanete Dec 2016 #10
It's tempting to look at the last three weeks Uponthegears Dec 2016 #12
That is why russ feingold, and Zyper Teachout lost. Feingold lost by a larger percentage than still_one Dec 2016 #14
You know that Uponthegears Dec 2016 #20
I didn't ask about her plan, I asked about her message. Exilednight Dec 2016 #15
In the GE, it was Bernie's message Uponthegears Dec 2016 #16
No it wasn't. What was her 3 to 5 word message? Exilednight Dec 2016 #22
No, let's be honest Uponthegears Dec 2016 #25
There's a difference between a message and a plan. Exilednight Dec 2016 #27
Great point Uponthegears Dec 2016 #28
Just for arguments sake, let's say she didn't have a good message. That does not account for the still_one Dec 2016 #17
A lot of it was her ability to convey her plans I'm a manner Exilednight Dec 2016 #23
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #13
Maybe you should read all the posts Uponthegears Dec 2016 #18
While I was stroking my ego" The last month before the election I did full time phone banking into still_one Dec 2016 #21
See what happens when we assume? (Including myself) Uponthegears Dec 2016 #24
Good analysis. Thanks! nt jalan48 Dec 2016 #19
You are my new favorite poster! hueymahl Dec 2016 #26

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
1. Recommended. With reservations.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 12:29 PM
Dec 2016

As to President Obama, his elections were inspirational, but he wasted most of his Presidency searching for moderate Republicans with whom he could work. The ACA is a perfect example of this. While ensuring access to healthcare is vital, the ACA reinforced the idea that insurance companies must be a part of the healthcare system.

And the Nobel Peace Prize winning President continued and expanded the wars. So in my view this also diminished his moral force among some Democrats.

On the issue of the DLC we are in complete agreement. If both parties cater exclusively to corporate interests than many voters are going to conclude, correctly or not, that there is not much difference between the two. And perhaps the 41% of registered non-voters is reflective of that perception.

TwilightZone

(25,473 posts)
2. So, you set up a false equivalence and demand that everyone meet in the middle...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 12:35 PM
Dec 2016

and then you only argue one side, based on similarly faulty assumptions.

Rather funny, that.

Edit: It's spelled "Barack"

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
4. Thank you for pointing out the typo
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 12:59 PM
Dec 2016

Could you point out the "false equivalence," and the "faulty assumptions."

Vague, conclusory statements like those tend to indicate that one either: (1) one wants to avoid discussing their position; or (2) lacks the factual basis to support their position, but wishes to look like they do.

Please feel free to comment further. If not, I am sure your echo chamber (whichever one it is) will welcome you back.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
6. Yea, it does require some reading
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:22 PM
Dec 2016

but since you read at least that far, I owe it to you to try to answer your question.

We have spent over a month with the same two camps (and the usual suspects) pontificating about how their primary candidate would have won or about how the other group's primary candidate was the reason they lost.

I campaigned for one candidate in the primary and actively worked for the other in the general. These arguments are both bullshit.

Hillary ran about as good a campaign as anyone could have. She was AT LEAST as good a candidate as we have run in my lifetime (with the exception of Obama). She, just as Bernie would have been, was saddled with a party hierarchy that not just believed that suburbanites were reachable, but had made strategic decisions regarding the allocation of resources based upon that belief, counted on those voters coming through, and had done so for almost 25 years.

Those voters were never there, they have not been there since Bill ran on (to be honest, offensive) Republican ideas. No Democrat could have won because there is no Democrat who can do what Obama did in terms of turnout among core demographic groups.

We have two camps still fighting over who they liked best, not over how we win elections.

Those are the "blaming fits."

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
5. Even if I agree with your interpretation, you are at odds with yourself here.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:11 PM
Dec 2016

There is no reason to bombastically place the blame of anything at the feet of the Clintons unless you insist on perpetuating the same behaviors that you led with condemning.
 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
7. It has nothing to do with the Clintons
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:35 PM
Dec 2016

Other than the fact that running like Bill (and when Bill ran) is the only way to pull it off.

Like I said before, I'm not going to get in a discussion about Bill's particular policies because they don't matter now and it doesn't help anything.

As for Hillary, she did everything possible. While I was more than a little active on Bernie's side in the primary, but I got out and worked hard for Hillary after the primary.

I don't know what else she could have done. IM(belated)HO, she was the best candidate we had and she ran the best campaign she could have run.

The voters that Bill pulled out of the suburbs just aren't there anymore.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
9. It is a good history lesson, and again I'm in agreement with your argument.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:44 PM
Dec 2016

Maybe the transition doesn't ease people in enough about 3rd way and Clinton and it can give a misleading impression of what you're saying.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
8. What was Hillary's economic message?
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:41 PM
Dec 2016

Boil it down to three to five words. I've asked this question about twenty times on this board to various people who insist she had a message, and the return response was crickets.

I give her points for having a well economic plan, but I don't know what her message was.

Obama's was "Main Street, not Wall Street".

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
10. It is true. Clinton and the DNC thought they could pull this out without
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:47 PM
Dec 2016

appealing to the masses on substance, thus not ruffling any feathers of those with the purse strings. What she was going to do once she got into office was hopefully another story, and at this point we can only speculate one way or another.
 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
12. It's tempting to look at the last three weeks
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:57 PM
Dec 2016

and say, "What plan?" because Hillary did focus on what looked like a winning issue, Trump's character, instead of the economy.

However, it's important to remember that our economic plan was being talked about on the campaign trail. It was being hammered all through the Rust Belt by Sanders and Warren. What's more, the polling shows that, even though Hillary's campaign may have presented that plan through (pretty damn credible) surrogates, the working people who were worried about the economy voted for her.

still_one

(92,303 posts)
14. That is why russ feingold, and Zyper Teachout lost. Feingold lost by a larger percentage than
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 02:39 PM
Dec 2016

Hillary.

Every swing state Democrat running for Senate lost against the ESTABILSHMENT republican incumbent.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
20. You know that
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 03:27 PM
Dec 2016

basically everyone who came out for Hillary also came out for Russ, right (<2000 vote difference)?

You can fight with Exiled all you want,

BUT

Hillary's economic message was Bernie's message (in fact, he carried it for her) and it was good enough for Hillary to win the majority of people who cared about the economy.

Trying to blame that message for Russ's loss is probably a little bit of a stretch.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
22. No it wasn't. What was her 3 to 5 word message?
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:00 PM
Dec 2016

Let's be honest, she never had one or else you could recite it from memory.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
25. No, let's be honest
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 05:08 PM
Dec 2016

that you simply refuse to accept that Bernie was speaking for her.

Just like the Bernie haters who want to blame him and his working class supporters for flocking to Trump's (non-existent) "economic message" instead of sticking with the nominee (when statistically they did stick with Hillary), you want to deny Hillary credit for adopting Bernie's "economic message" because you want to believe that, if only we'd only nominated Bernie, he could have brought in those voters who were concerned about economic issues (which did stick with Hillary), and he would have won.

Bernie's people came through for Hillary. That may not give either the "still Bernie" crowd or the "Bernie's fault" crowd the fodder they want to blame the candidate they opposed in the primary for what is by my estimation a national tragedy, but it's the truth.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
27. There's a difference between a message and a plan.
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 06:01 PM
Dec 2016

Hillary's plan was good, but she didn't have the message to sell it.

True genius is when you can take a complex problem and shirten the message so that everyone can understand it.

People like Einstein,, Obama and Bill Clinton understand this. Einstein created an equation, which when hand written is about an inch long, that explained many mysteries of the universe so that even a moron in physics like me can understand it.

still_one

(92,303 posts)
17. Just for arguments sake, let's say she didn't have a good message. That does not account for the
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 03:00 PM
Dec 2016

reason why every swing state Democrat lost to the establishment republican incumbent

A there are a lot of possible reasons for what happened, and I think there were a lot of factors at work

Response to Uponthegears (Original post)

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
18. Maybe you should read all the posts
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 03:18 PM
Dec 2016

Then you can head back to some safe enclave to push this stuff.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say I did FAR MORE for Hillary going door to door in Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Birmingham, and Mobile after the primary was over on my own dime and working phone banks at night (because the people I know are going to suffer under Trump in ways that the precious little "Reagan Democrat" suburbanites can't even imagine) while you were here stroking your ego by yammering about how a handful of Trumpsters posing as "progressives" over at JPR had any effect on this election.


still_one

(92,303 posts)
21. While I was stroking my ego" The last month before the election I did full time phone banking into
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 03:53 PM
Dec 2016

the swing states.

I contributed food to the volunteers, and also donated money to the campaign and the swing state Democrats, so please don't imply I didn't do sqwat. Just like your broad based generalities, you have no idea

You make a lot of assumptions in your rant, and jump to a lot of conclusions. In regard to President Obama, he had a strong message, however, the country just had the worst financial implosion since the great depression, and that was a large factor, but a small detail that many like to brush over was that Howard Dean was the DNC chair in 2008, and his 50-state strategy worked, and it wasn't because he "excluded" some people. In fact, that was the virtue of President Obama's campaign, it was inclusionary for everyone.

While Bill Clinton did a lot of things that hurt the party, his choices for the Supreme Court were exemplary, and the Supreme Court was an issue in this election.

You do realize those "reagan democrats" you are referring to mostly came from labor:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/31/us/teamsters-vote-to-endorse-reagan.html

"The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the "malaise" of the Carter administration. They also supported Reagan's strong stance on national security and opposed the 1980s Democratic Party on such issues as pornography, crime, and high taxes.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

Ironically, those reagan democrat who were from labor, by voting for reagan, voted for the destruction of their own movement by voting for reagan.

your point of "WHITE SUBURBANITES ARE NOT COMING BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY", is that a fact that you can back up?

47% of the voting population didn't bother to vote. Not that much different from previous elections, which is which is awful, and contributed to what happened. They did NOT put a checkmark beside the racist's name, though their action resulted in such.

The point that doesn't get much attention is that in 2013 the Supreme Court ruled against a key provision in the voting rights act. 14 states have made laws which made voting more difficult. The impact of these laws was mostly directed against People of Color.

Michael Moore since bush was elected made the statement that we are the majority. The only way that becomes reality is if we vote.

This election was a generational election. It will take a generation to come back from.

The only way that is going to happen is at the local and state levels first, and I hope it doesn't happen, but I think a lot of people are going to suffer for a long time because of this election.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
24. See what happens when we assume? (Including myself)
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:55 PM
Dec 2016

You bring up some good points.

Let me just touch on the ones where we might not be on 100% agreement.

How do I conclude that white suburbanites won't come back?

Partly for the very reasons you mention (combined with their overtly racist behaviors), partly because of the post-Bill elections, a lot because of the last election. Let me talk about them in reverse order.

Trump had only one message, hate. I know the "still Bernie" folks want to say Trump pushed the anti-TPP idea too, but he really didn't and, besides, Bernie was out pushing the same message for Hillary. The simple and I think indisputable fact is that every single (euphemistically, not literally) person who put a check next to Trump's name was driven by hate. What's more, they believed so strongly in hate that they didn't vote for a candidate who (even if you were the staunchest Hillary opponent during the primary) was, at very least (and we know she was much more), as acceptable as any other Democrat who has run. They showed they were one issue voters of the most reprehensible kind and that issue was keeping us down. You don't come back from that.

If you take that revelation and look at the post-Bill demise of our party, you start to realize that, over that period of time, we ran lots of candidates who were very similar to Hillary to the extent that they were not overtly "liberal" and often times vastly superior to their opponents. They also failed to bring in the suburban vote. I think it logical to conclude that what was, at least in my mind, conclusively proven reasons for their rejection of the astoundingly better Hillary Clinton, was what also drove them away from other Democrats.

Finally, I think when you combine your observation about the Democratic Party becoming the champion of "the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups" with long lines of suburbanites cuing up to by guns when the only "danger" is the racist myth perpetrated by the NRA, their support for anti-gay referendums (even in states like California), the virulent anti-mosque demonstrations in the suburbs, and the (again, primarily suburban) rise in hate crimes, it's hard to deny that hatred is the driving factor in white suburbia. This is especially true when you recall that, unlike the <$50K working folks who voted for Hillary who have seen hardships even during the recovery, suburbanites have seen their 401Ks explode, their home values bounce, and their cost of living stay low. In other words, they have ZERO reason to be anything to be disgruntled over (other than hate) and they still voted for a psychopath.

As for Stan Greenberg's analysis, I thought is was pretty result-oriented at the time (evidence, limiting his sample pool to union workers), but even assuming that he was correct then, those people don't exist in significant numbers any more. We're not looking at a big mass of union workers who watched their jobs go overseas while Obama was president (and by Stan's theory, working for "us folks&quot . These are folks who either never made a union wage in their life or, if they did, haven't made one for two decades. These are now the sub-$50k workers who Hillary actually did bring back to the fold.

I have to tell you that on everything else, we couldn't agree more.

I do think there is one other path which can get us back at every level and maybe sooner than a generation (which may just be wishful thinking because I won't live to see another generation). It is what somehow became a "dirty word" around here . . . "identity politics." If we take up the mantle of "the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups" (AND the working class voters Hillary already kept in line) with the kind of vigor we've been too scared to do for years upon years. If we stand up not just for the bright-eyed high achiever who has been kept down by overt racism but the also the Michael Browns who have been kept down by subtle racism even before they were shot down in the street; if we stand up for the right to vote of not just the ninety year old daughter of slaves, but also of the black man who just got out of prison for murder; if we tell working people of all races colors and creeds that THEY are the "producers" of wealth and that the controllers of capital are the "takers;" in short, that there is "good" and there is "bad" and they are the "good," we might just stop the haters in their tracks.

Thank you so much for getting back to me. I honestly appreciate it more than you can imagine.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So the children have won