2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumQuestion for Bernie Supporters ...
Imagine I was supporting a candidate that believed the path to a more just society was through establishing social equality ... the candidate campaigns on establishing intra-class parity, arguing by doing so, we would forge stronger coalitions, as the 99% (particularly, PoC, women, LGBT and all other "others"
, experience equality for the first time in this nation, and that tis creates a stronger base from which to attack the 1%. My candidate's tag-line is "Social Equality Today, So We All Prosper Tomorrow." And when my candidate's campaign kicks off in the South Central, LA, then moves to Castro district of San Francisco, and then across the Bay to Watts, before holding a huge event at Mills College (a woman's college in Oakland). And, in each of these 1 hour appearances, my candidate spent about 2 minutes calling for the need for economic justice, before pivoting back to social justice.
Would it matter to you that my candidate was a proud socialism 50 years ago, or even, today? Would it matter to you that he/she picked lettuce with Cesar Chavez and stood the labor line in China and Mexico? Would it matter to you that my candidate spent 30 years in Congress and had voted "right" on every economic equality issue, while talking about social justice when in front of the cameras?
Are you beginning to understand why you are failing with (most of) the PoC, here?
This is a empathy/honesty test.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
daleanime
(17,796 posts)for themselves who they support?
Then we could spent more time working on the ton of issues facing us. I'm headed out the door in a little bit, I need to make sure I have some Bernie Papers (as I like to call them) printed up, just in case I need them. Have a great day.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with your Bernie papers with a majority of PoC.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)been well received so far. But will keep that in mind, thanks for looking out for me. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who was part of the Civil Rights Movement, who ran twice for POTUS, the first time not focusing on Economic Equality but in his second run, decided that MLK was correct, that until there was Economic Equality for all Americans, nothing else could be achieved.
Then suppose that most of his White Democratic colleagues, did not stand up for him despite the fact that had they done so, he had a chance of getting the nomination.
Supposing that only two White elected officials stood by him, recognizing the importance of what he was doing, one of whom brought him to his state and worked so hard in that state to convince voters that he was correct, and with his help, WINNING THAT STATE.
What would you say about those two elected officials?
What Jesse Jackson said was that 'when I most needed help only two white elected officials stood up for me, one was Bernie Sanders, the other was Jim Hightower'.
I would say that I would never, ever dismiss the work done by Sanders during the Civil Rights Movement, or anyone who was there when it counted most.
Then I would see that it wasn't just during that time, that Sanders never wavered in his support for AAs as is obvious when Jackson ran for president years later.
I find it to be quite despicable frankly to attack someone for their work for Civil Rights and I appalled to see anyone so dismiss those who were there doing all they could to help get those rights which they believed in and still do.
And I will say this, if this is going to be the tactics of Hillary supporters they will lose.
Btw, what was Hillary doing back then when Bernie was part of the Civil Rights Movement which you appear to find unimportant? That is not the view of any AA I know, and in fact that is why Bernie will win, because he has never changed his views and has voted accordingly, throughout his political career and in fact his life.
Keep on dismissing the Civil Rights supporters, it will not benefit your candidate and will definitely raise questions about HER past wrt to this most important issue.
I cannot think of a worse tactic, but am glad to know what to address when campaigning for Bernie. So far, the response, when I tell people that Hillary's campaign is dismissing those who worked for the Civil Rights movement, they are appalled.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and Sanders support for his candidacy.
You did it far more eloquently that I could.
Thanks you!
artislife
(9,497 posts)
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
appalachiablue
(41,149 posts) OnlyBernieBurnsBush
(63 posts)Was some lamebrain Goldwater Girl.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Is why the Super Tuesday week of 2008 doesn't register some concern of H's true commitment to the AA community. You seem really informed and impassioned. I followed that election like it was my job. That week of dog whistling changed my mind forever on Bill's sincerity and H's. I was ready to be an Obama supporter who would lose in the primaries and then go on to support H in the general. That week was when I felt the need for Obama to win and that it wasn't a pipe dream. I am Latina/Native/Irish to be clear. What I felt with Obama was one us, the brown skinned, the brown eyed people rising. It was incredible.
I know you strongly support her and I respect that. I just wonder how.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)I have just read your posts in current threads.
Will not ask you anything again.
I mistook the idea that you wanted dialogue.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You start with a incorrect assumption, then get snippy when corrected.
That is the pattern these days with a segment of DU.
artislife
(9,497 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thats the right answer.
Welcome to DU by the way
peace
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)here is another problem with DU of late ... the sheer number of people that would dare tell another DUer that their interpretation of something weighs more than that person's statement ... and persist in doing so, even when it is pointed out time and again that their interpretation is based on a fundamental, but persistent, inaccuracy.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 12, 2015, 04:44 AM - Edit history (1)
What, exactly, are you saying? The analogy you set up in the OP was intended to set up a situation in which, as you saw it, white leftists were being treated in the way you believe Bernie and his supporters have treated PoC.
The analogy doesn't work because we would get totally behind a candidate and a campaign like that...and a lot of us did when we backed Jesse Jackson(especially in 1988, when he got widespread white left support and Bernie's endorsement).
And you may not be settled on a candidate, but you do appear to be settled on a candidate to relentlessly attack. Why do you give Bernie's campaign so much grief when you've said nothing, for example, about HRC's involvement in building the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that was formed largely to distance the Democratic Party from PoC issues and concerns(and to push the party towards a "law and order/tough on crime" position, when, having lived life, you know perfectly what "law and order/tough on crime" are code phrases for? Why are the text of Bernie's early stump speeches and the stops on his early campaign itinerary a greater crime than that? Or O'Malley's complete indifference to police violence as mayor of Baltimore?
You could make a legitimate case that all of the candidates need to work harder on PoC issues...yet, even though you haven't settled on a candidate, you give all of them except Bernie Sanders a pass. And you've never really said why.
Please do.
Nobody disagrees with you on the crucial need to keep fighting against institutional racism. It's just that some of us see that that isn't the only form of oppression out there.
appalachiablue
(41,149 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)At that moment in 2008, I felt like I didn't want to vote for Hillary in the GE.
Don't get me wrong, I would have voted for her, but it was the first time that a Democrat had used tactics so distasteful that it turned me off completely.
Thankfully, I didn't have to do that then, and hopefully I wont have to do that this time either.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)by usually apathetic non-voters for registration forms so they can vote for Sanders in the primary when I go out canvasing.
I assume your "concerns" are far more valid among the middle and upper class variety of PoC.
Or perhaps you don't think my neighbors count as people (of color or otherwise)
Must be different in the burbs where you live, here, people are sick of rich felating politicians and want them some justice that will fill their wallets rather than the wallets of friends of a rich white lady they know don't give a shit about them.
Many even remember her "hard working white people " dog whistle from her last go around. (hint, that shit didn't go over too well and helped me a great deal in 08 when I was pushing Obama who was well received unlike her)
840high
(17,196 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Would I be incorrect or disagreeable if I stated that candidates will focus on issues that are dear to them as is their right? As the old saw goes "the political is the personal" and there are some issues that are more dear to my heart than others. If I was running for president I would emphasize amnesty for undocumented workers, full glbtq rights, an increased minimum wage and expanded Medicaid because I have a lot of undocumented friends, glbtq friends, and broke friends.
They need immediate relief.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That is absolutely true. And when the candidates do so, and ignore, or speak contrary to the issues dear to particular segments of the electorate, that candidate should not expect that segment to support him/her.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Folks running for public office should promote the issues that are dear to them and the voters should be free to vote for whomever they want free of undue pressure and without being criticized by those who imply or infer that they lack the requisite knowledge to make an informed chase...I believe most folks know what's best for them and their loved ones.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AverageGuy
(80 posts)Economic equality effects all of us, and is also important to PoC.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)One of the few who voted against DOMA eg. He is FOR Single Payer, considers Health Care to be a RIGHT. He is FOR immigration reform and consistent in reminding people that we are ALL children of immigrants other than Native Americans.
And that is why I support him, he is simply the best and the most consistent over a long period of time, never needing to evolve on any issue that involves human and civil rights for all human beings, including immigrants.
We are very fortunate to have such a candidate and I am not about to miss the opportunity to support such a candidate when we finally have such an opportunity.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)materialize, that parity will occur when 90% of us are in poverty (equalized across all races) and 5-10% of us are doing well (equalized across all races). Is that the moment in time that a heavy emphasis on economic justice will be permitted? That seems like a lot of unnecessary suffering for all groups.
Bernie will fight to further (and just as importantly DEFEND) the economic interests of PoC, women, and, I do hope that my opinion becomes the majority opinion amongst PoC, women, and LGBT individuals prior to the primary. There is POWER in economic strength. Economic issues ARE social issues and vice versa. You continue to separate the two, and it hurts the overall movement when you do so.
You have already announced to the DU community that you are fairly well off financially and that your personal interests are skewed more to the social justice issues. And, that is quite obvious in the candidate that you support and in the roadblocks you throw up to argue against a strong economic justice candidate and strong economic justice issues that would strongly benefit PoC, women, and LGBT individuals.
We can do BOTH. There is NOTHING in Bernie's history that suggests that he would be bad on social justice issues.
Why do you keep on attacking Bernie supporters? It's hugely divisive.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I am a broke ass mrfr. My civil rights are all I have. A Mexican kid from Boyle Heights, a black kid from Bedford Stuy, a Native American kid from the Pine River Indian Resevation should have the same opportunities for success as the children and grandchildren of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Paul Allen and should they be stopped by the police they are treated with the same dignity.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)And, I will say that empowering you economically (and other PoC) will do so much more to make that dreamt of reality come true.
Bolstering social security, raising minimum wages to a LIVING WAGE, medicare for all, anything that provides economic justice to disempowered communities will give them more social justice in our society. I am not saying that that alone is all that's needed to provide social justice in our country, but I am saying that it is a CRITICAL component of it. It simply must be part of the social justice fight.
Economic power and economic equality will help us reach our social justice goals. They go hand in hand. I don't understand why we keep on separating the two. I just don't. It IS what neo-liberals have devised as a strategy, and it is working brilliantly.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But more ... did you read my post?
Finally, how is the post (that you apparently didn't read), an attack on Bernie supporters? ... or is asking Bernie supporters to view things from a different perspective, an attack? ... Or, is my typing out the word, "Bernie" a no no?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)You supported Fast Track (that will NOT play out well for PoC, women, and disadvantaged communities).
You represent the interests of neo-liberals spectacularly around here.
I do not feel close to you politically on economic issues (even if we do end up always voting for the same candidate).
It's nice to feel close to you on social issues though.
But, we need so much more in today's America. So much more.
Walk. Chew Gum. Walk. Chew Gum.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If it means a belief in a market based economy then there has never been a president who wasn't a neo-liberal. I'm a liberal but I believe in regulated markets buttressed by a robust welfare state to meet the needs of those whose needs aren't solved by our market based economy.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"BettyEllen!!!!!!!"
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Sweden is held out as a socialist nation but at its very core it's capitalist. Ninety percent of the property is in private hands. If I want to buy a Swedish car I can buy a Saab or a Volvo which are both made by private corporations. I can't buy a Swedish Motors government manufactured car.
There is not one nation in the world that has the bourgeoisie freedoms we take for granted like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, et cetera that doesn't have a market based economy.
That doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to use the wealth that capitalism creates to better the lives of those left behind; the poor, the widowed, the elderly, and the orphans.
I just wish we would operationalize terms like corporatist and neo-liberals.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I really think DU is attacking a caricature of HRC ... that she will usher in some fascist regime. (I also, think people are attacking a caricature of Bernie)
"BettyEllen!" works just fine.
2banon
(7,321 posts)directly related to socio-economic justice and equality as pertains to the campaigns and most directly as an attack on Sanders and supporters. Instead you're meandering off on the curbside - i don't get you at all. a fierce defender of HRC's vacuous policy "positions" and then pretending you're undecided. LOL.
what a joke!
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm not afraid to state how I feel and when I do I take possession of it in other words I own it, I don't beat around the bush about it.
I read these screeds from the op for comic relief and comic relief only
2banon
(7,321 posts)pretending socio-economic justice and equality is somehow a separate construct and ignoring the obvious which any simpleton gets straight away.. 
OnlyBernieBurnsBush
(63 posts)Anyone who wants a little more for the 99% is branded a Bolshevik by the elite.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It is essentially corporate extractive colonialism with heavy deregulation. Reaganomics was neoliberalism.
It has ruined the US economy over the last 35 years. It is time to move beyond it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It used to mean a half way point between laissez faire capitalism and collectivism, neither of which are remotely appealing to me.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Economic liberalism if the opposite of heavily regulated Capitalism. It is Capitalism run amok.
What you are describing is Democratic Socialism, which Bernie supports. Heavily regulated markets and a robust social safety net, with a strong emphasis on the commons = Democratic Socialism.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Though their opponents did. John Kennedy was pretty emphatic in calling himself a Liberal:
-John Kennedy
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)IKE too. The term 'Democratic Socialism' hasn't been used much in American politics til Bernie brought it to the fore.
I don't recall the term "Democratic Socialist" ever being used against them in the 1930s - 1960s, do you have a source to back that up?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)-Ronald Reagan
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/27/us/on-the-record-text-of-1960-reagan-letter.html
• "Roosevelt is a socialist, not a Democrat," declared Republican Rep. Robert Rich of Pennsylvania during a debate on the House floor on July 23, 1935. That remark came after Republicans hinted they were considering a move to impeach Roosevelt, according to the New York Times .
• "The New Deal is now undisguised state socialism, declared Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio) today as he pictured President Roosevelt as the New Deal's leading socialist," reported the Chicago Daily Tribune on Aug. 7, 1934. "The president's recent statements," Fess said, "remove any doubt of his policy of state socialism, which necessitates increased activities of the government in either ownership or operation of industry, or both."
• "The Russian newspapers during the last election [1932] published the photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt over the caption, 'The first communistic President of the United States,'" said Sen. Thomas Schall, a Republican from Minnesota. "Evidently the Russian newspapers had knowledge concerning the ultimate intent of the President, which had been carefully withheld from the voters in this country. In fact, the voters of the United States were meticulously misled as to such intentions." We found Schall's comments in the book, All But the People: Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Critics, 1933-1939 .
And then there's FDR being called a socialist by William Randolph Hearst.
Hearst, a newspaper mogul, initially supported Roosevelt. But he gradually became disillusioned with the new president's policies. He especially hated Roosevelt's plan to increase taxes on the wealthy, and his papers routinely referred to the New Deal as the Raw Deal.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/
I don't get hung up on labels. If I am anything I am a Keynesian.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)As was Reagan and the GOP, especially back in the 50s.
Democratic Socialism is not centralized Socialism. Democratic socialism involves a democratic political system with a socialist economic system and social ownership of the means of production, AKA the commons. This is in stark contrast to the centralized ownership of production seen in centralized Socialism.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Where is this practiced?
Even in Sweden there is very little "social ownership of the means of production" with 90% of property in private hands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)There are three roads you can do down.
Centralized ownership of means of production, AKA Communism.
Privatized ownership of means of production AKA Fascism/Neoliberalism
Common ownership of means of production AKA Democratic Socialism.
The commons: that which is vital to economic and social well being of the country, water, roads, forests, mineral rights, etc., electrical and other utilities etc.
In Democratic Socialist countries, 'means of production', refers to infrastructural and natural capital, not ownership of factories and machinery.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Economic liberalism in the classical economic sense is closer to Rothbardian concepts of free-market capitalism. It's all about the "invisible hand" and laissez-faire notions of how economies work.
Bullet-points:
*market regulation is basically the worst damned thing that can ever happen to a capitalist economy.
*social welfare is evil.
*free-trade will level inequality globally.
*government is little more than an entity which steals property (through taxation), employs a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, uses its coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, creates artificial monopolies, restricts trade, and restricts personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, environmental standards and the like. (I cribbed most of this bullet-point from Wikipedia because it's so well-written and succinct. No point reinventing the wheel.)
Charles Koch and Alan Greenspan are classical economic liberals.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Laissez-faire capitpatism or classical liberal economic policies failed. That's why most liberals broke off from them and formed what we call traditional liberalism which relies on regulated markets, progressive taxes, and a robust welfare state.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and "Fast Track" by itself will have NO impact on any community, except congress.
Really ... what are my positions on economic issues? I doubt you can state more than one or two, and on those we should be on the same side. I suspect the more accurate statement would be "I do not feel close to you."
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)thanks to it.
Anyone that's been paying attention to politics would know this. And, I don't believe you'll be surprised (or upset) when neo-liberal policy gets enacted thanks to its passage.
Fast Track rolls out the red carpet for neo-liberal policy to be enacted. Rolls it out.
It's why so many of us were against it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The irony of which is lost on some apparently.
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
Economic liberalism = deregulation. That's what brought us the collapse in 2007. Voting rights and civil rights are on the decline. Poll taxes have come back. Voter ID laws. Other measures to strip power from African Americans. The Neoliberal oligarchy must do this, through the GOP, to maintain power. Scott Walker's Wisconsin is a good example of what happens when neoliberalism runs amok.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)However, I was reading Bobby Kennedy In His Own Words recently, and in it he talked about social justice being nugatory if not accompanied by economic justice: what good is it to have the right to eat in HoJo's or stay in a Hilton if you don't have the money to do so? Apparently, he was not alone in asking this question, since MLK wondered essentially the same thing.
I don't see it as a case of either/or but more or less, myself, but I would not be surprised or have any difficulty at all in imagining somone wondering if the Salvation of the Middle Class is also going to include a few scraps of salvation for the socially oppressed. Of course, I also worry that concentrating on resurrecting the Middle Class is not just going to perpetuate the frantic consumer culture of waste that is due for a head-on collision with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Arguably, one group wants to restore the pie, one group wants a fairer slice, and both groups are ignoring that there may soon be no pie at all. Setting that aside as a personal quirk, for someone already on top of the food chain it becomes a more theoretical point of chicken/egg than it is for someone lower down.
How much Mr Sanders is an economic determinist is an open question: I don't think anyone has asked him. How much Marxism there is in his socialism, in that he is mostly interested in economic issues and thinks everything else will shake out if they are fixed, I couldn't say, although plenty of his more fervent supporters would probably weigh in with plenty of arguments that he is a social justice warrior, too. I have myself often ruminated that he seems oblivious to the function of schadenfreude in propelling the "greed" of the wealthy, which may indicate a leaning towards economic determinism, or could again just be my own personal quirk, since I think schadenfreude is as important as monetary greed in this. All-in-all, I'd say that I think at this point that the Sanders engine is definitely driven by the economic coal, but how much (if at all) that blinds him (or obscures his vision) of other issues is uncertain at present. But there is a long time to the primaries.
On edit: this was meant to be directed to the OP. Damn, I am having a lot of trouble lately putting my replies in the right place!
-- Mal
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Karl Marx's goal was a classless society where the "state withered away to the administration of things." I don't think Senator Sanders is advocating anything like that...It seems he's arguing for a generous welfare state like they have in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)ie, how much are people (individually and collectively) driven/determined by economic questions? It is interesting to me that both extreme Marxism and extreme capitalism think economics is the only important question, and proceed to totally different conclusions from there.
-- Mal
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The rich are always going to be with us. As Barack Obama told Joe The Plumber they need to share some of the wealth with the rest of us because while many of them are there by their own initiative and dint of hard work we as a collective built the society where they became rich.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Republicans. I don't know if Sanders could use such honest terminology himself while campaigning and get many cross over votes. I wish voters weren't so selfish and short sighted, but it seems they are. It seems the best he or Hill can do now is emphasize jobs. I don't see us changing a majority of the electorate without a twenty year media takeover. It's still such a lightening rail.
djean111
(14,255 posts)if you choose to disregard his entire life, really, and focus on the last couple of months, then I would say that I hope you are happy supporting a candidate who you feel has said all the right things, for PoC, in the last few months or whatever. I understand. If you keep asking about this, what are you expecting? That we can make Bernie do and say the things that would make you feel better about him? Or that Bernie's supporters will switch support to, say, Hillary? Or that Bernie's supporters will agree that he cannot win the primaries without the PoC vote, and therefore he should quit right now? It is very early days for the primaries. O'Malley has released some detailed information on what he wants to do. Bernie has pretty much felt the same way about things his entire life, he does not need polls and advisers to tell him what is safe to say.
I believe that most DUers have made up their minds about who they are supporting. I really don't think people are going to switch support now. And like the first reply says, everyone gets to choose who they want to support. Personally, I don't look to anyone else to dictate or help me with my choice, and my assumption is that everyone here feels the same way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How did you get that from what I wrote? And this is what has happened through out this entire (early part of the) campaign ... too many are attempting to answer their own question; rather than, the one that is asked ... and then, are shocked and angered when told they have it twisted.
djean111
(14,255 posts)question until we all agree with you. You are saying that Bernie will fail because PoC will not vote for him. I am saying well, we will see what happens, then. What else do you want? For no one to support Bernie? I don't see any other candidate that I could honestly support, even if Bernie dropped out. And that is my choice, based on my perceptions.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)You're asking why a certain position might not reasonably result from a candidate's behavior. This is interpreted by others as a condemnation of the candidate and/or his supporters, which is an entirely other thing.
Calling it a test of honesty, however, is probably not the best way to make the point, although I have no quarrel with considering it a question of empathy.
-- Mal
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rather than "honesty", I should have written, "self-reflection."
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)To get a piece of the pie, he doesn't care about black people. That is of course ridiculous on its face. The other one is that because Sanders has been involved in the civil rights struggle for fifty years, he's too rigid (!!!). He would be more likable if he'd been a racist when he was young. Reasoning with someone who believes such preposterous things is going to be nearly impossible.
djean111
(14,255 posts)What Bernie wants, he wants for EVERYONE, and I cannot wrap my head around anyone thinking he is excluding PoC.
All I can do is support Bernie.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)requests to provide a link to a single person stating, "Bernie doesn't care about Black people" before it becomes clear what the meme is, and who is spinning it, and why?
delrem
(9,688 posts)And the innuendo.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Rather they call asking someone to see things from a different perspective, "divisive" and an "attack", and go off on the "Why do you say he doesn't care about Black people? He marched with Martin" canard ... I did not, and have never said that, and yes he did.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)You really should.
I try my BEST to not post negative things about Hillary or her supporters. I am not always successful, but I think I do a pretty good job.
I certainly would not make an OP directed at Hillary supporters in the manner you did for Bernie supporters.
If Bernie did not have a STRONG track record in support of social justice issues your OP would be fair. He does though. So, it's not.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)These things hurt him with our block of voters. He needs to address racism directly and spend a bit of time hiring more blacks and hispanics on his campaign staff so that they can tell him these things. Marching with Dr Kings was wonderful. Now, he needs to come and ask us for our votes directly and tell us why he is the one for the job. And what he plans to do to help our community in particular, since we are doing worse than most.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter, as you know, and, as I believe you know, I've never thought you were saying he doesn't care about PoC.
My take on what you say is that he doesn't often address racism directly and discretely, and, from my limited observation, I agree. I'm interested in what you say because you contend that this is hurting his campaign with PoC, and I don't want that to happen.
Completely agree with your analogy. I'm a big fan of analogies and sauce for the goose.
As to the reason, I have no idea. If what you bring up is in fact hurting the campaign with regard to PoC, I hope the campaign gives it some thought.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thanks ... I suspect that might be because you do not see my screen name and allow it to color you interpretation of what I have written. And, I thank you for that.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)On both the tablet and the computer. I cannot guarantee it does not color my interpretation, but in my own mind I think it does not.
On the tablet, I do not see avatars and sigs. I don't remember yours, which means, I assume, that I don't violently disagree.....
donf
(87 posts)(Full disclosure. I am a 55-year-old white male. Massively under employed for the last three years, following 8 1/2 years in a decent job, which was lost in a corporate reorganization - along with my retirement savings.)
I am now so accustomed to hanging on by my fingernails, financially, that I would gladly spend a few more years in those circumstances if it meant we could achieve true equality among my brothers and sisters of all ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, classes, and ages. Social equality would also naturally lead to more economic equality. And I do believe that it would create very favorable circumstances for combating the 1%. If we had greater equality among all, there would be much less infighting, and the voting block which would organically arise from those circumstances would be a juggernaut. The 1% wouldn't stand a chance!
That being said, I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I believe that his approach is also a valid one. Economic inequality and deprivation create a state of desperation and scarcity. it is very difficult to bring people together to work for the betterment of all, when they are worried about how to provide food, shelter, and health care for their families. I am confident in Senator Sanders' commitment to social justice, and I believe that commitment will be articulated more fully in the weeks and months to come. We need to remember that, ultimately, we are all on the same side.
Autumn
(45,111 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and before you see it, Yes ... I know he marched with Martin.
Autumn
(45,111 posts)that people think Hillary doesn't have to come out and address current issues that are important to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but substantively, though I doubt require great detail.
What issues has HRC (or O'Malley, whom I am leaning towards, though still undecided) not addressed that is important to you?
Autumn
(45,111 posts)She has been running for years and has not addressed any current issues to my satisfaction and she seems to out hawk the hawks. I want someone bold, I think we need someone bold, at this time we need someone who is more in tune with the needs of the people vs Wall Street , banks and corporations and Bernie has been all of his career. Bernie suits me to a tee, he has a long time record that has been consistent. No evolving is needed in his case.
O'Malley? He's saying some nice things but I don't have the trust in him that I have in Bernie so he doesn't interest me.
Autumn
(45,111 posts)in his campaign speeches? He has been working for those issues since the 70's. I think I would rather judge the man by his actions instead of the measure of how long a speech he gives on those issues. We have seen over the years a pretty speech does not always translate into actions. Thanks for the conversation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ignoring the substance of what I said to remind me of his history.
Autumn
(45,111 posts)it is pointed out that he has spent most of his life working on the very things you decry him for not talking long enough about? That makes no sense. None at all. Your complaint is he doesn't talk long enough about the things that are important to you but FFS don't remind you of his history of working for those very things. 
So anyway since I fucked up and pointed our to you his history of working for those things and it has offended you I will step out of the conversation because I think that Bernie could talk until he turned blue in the face and it just wouldn't be enough for you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So many people, you included, ignore what I say to discuss what is not in question.
Autumn
(45,111 posts)I can see why you are frustrated. 
Anyway, have a nice day
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's a really funny exchange as if his words were run through something that garbled them up for you. Maybe try reading them again?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DU Progressive-speak!
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Truly.
HRC is not that candidate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this is America, where everything tilts to the affluent, straight, white (Christian), male ... including her candidates.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Seriously I would sit and listen to a candidate talk about social justice for an hour or longer and talk about economic justice for a few minutes or less. Especially if I knew they had a strong background in working with people who were working on economic justice.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)You are not The Arbiter for Opinion of all people of color, obviously. But, heck, appreciate your concern.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)900 supporters ... You say?
What is 79% of the Black Electorate? Can their collective opinion constitute the opinion of the Black community?
But, heck, appreciate your concern.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I look at what a candidate says and what they have done.
What they have done carries more weight than what they say,
but the words and actions need to be coherent.
Even if your hypothetical candidate focused more on social justice,
I would know that the decisions that this candidate would support
would favor economic justice.
Economic justice is fundamental.
As the Rev. Martin Luther King said "“What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can’t afford to buy a hamburger?”
The lower and middle classes in the US are suffering, but cynical Republican politicians have been pointing fingers of blame for years at the person who SAVED Americans from the total destruction of the economy, President Obama. The US economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month when he took office,
He has brought the yearly deficit down from $1.4 trillion to $500 billion.
I don't believe that social justice can be achieved until everyone knows who the real enemy is.
We have reached a dangerous precipice........Republicans are in the final stages of dismantling unions,
and billionaires are openly trying to buy elections.
I don't see social or economic justice here in America unless we shake up the system. A cautious, poll driven candidate won't cut it.
Report1212
(661 posts)And Gallup and Pew polling shows that most people of our racial background want jobs and higher incomes, health care and education. This is what polling shows we want. We don't want a critical race theory lesson. We want to have the power of economic mobility in a society where we lack it.
femmedem
(8,203 posts)I do think he would benefit from framing his message differently--or maybe it is a matter of building stronger personal relationships with people of color.
It is one thing to know, abstractly, that a candidate's policy choices will help them, and it is another to know in your bones that a candidate understands them and is comfortable with them.
I believe that Bernie knows that economic and social justice are entwined, and that the economic injustices in our country fall disproportionately hard on people of color. He has said so, particularly when talking about black youth unemployment rates.
So I think it's a matter of how he weights his message: if he began with social justice, and talked about economic justice as a large component of social justice; he would probably be resonating more with African Americans. Speaking to more diverse crowds would certainly help, too.
As someone (a white someone) believes Bernie has been strong and consistent on social justice issues, it is frustrating for me to see him not getting much support from African Americans. It isn't just you: the polls say the same thing, pretty overwhelmingly. So I am glad to see you persistently bringing it up, and I hope that Bernie and his campaign are recognizing the problem and working to remedy it.
I do have a question for you: do you think his not being a Christian hurts him in the African American community? In my city, I would say that wouldn't be too big of a problem. Our rabbis and Christian ministers, particularly in the predominantly black churches, have many shared events. But I'm in the Northeast and haven't spent much time in the South or Midwest.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The Black community.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Shutting off the water to thousands of people in Detroit is racist.
All the struggles are related.
The divide between social justice vs. economic justice is phony.
Part of social justice is having access to the basic needs of life like jobs, housing and health care
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If a candidate ended their campaign 8 years ago with a stream of race-baiting from surrogates, why would mentioning social justice in speeches with no concrete proposals erase that?
I really do not understand why some people have this hole in their memory. I'm not saying you do, I'm hoping you might have some insight into this blind spot.
People politically astute enough to know of her work with various groups in the 1990s seem to not know about this. It looks like willful ignorance, but is it just a dearth of options?
That was the moment of truth for me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)about as much about HRC's stream of race-baiting from surrogates as I do about Bernie's marching with Martin and SNCC membership.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Is the contents of campaign speeches the only thing we should use to measure a candidate? Or is it more along the lines of "at least she's talking about it?"
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and that might be because i am white. but this is what i see (borrowed from my post on a different thread a while back)
every time bernie fights for a living wage, he fights for minority communities, as they are often disproportionately affected by low wages.
every time bernie fights for gender wage equality he fights for minority communities, as they are suffering from horrible gender wage inequality.
every time bernie fights for health care for all, he fights for minority communities, as they are getting the least quality and quantity health care, and have a lower life expectancy as a result.
every time bernie fights for education, he fights for minority communites, as many minority communities are saddled with broken schools and no money.
every time bernie fights for voting rights, he fights for minority communities, as they are often targeted by the gop for disenfranchisement.
every time bernie fights against crappy trade deals, he is fighting for minority communities, as they have the highest rates of unemployment and are in desperate need of good jobs.
every time bernie fights for expanding unemployment benefits or food assistance he fights for minority communities because so many minority communities have been hit hard with unemployment and low wages.
every time Bernie fights for free college tuition, he fights for minority communities because minority communities have been traditionally at a disadvantage in getting a good quality education.
every time Bernie fights against the oligarchy of the 1%, he fights for minority communities because minority communities are disproportionately affected by income inequality, access to education, and decent housing.
social justice IS economic justice. fairness and equal opportunities for all improve everyone's quality of life.
i truly see bernie as a champion of ALL people, especially those who have been disenfranchised and left out of this latest economic "upswing". Can you please explain to me how he is not? And which candidate in your opinion if it's not Bernie, is?
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)Let's use trickle-down economics as an example. The argument in favor says that if the rich are pandered to, then the results will trickle down to the masses. This theory, of course, has been disproved time and again.
The concern with concentrating on "economic justice," as I see it, is that it comes out to empowering the Middle Class, with the hope and expectation that when they are empowered, so also will be the oppressed groups. This is, essentially, the point you are making in your post. The worry is that what will really happen is that the Middle Class will get theirs, and the oppressed will receive table scraps at best. The more cynical worry that that is the actual intent, although I doubt there are many who hold that viewpoint on DU, and certainly not the OP.
What presents you with difficulty, I think, is understanding that the oppressed do not necessarily have faith that all boats will be lifted if the Middle Class boat is bailed out.
-- Mal
Autumn
(45,111 posts)Even if only the Middle Class be lifted at least the poor would rise with them but that's not what economic justice would do. They, the politicians have lifting the wealthy for 30 years, we have gotten no where and the poor and middle class just keep falling down further. If as you say the oppressed do not necessarily have faith that all boats will be lifted if the Middle Class boat is bailed out, they have a real problem and it's not oppression.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)... the supporters of supply-side economics make the exact same argument for their fantasy.
-- Mal
Autumn
(45,111 posts)supply-side economics and economic justice. If Bernie thinks economic justice will help us with the mess we are in I'm going to trust him on that and join him in his fight for it.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)Again, supposing the Middle Class gets theirs, will others get theirs as well? The prosperity of the Middle Class has not, historically, meant that the oppressed groups will be equally advantaged. You trust Bernie. He does seem trustworthy. There should be little doubt he will continue to fight for the things he believes in, his record makes that doubly assured. But that doesn't mean that his fight will equally benefit oppressed groups, or at least is not sufficient assurance for some that it will.
-- Mal
Autumn
(45,111 posts)middle class or the poor. Just plenty of warm yellow piss trickling down. Perhaps the oppressed classes should not worry so much about the other oppressed class getting more as you say, and band together.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)Probably they should. But one isn't converted by being told how stupid he is.
-- Mal
Autumn
(45,111 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)advocating directly for the poor and oppressed communities. other candidates might say the right words, but their policies protect the 1%.
OK I'm not gonna play footsie anymore I'm just gonna come out and say it. Hillary might be saying all the right things to certain minority communities, but how does her economic policy benefit anybody other than the extremely wealthy? and now she's going to sell us all out again by supporting the TPP.
Bernie is trying to cover a lot of important topics in his campaign speeches. Does he spend every second of it on the particular issues that the writer of the OP wants? Perhaps not. But his actions are speaking very very loudly.
and for anyone who doesn't see that, I would invite them to go back and study Bernie's record and Hillary's record. And see which one is actually doing more for oppressed communities, no matter what is being said on the campaign trail.
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)This has been a civil rights issue for as long as I'm aware. In the LGBT community, where I have a lot of experience as a non-profit professional, an activist, and as a bisexual, the bisexual and transgender communities were essentially told to just hold on and wait for the homosexual community to get a foothold, and then we would be brought in later because society really, really wasn't ready for us. And it's similar to how women struggled for leadership and recognition in the civil rights movement of the 60s.
I think there are several issues here, and it's a really great learning opportunity for white activists. I think the first step for Bernie and other white activists is to listen to people of color non-defensively.
I think it is hard for white liberals like myself, because of course we don't identify as racists, but we don't always understand the difference between being a racist, and being embedded in a racist system. Nor are we fully conscious of our privilege. It's like trying to notice the taste of water. So when we hear things like, "Your plan for economic justice is in danger of leaving out people of color," it's easy for us to say, "No, it's for all people. All means all. And besides, hasn't Bernie been talking about the difference in unemployment rates across demographics?" Instead of saying, "What do you mean? And how can we do better?"
And I'm sure there is an even better response than that.
I am 100% committed to Bernie's campaign, and the centerpiece of the campaign is us, listening to each other and working together.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as you suggested. on all of the points above, bernies plan DIRECTLY helps the poor as well as poc. the fact that the middle class will also benefit is good because the middle class is hurting badly and many of them are slipping into poverty. hell even the wealthy might be better off in some ways with Bernie but that doesn't mean that that's the goal.
I am certainly not advocating that the middle class get theirs and then the poor just get the scraps. Please look at the post again. On every one of those points the focus is on oppressed communities, whether POC or poor or both.
and I'm sorry to say if there are any trickle down advocates running for the Democratic ticket, it isn't Bernie, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)And so is the OP. That something may be seen one way, a way not intended or even imagined, is the root of the problem, and saying "I am not advocating that" does not address the problem, and worse may be seen as reinforcing it.
-- Mal
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i won't disagree with that. i am not a poc so i can't speak to how he comes across to poc. i can only go by what i see regarding his record. the changes he is trying to make will benefit all disadvantaged communities. If you are suggesting that he and his team might want to work on highlighting certain aspects of those programs and how they will benefit certain communities, I think that's definitely something his team could work on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And it is not as if there are not modern examples of this. (See: Sharecropper and Tenant Farmers Organizations and the modern Labor Union Movement)
femmedem
(8,203 posts)
Stardust
(3,894 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts) Trajan
(19,089 posts)The eternal victim routine is wearing thin ...
Seems like you have been asking these same questions for weeks and weeks ...
You have not yet found the answers you were looking for ? ...
Why not just gather all the thousands of discussion responses you have already received, and arrive at a conclusion ? ...
Your constant interrogation of the community to alleviate your ever-evolving concerns is beginning to smack of narcissism ..
Ask the questions ... get the responses .. draw your conclusions ... make your choice ...
Somewhere along the way, you will need to move forward with some sort of decision ... I cannot believe you need yet more assurance by that one, singular response, which has apparently NOT yet arrived, that is going to seal the deal for you ...
Will it take one week ? .. one month ? .. year ? ... decade ? ... ten more heartbreaking threads ? ... twenty ? .. thirty ? ...
Look .. Get some personal conviction and just vote for Hillary .... case closed ... Done ....
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)I think it would be more approprite to take this to the playground -- or PM -- than post it in open forum.
-- Mal
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I'm sure that 4 members will find it is the most awful thing they have ever heard in their lives ...
But sometimes, shit just needs to be said ... You can ask a question once ... you can ask it ten times ... but ask it a hundred .. two hundred ... three hundred times .... I am beginning to think that the question is all the matters, and the answers will never be enough to draw a personal conclusion ...
Go alert ... have a really nice day ....
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)The question is not to punish, anyway. It's hardly the worst thing ever written, either.
-- Mal
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I now see that you only came back to AA to antagonize people. Very unfortunate.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Unless the 2 minutes spent talking about economics was some Margaret Thatcher neoliberal bullshit.
Can I ask you a question now? 
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Wouldn't that be wonderful? We have so much to get right in this country. But, to your question, I understand your point, and empathize with what you're saying. If economic justice were all that mattered to me I'd be upset, too. (And I'm not saying social issues are your sole focus, or that you don't care, but I have seen one or two here say that about themselves.) If that were all that's important to me, I'd feel like my issues were being given short shrift and I would have a hard time supporting someone like that. For what it's worth, I'd love for Bernie to head to places with more diverse populations and talk specifically about racial inequality and injustice and how we can work to overcome it, socially, legally, etc. And I'm hoping that he does, because these issues should matter to all of us. They definitely matter to me.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)rbnyc
(17,045 posts)My posting this link is really meant to be incidental and not argumentative. But after reading this thread and trying to process this whole conversation, I stopped by FB and this was the first thing in my feed:
https://m.facebook.com/poc4Bernie
2banon
(7,321 posts)no society can have one without the other. PERIOD. Slavery was/is about Economic Supremacy and Privilege as much as it was/is about Racism. Low wage "employment" is a form of modern day slavery.
to dismiss or separate social justice and equality from economic justice and equality would be a kin to implying that the rain falling on your head has no connection to the clouds above your head or to say that clouds have no relationship with water.
It really is that simple.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Except by those that seek to divide and race bait.
shockey80
(4,379 posts)I wish he would call himself a FDR liberal progressive instead of a socialist. Many americans believe a socialist is communism or crazy hitler way of doing things.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)as important.
However, I would like to remind everyone of the
way Ronny won: Pick a few issues and drive them
home, again, again, and again.
One of the serious problems OWS had was their
huge diversification: Too many issues and you
divide your supporters.
I think that Bernie has proven his interest in social
issues, but sticks now mainly with the economic
ones to drive the message home.
olddots
(10,237 posts)
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)regarding your sig line, if you are interested in his AA collaboration with Jesse Jackson and AA Congresspeople in the Progressive Caucus up to today, I'd be willing to look deeper into it and provide whatever material I can.
Now my answer, assuming I understand your point about his disproportionate emphasis on economic justice.
First, I agree. I would also like him to talk more about social justice at a time when so many of us are still raw from the massacre and the outbreak of burned black churches, Ferguson and the list is long. Honestly, I don't think Bernie is running a national campaign yet. I think almost all his chips are in Iowa and NH. I suspect because of the issue you raise, he will start putting chips in South Carolina again. I think he needs to for strategic and moral reasons.
Second, his message, his name recognition and heightened press is helping him in all demographics in the latest polls, but more slowly in the AA demo. To be honest, I haven't been lurking on the DU AA group as much because I am getting very busy with grass roots work in my home town and region. I can think of one or two AA DUers who have gone from undecided to Bernie and it seems from the lurking I have done, that many are still shopping. But your point is well taken. I still see DUers talking past you without acknowledging your point.
Third, as the big primaries in Feb. and March get closer, I believe we will see different rhetorical emphases. To me, that is not pandering, that is a heavily outspent politician trying to be pragmatic about his win-the-early-contests-first strategy. It is a strategy similar to Obama's in 2008. He's gaining fast but he is still the underdog in IA and NH.
Fourth, Bernie is a very moral man and I have seen him speak forcefully about the need for accountability for police murdering black people, community policing as one step, the need for de-militarization of police and getting the involvement of the DOJ with institutional racism in police departments, etc. As president, Bernie will follow through on these things because he says he will. I cannot make that assertion about any other candidate from either party.
So, brother, I believe change is coming that will help us all. K & R!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)
are you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Clearly, the African-American electorate is not monolithic; but, it is NOT me who is failing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/10/1400974/-Bernie-Sanders-Breaks-20-in-a-National-Poll-for-the-First-Time-Gaining-Support-Across-Demographics
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sell that somewhere else, lol.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I don't.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)In the name of "equality".
I love when people who want an "even playing field" fail to acknowledge its been forever tilted in their favor. It's always good for a laugh.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You assume so much about me. It's insulting.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Of certain segments of the populace, in this case POC- but same goes for women, that's my reaction.
It's not inclusive to pretend women or POC equally benefit when other people do. Loads need to change - and not for "everybody".
I'm insulted when it's implied at DU that there's some sort of reverse racism or "card" being played by Clinton supporters. But I don't take any of it personally either. I'm only discussing how over simplified this "everyone" concept is.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but folks seem to think ... if it is good for me, it must be good for everyone! Or, it'll trickle down to them ... eventually ... Maybe. But, hell ... I got mine!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)well, in liberal circles, it might be considered strange; but, StatusquoForThemButNotForMeUnderground ... it's par for the course.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Yes that is what I hear you saying (refuting). Yes I see your point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)never having faced with a life of being deprived of social justice.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Declared, loudly and furiously, those never having faced with a life of being deprived of social justice.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)The social issues remain even when one has money. Even the president experiences an extreme amount of racism and threats of violence just because of his color. So no, money doesn't fix social inequality.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Since 1/3 are felons and get left out of the job market (among other things), your equality as a group will be more equal than ours. Like always. Thats why repeating that meme is irritating.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bravenak
(34,648 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bravenak
(34,648 posts)1. We can fix your income inequality (the income inequality of white folks) as a group
2. It will not fix ours (black people's income inequality)
3. Because we are already far behind and the institutional racism that ppermeates this nation prevents us from getting our fair share of the pie.
4. We have so many in prison who recieve nothing
5. Therefore your equality will be more equal. Think animal farm.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I still support Bernie but his supporters are making me feel like an idiot for even trying to support the same candidate as them. Like how can you and I support the same guy? I need to reconsider my position or something.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Repeating yourself over and over in order to be rude and patronizing?
AOR
(692 posts)Racism... as a systematic, institutionalized, form of oppression is a creation of capitalist social relations. To even begin to claim that the fight for social justice doesn't involve class and can be separated from the fight for economic justice is beyond absurd and quite reactionary.
"The slaveholders by encouraging the enmity of the poor, laboring white man against the Blacks, succeeded in making the said white man almost as much a slave as the Black himself…Both are plundered, and by the same plunderers.They divided both to conquer each."
--Frederick Douglass
femmedem
(8,203 posts)I'm still trying to understand, genuinely, what you are looking for. I agree that income inequality is just one part of it. The wealth divide is greater than the income divide, and the wealth divide is a direct result of 20th century institutional racism, especially redlining, but also who was and was not able to make use of their GI bills, who was and was not excluded from social security, etc.
And, I get that the playing field is in no way level. The redlining of the past still colors educational opportunities. I live in a city where our property values are low compared to the suburbs, and our mill rate is high. It hits low income renters hard on their car taxes. Services have been cut--our schools were flat-funded five years in a row, cops are working 16 hour shifts--and now, just as we are about to get some more funding from the State, the Republicans put in some language that municipalities can only get the additional state revenue if we don't increase our annual spending more than 2 1/2% . So that is going to perpetuate the existing inequity.
Add to that the biases in law enforcement, the fact that it's easier for me to get a job because of people I know than it is for most POC, and the fact that my parents were able to accrue some wealth because their houses, in white neighborhoods, appreciated in value. In my city, where whole neighborhoods were redlined, POC couldn't get credit to maintain their homes, which led to blighted neighborhoods, and sometimes great swaths of eminent domain.
So I will never experience what it is like to be a POC, but at least I recognize that I experience white privilege. I think about social justice issues a lot, their history and how to rectify inequities.
But I don't know what a presidential candidate can do or should do. You mention coalition-building in the OP, and I think you are looking for a recognition that everyone deserves more than a token place at the campaign table. But what policies are you looking for?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Truly.
I don't completely agree with your analogy, because I don't segregate social and economic justice in that way. While they aren't the same, they ARE interconnected.
Since many PoC seem to agree with you, I'd like to see him address this more directly. I'm wondering if he will, when he's facing a more diverse audience. And yes, while I understand and appreciate his focus on Iowa and NH, since losses there could mean that his campaign never reached other states, I'd like to see him addressing more diverse audiences.
I hope he's listening.
Meanwhile, based on his record and his position on diverse issues, he has my vote in my '16 primary; the rest don't come even close.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So you don't see this thread as a personal affront to your being?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)While I have my own positions, I know I've gotten to those positions through the lens of my life experiences as well as formal and informal education. And I know my life experiences are just mine, and that others bring their own to the table.
It's important to me that we all have a place at that table.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What it is is a false analogy.
You have no reason to think Bernie Sanders supporters(a growing number of whom are PoC)would reject or be offended by a candidate like that, or take the statement that such a person was a socialist 50 years ago as a dismissive insult.
What you don't seem to get is that Bernie's campaign and his supporters don't actually disagree with you on the importance of fighting racism...we just believe that you have to fight economic injustice as well as part of that struggle.
In this, we stand with Malcolm X(who said "you can't have capitalism without racism"-as a representative of the Malcolm X Memorial Foundation verified for me this evening, and I'll forward you the email exchange in a pm if you'd like proof)and with Martin Luther King, who was fighting for both at the end of his days.
I encourage Bernie to speak out more specifically on PoC issues, and to seek out PoC audiences. It's pretty likely that the only reason he didn't was that he needed, with a lower-budget campaign, to focus first on the early primary states...states that, by happenstance, are relatively monochrome. Also, he was speaking to audiences there that knew his record on anti-racist and anti-oppression issues(which are better than any other candidate in the race)and didn't feel the need to rehash what the crowds were already familiar with. There was no intent to dismiss or exclude anybody. If the primaries started in New York, Texas, Florida and California(and there's a good case for the idea that they should)Bernie would have spent much more time addressing PoC issues.
BTW...which relatively early primary state would you consider the best test for a candidate's appeal to PoC voters?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We wouldn't mind a candidate like the one you described at all. We wouldn't consider such a candidate exclusive to us. In fact, a lot of us supported a candidate exactly like that in 1984 and 1988:
I doubt many of us would regard a campaign like that today as excluding us or being dismissive of our concerns. Nor has he failed to be there or PoC on the issues. The reason Bernie's involvement in SNCC was referenced was that a person wouldn't have been in that group if they didn't get it that racism was an evil that had to be fought with passion.
Bernie didn't choose his early campaign schedule to intentionally bypass PoC areas or ever in any dismiss or minimized any issues PoC cared about. It's just that, with less money, he had to focus on the early primary states first...and those states, by happenstance, are monochrome.
So I understand the point you're trying to make, but your analogy doesn't work.
Bernie's campaign, and Bernie's supporters, have not dissed PoC.
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)And I still have no idea what you are trying to say. But I will say Bernie rails against black unemployment that is too high and thinks we need reforms to prevent police brutality and mass incarnation and says America must apologize for slavery. But if Hillary talking about a plantation a weird southern accent does it for you then do what you've got to do.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)issues, but to include issues where other forms of racial bias are prevalent for people of color.
Let's remember the concern about electability is a factor too in persuading voters to
get behind a candidate that is not the front runner. It does not escape most voters
that the most well financed campaign often wins. Black voters did not automatically
get behind Obama when he first announced, only after Iowa did that change dramatically.
You can't expect voters to risk what they have when it is clear the Republicans have
proven they are the equivalent to vultures.
Bernie is not well known throughout the country, if you're a news junkie like many of
us here, you may know him. It is up to him to establish himself as a trusted source
by getting his record known which goes much further than what he did 50 years ago.
It is up to him/his campaign to at least get his website up to speed to make it easy
for anyone to check him out. The legislation that speaks to many concerns, like leaving
more black voters ability to vote with ease compromised:
Bernie Sanders Exposes The Republican Fraud Behind Voter ID Laws Via New GAO Report
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/08/bernie-sanders-busts-republican-fraud-voter-id-laws-report.html
Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 78% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program. (Jan 2007)
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Reduce class size to 18 children in grades 1 to 3. (Mar 2001)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Make health care a right, not a privilege. (Nov 1999)
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
Provide for treatment of autism under TRICARE. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
Fully fund Head Start; Job Corps; and WIC food program. (Apr 1993)
Support school breakfast for low-income children. (Mar 2009)
Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bernie_Sanders.htm
The other obvious reason Bernie is not focused on these issues as a forefront
is due to the Iowa NH reality..he does not get to restructure how the primary
agenda is laid out...that is how the nominating beast is on the calendar.
It is Sanders that possesses an excellent record to build further trust with black
and Hispanic voters...and he is also campaigning on a dime compared
to Clinton and the Republican party. With that said, he will need to accelerate
that effort soon, I believe he'll do that, but I am not the one who needs to
be convinced.
Although there is a small level of snark in the OP's sign line, I believe he is
deeply sincere....that is my take on it, for what it's worth.
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)I'm afraid I'm fighting a losing battle but I'm not giving up.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I could have added more to Sanders background, such as he is the only
Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/
Clinton to the best of my knowledge never was when she was in the Senate.
There is much for Sanders to get across and the differences in the two
are in fact quite measurable.
