2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs it even possible to have a 'superpac" and still be genuinely progressive?
Given that big donors always insist that progressive values be diluted down to nothing(especially on the economic issues that affect most of us more than anything else) how could it be?
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)they don't expect something in return.
Thanks for the thread, Ken Burch.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Somebody thinks that will stop you in your tracks
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)Simplified platitudes make life easier I guess....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Things that can be important, but not transformative. Things that are righteous but essentially safe in terms of power relations.
(as Clinton supporter Katha Pollitt pointed out, this is part of the reason why the fight for LGBTQ rights, even though it is far from over, seem to be doing better than the defense of reproductive choice. LGBTQ rights aren't threatening to wealthy male power in the same way that reproductive choice, without which no form of feminism or any meaningful existence for women outside the home, let alone any possibility of the smashing of the glass ceiling, is even remotely possibly, is.)
But none of the ones who write big checks to superpacs can ever have Bobby Kennedy passion about things like poverty or racism or(at times) class.
Especially none of the rich people who support trade globalization on corporate terms.
onenote
(42,759 posts)There is a lot of misunderstanding about what a super pac is and isn't.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/