Vigilant Walrus said:

It's not about making minorities waiting your turn. It's about being able to crawl before you can walk.

As I said it's not that minorities cannot or should not fight for their causes continuously. It's that the global push from above should come in via the side door, and while the obvious benefits to the average voter should be clear. If you zero-sum this reductionist down to "wait your turn minorities" rhetoric you're robbing yourself the chance of understanding the larger picture of what I tried to get at.

Click to expand...

Sinfamy said:

I don't think he's implying that, it's just that most Democrats throw their base a bone with social issues and ignore the rest because it hurts their donors

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

The average voter?

Why do all these discussions end up relegating minorities in to the category of the Other.

Once again minorities are the average Democratic voter... Like the base, the driving force, the only reason Democrats ever do win elections.

You're the one who literally said folks will have to wait for somethings and then listed off everything from reparations, to trans bathroom rights to maternity leave.

Economic rights need to be fought for as well, but if you aren't actively fighting for your base, you're fucked.

Click to expand...

StormKing said:

Is it impossible to address both racial inequality and economic inequality?

Click to expand...

Morrigan Stark said:

Seriously?

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

Come on...

Use the right pronoun.

Click to expand...

Ms.Galaxy said:

Please refer to Ekai as what she identifies as.

Click to expand...

Vigilant Walrus said:

Minorities are not the only reason democrats win elections. Minorities vote with democrats but they are not enough to give a path to victory as was proven this election. Like many elections the divide between the republicans and the democrats leave it the winner up to moderates who can swing both ways.
And that is why historically moderate policy makers have won the white house. You try to have your feet in both camps and that gives you the largest chance of pulling from both.
If minorities is all that took in winning elections then Donald Trump would not be in office right now, and the Democrats would not be at their weakest in almost a hundred years. The moderate resistance to the democratic party in favor of embracing might reflect that.

Fighting for equality is fighting for the minorities. Believing this isn't so is not understanding how equality brings about peace and stability. And again- These has been proven to have good results in other countries who went the entire way.

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

The average voter?

Why do all these discussions end up relegating minorities in to the category of the Other.

Once again minorities are the average Democratic voter... Like the base, the driving force, the only reason Democrats ever do win elections.

You're the one who literally said folks will have to wait for somethings and then listed off everything from reparations, to trans bathroom rights to maternity leave.

Economic rights need to be fought for as well, but if you aren't actively fighting for your base, you're fucked.

Click to expand...

StormKing said:

Is it impossible to address both racial inequality and economic inequality?

Click to expand...

I mean, she has a positive voting record on campaign finance, but actions speak louder than words. If you're coordinating with Super PACs and at the same time saying, "Citizens United is bad!", it just looks like you're saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." How the hell is that appealing to anybody? When given the opportunity to do the right thing and make an example, you exploit the system? That's not showing leadership, especially when you're 1) fighting Trump and 2) fighting against how the public perceives you.

Click to expand...

MIMIC said:

That's one thing that really made people look at Hillary sideways: being such a staunch opponent of Citizens United, but actively benefiting from it at every turn. And we see that having a boatload of money doesn't actually do anything but make you seem entitled....like all you're doing is going to an ATM to buy the election. Sanders came out of no where and made a lot of headway with grassroots with no affiliated Super PACs (technically speaking). And while Trump was backed by Super PACs, he didn't spend nearly as much money as Hillary did. And I don't know whether his voters found that appealing or whether they didn't care....but that core reliance on the people had to have been very endearing. But Hillary aligning herself with the elite (people who don't give a crap about the average person) and contrasting that with Trump who was ostracized by his own party made a connection with the average voter. He exploited that connection, but he made one, nonetheless. All that glitz, glamour and money Hillary surrounded herself with caused a huge disconnect. People already don't like her, think she's dishonest and whatnot, and that seeing her hobnobbing with people so unlike themselves made people feel that she's not with them. Middle America isn't familiar with that type of show she was putting on. And that's why places like New York and California voted for her in droves: they can see past all of that. The places where she needed to connect: seeing all of that had to be very off-putting.

I mean, she has a positive voting record on campaign finance, but actions speak louder than words. If you're coordinating with Super PACs and at the same time saying, "Citizens United is bad!", it just looks like you're saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." How the hell is that appealing to anybody? When given the opportunity to do the right thing and make an example, you exploit the system? That's not showing leadership, especially when you're 1) fighting Trump and 2) fighting against how the public perceives you.

Click to expand...

KingV said:

Personally, I think it depends on the issue, and the main point is that it will be difficult to build a national coalition around trans bathroom rights and reparations. Maternity leave, I think is actually pretty popular.

But at the end of the day the party needs to appeal broadly and not just laser focus on minority/LGBT issues. That message can be an important part of the party's message when talking to those audiences, a lot of us (myself included) poo pooed the blue dog Democrats, but the reality is they are needed if the party wants to be competitive in every state. At the end of the day, I'd rather have 5 Joe Manchins than 5 Ted Cruzs.

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

Regarding Citizens United i the previous wars were fought with swords and your enemy all of a sudden starts fighting with guns, even if you oppose guns, is it smart to continue to just fight with knives?

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

To address the latter you MUST address the former. Not vice versa. Relative to white people, we're still seeing the same ratios we did 40+ years ago among African-Americans in the US. If you try to "lift all boats", you don't fix any of the structural inequalities.


Obama put fundraising restrictions in place after '08. They have not worked out well. Intentionally tying a hand behind your back when your opponent is willing to low blow you is downright stupid.

Click to expand...

KingV said:

Therefore s no political path forward to achieve racial equality that doesn't help both together.

Reading your posts, I feel like you would be happier with a theoretical policy that drags white median income down to equal with minority median income than one that raises everybody by 10% equally, even though rationally the second policy is better for everyone.

The only politically viable path to erase the racial income gap is to raise all boats and raise the PoC boats more quickly to catch up. Some sort of massive wealth transfer program is DOA if there's only costs and no benefits to the majority of the country.

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

Regarding Citizens United if the previous wars were fought with swords and your enemy all of a sudden starts fighting with guns, even if you oppose guns, is it smart to continue to just fight with knives?



The party has not even remotely laser focused minority issues, what they did do was actually talk about them period and when you're used to absolute silence a whisper might be confused for a scream

Click to expand...

davepoobond said:

preserving inequality isnt justified just because everyone's numbers are bigger.

"raise all boats but raise the PoC boats faster" is exactly what people are saying when equal rights and improving the economy should be seeked in tandem. not one first, and then the other. they are separate, but linked, issues.

Click to expand...

KingV said:

Therefore s no political path forward to achieve racial equality that doesn't help both together.

Reading your posts, I feel like you would be happier with a theoretical policy that drags white median income down to equal with minority median income than one that raises everybody by 10% equally, even though rationally the second policy is better for everyone.

The only politically viable path to erase the racial income gap is to raise all boats and raise the PoC boats more quickly to catch up. Some sort of massive wealth transfer program is DOA if there's only costs and no benefits to the majority of the country.

Click to expand...

KingV said:

But tearing one group down just to get equality makes no sense either. It'll be damned unpopular and politically impossible.

There is sort of a zero sum assumption that most GAF posters use when discussing this issue, that's not necessarily accurate. We can theoretically make the rich richer, whites richer, and POC richer all while reducing income inequality both between the 1% and 99%, and also between POC and white people. That a winning electoral formula.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

I would not be happier with that hypothetical policy in paragraph 2. I don't have an opposition to making the economy better for everyone, I have an opposition to proposed policies attempting to resolve economic issues in a "colorblind" way that expect/pretend that it alone will magically fix racial issues. You clearly aren't understanding my criticism. My background's economics- but the problems leading to economic issues for many minorities in the US aren't originated by economic forces and thus can't be directly solved simply by improving things on the whole. I agree that paragraph 3 should be done, but paragraph 3 has been deliberately impeded throughout the US's history.

Click to expand...

KingV said:

But tearing one group down just to get equality makes no sense either. It'll be damned unpopular and politically impossible.

There is sort of a zero sum assumption that most GAF posters use when discussing this issue, that's not necessarily accurate. We can theoretically make the rich richer, whites richer, and POC richer all while reducing income inequality both between the 1% and 99%, and also between POC and white people. That a winning electoral formula.

Click to expand...

guek said:

I really haven't seen anyone say fixing general economic issues will magically solve racial issues. At worst, there are some arguing that you have to address the economy for everyone before addressing demographic specific economic problems (I don't agree with that either btw, we can do both) but not the false dichotomy you're presenting.

Click to expand...

guek said:

I really haven't seen anyone say fixing general economic issues will magically solve racial issues. At worst, there are some arguing that you have to address the economy for everyone before addressing demographic specific economic problems (I don't agree with that either btw, we can do both) but not the false dichotomy you're presenting.

Click to expand...

When asked at Thursday’s Democratic debate in Milwaukee whether he sees the economic struggles of Americans in terms of race, Sanders said something instructive.

“We can talk about it as a racial issue, but it’s a general economic issue,” he said.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

This was Sanders' refrain during the campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...still-wont-update-his-message-on-race-issues/ (This is THE reason this topic comes up.)


Statements like these from Sanders kept flowing throughout the campaign- he was getting feedback on this consistently (an example from relatively early on) through the campaign, but he never adapted his message in a way that reflected that he understood people's concerns.

I'm not trying to present a dichotomy-you absolutely can and should hit both at once. What myself and others are reacting to is when people appear to be saying that economic issues should supersede "identity" ones, or that economic fixes are good enough to solve economic inequality that's due to non-economic factors.

Click to expand...

davepoobond said:

it was one of bernie's answers to any racial issues, he just says "fix the economy, then the issues will work themselves out" essentially.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

This was Sanders' refrain during the campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...still-wont-update-his-message-on-race-issues/ (This is THE reason this topic comes up.)


Statements like these from Sanders kept flowing throughout the campaign- he was getting feedback on this consistently (an example from relatively early on) through the campaign, but he never adapted his message in a way that reflected that he understood people's concerns.

I'm not trying to present a dichotomy-you absolutely can and should hit both at once. What myself and others are reacting to is when people appear to be saying that economic issues should supersede "identity" ones, or that economic fixes are good enough to solve economic inequality that's due to non-economic factors.

Click to expand...

Raw64life said:

Extremely relevant to how this thread has gone so far.

Click to expand...

guek said:

Sanders is very one note with his stump speeches but the idea that he never addressed racial inequality, both economic and civil inequality, is false, as is the idea that Clinton never addressed economic concerns during the campaign. But just as Hillary tended to focus too heavily on her "not Trump" message, Bernie is too focused on color blind economic issues. That doesn't mean he thinks racial economic inequality is not a unique issue, he makes it clear it's part of his platform on his website and has said as much in interviews before. Yes he focuses too much oh the economy, no he doesn't think economic and racial inequality are interchangeable, merely intertwined.

The mistake is always assuming someone talking about the economy means they don't care about race issues. And on whether or not economy supersedes racial inequality, I think that's a completely fabricated false dichotomy. All Bernie and Biden are saying is that you cannot ignore economic issues, not that you have to choose one over the other.

Click to expand...

davepoobond said:

inequality doesnt mean what you think it means.

Click to expand...

guek said:

Sanders is very one note with his stump speeches but the idea that he never addressed racial inequality, both economic and civil inequality, is false, as is the idea that Clinton never addressed economic concerns during the campaign. But just as Hillary tended to focus too heavily on her "not Trump" message, Bernie is too focused on color blind economic issues. That doesn't mean he thinks racial economic inequality is not a unique issue, he makes it clear it's part of his platform on his website and has said as much in interviews before. Yes he focuses too much oh the economy, no he doesn't think economic and racial inequality are interchangeable, merely intertwined.

The mistake is always assuming someone talking about the economy means they don't care about race issues. And on whether or not economy supersedes racial inequality, I think that's a completely fabricated false dichotomy. All Bernie and Biden are saying is that you cannot ignore economic issues, not that you have to choose one over the other.

Click to expand...

KingV said:

This is basically a shit post. If you want to engage in conversation, engage in conversation, but if you're just going to respond to say "you're wrong" without having any sort of point whatsoever, why respond at all?

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

What was on his website wasn't matching what he was saying on the trail.

Click to expand...

plagiarize said:

But like I keep saying, putting greater focus on economic issues than issues important to minorities isn't the lesson to learn here.

Click to expand...

guek said:

Only if you weren't listening, but due to his tendency to stay one note, I don't fault you for getting that impression. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done a better job, he should have, but he has not argued fixing economic issues will fix civil liberty issues.

Click to expand...

the need to simultaneously address the structural and institutional racism which exists in this country, while at the same time we vigorously attack the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality which is making the very rich much richer while everyone else — especially the African-American community and working-class whites — are becoming poorer.

Click to expand...

Communities of color also face the violence of economic deprivation. Let’s be frank: neighborhoods like those in west Baltimore, where Freddie Gray resided, suffer the most. However, the problem of economic immobility isn’t just a problem for young men like Freddie Gray. It has become a problem for millions of Americans who, despite hard-work and the will to get ahead, can spend their entire lives struggling to survive on the economic treadmill.

We live at a time when most Americans don’t have $10,000 in savings, and millions of working adults have no idea how they will ever retire in dignity. God forbid, they are confronted with an unforeseen car accident, a medical emergency, or the loss of a job. It would literally send their lives into an economic tailspin. And the problems are even more serious when we consider race.

Most black and Latino households have less than $350 in savings. The black unemployment rate has remained roughly twice as high as the white rate over the last 40 years, regardless of education. This is unacceptable. The American people in general, want change – they want a better deal. A fairer deal. A new deal. They want an America with laws and policies that truly reward hard work with economic mobility. They want an America that affords all of its citizens with the economic security to take risks and the opportunity to realize their full potential.

Income and Wealth Inequality

Today, we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but that reality means little because almost all of that wealth is controlled by a tiny handful of individuals.

There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. There is something profoundly wrong when we have a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans. This grotesque level of inequality is immoral. It is bad economics. It is unsustainable. That is why we need a tax system that is fair and progressive, which makes wealthy individuals and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. This type of rigged economy is not what America is supposed to be about. This has got to change and, together we will change it.

We need to send a message to the billionaire class: “You can’t have it all. You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans.”

Economics

But it is not just income and wealth inequality. It is the tragic reality that for the last 40 years the great middle class of our country – once the envy of the world – has been disappearing. Despite exploding technology and increased worker productivity, median family income is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999. Throughout this country it is not uncommon for people to be working two or three jobs just to cobble together enough income and some health care benefits to survive.

​The truth is that real unemployment is not the 5.5 percent you read in newspapers. It is close to 11 percent if you include those workers who have given up looking for jobs or who are working part-time when they want to work full-time. And here is something we don’t hear much about. According to a recent analysis of Census Bureau data by the Economic Policy Institute, real youth unemployment in this country has reached crisis proportions. If you include those who are not working, who have given up looking for work or who are working part-time, white high school graduates aged 17-20 have an unemployment rate of 33 percent, Hispanics in the same age group have an unemployment rate of 36 percent while black youth have an unemployment rate of 51 percent. Today, shamefully, we have 45 million people living in poverty, many of whom are working at low-wage jobs.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

The speech is actually a perfect representation about how even when he was really trying, and had a pre-canned speech, these issues were popping up over and over.

This gives the strong impression that he views them as two distinct issues. When confronted on the unique needs of AAs and other minorities w/ economics, he'd pivot back to the general phrasing on the trail. Unfortunately, it also happens again later in this speech.

He starts off talking about police violence and other structural inequality issues. This is good. Then he transitions into economic issues. This doesn't go so well, an I hope I can help you and others see why:

When Sanders pivots to Economic issues, he immediately transitions off of issues specific to minorities and into his general stump speech. He explicitly pivots off of issues facing minorities in this country and starts talking about "Americans" in general, despite having spent the first half of the speech specifically on those sorts of issues. In this part of the speech, the only references to minorities come in the form of statistics dropped into the stump speech. (I've bolded those stat drops to point it out.) Everything else is his boilerplate stump speech.

When this happens- when the first half is very specific, yet suddenly the back economic half appears to be aimed at a completely different audience - it doesn't counter what people thought of him or show that he's evolved his thinking- it plays right into expectations.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

Yes, that's why I support Ellison for DNC chair over Perez.

Click to expand...

Kid Kamikaze10 said:

I don't get why it's even a fight between social and economic when the real issue was, and not just for the dems but the media at large...

Everyone was focused on Trump.

Click to expand...

Isaac Otherworld said:

That's great! I'm honestly shocked and ecstatic to hear that! How many DNC state chairs have you expressed your support to?

I can give you a list of the remaining contacts you need.



Because a significant portion of the democrats' campaigns are funded by big money donations. Bernie voters are more enthusiastic supporters of social issues than Hillary voters. So economic issues like medicare for all, getting money out of politics, and increasing the minimum wage get tossed to the side because the donor class do not want to see those issues addressed. Ever. And even if the party as a whole is losing, if you're won of the few winners that's all the incentive you need.

It's not the Bernie democrats saying "No social issues!" It's the Hillary camp saying "Everything is great the way it is now."

Clinton supporters looooOOOooove talk about how Hillary and her supporters are the answer to all racial and social issues, but from my perspective as an indigenous person and seeing how Hillary ignored DAPL and both the native american community in my hometown and nationwide throughout the entire campaign, and seeing how it wasn't Hillary supporters but Bernie supporters who came to us as allies, and how it wasn't Hillary but Bernie and his supporters who came to us when we needed it.

Click to expand...

guek said:

Question, what are the race specific economic issues that you keep eluding to? My whole point was that Bernie did not ignore civil rights issues like people like to pretend but that on economy, he was too one note. You're criticizing him for reverting back to his stump speech when it comes to the economy but I don't recall Hillary or anyone targeting race specific economic issues

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

Regarding Citizens United if the previous wars were fought with swords and your enemy all of a sudden starts fighting with guns, even if you oppose guns, is it smart to continue to just fight with knives?

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

Exactly. This isn't about what we think the world should be, this is about getting ourselves into a position to make that change possible.

Click to expand...

MIMIC said:

There's no excuse....especially since we saw that this election couldn't be bought. Trump basically spent zilch on campaign ads compared to Hillary's insane spending spree. Same for Sanders: he didn't get to where he is (or was) because he was loaded with super PACs or because he had a zillion ads on TV. He was a no name who lost the primary and arguably has more political clout than Hillary right now.

The line was drawn, and Hillary crossed it....and worst of all, she has nothing to show for it.

Not to mention that she was talking out of both sides of her neck. Squawking about Citizens United one minute, and writing her PAC a check the next. Either practice what you preach or shut up.

Click to expand...

Foffy said:

I imagine she would have gotten a far deeper conversation on these matters from Noam Chomsky or Henry Giroux, but they would have probably lost Sarah and much of the audience as they went on the attack of neoliberalism itself, whereas Sanders offers a very limiting package of that with his bullet points. Has Sanders ever brought up rentier Capitalism at all in any of his speeches?

Click to expand...

Foffy said:

it's also deeply important to begin to ask where that greed begins, and what social ideas really warp someone to live, breath, and chase paper above all else

Click to expand...

Aaronology said:

Do you similarly desire for Democrats to refuse to become obstructionists for Trump's presidency?

Click to expand...

How far does this "practice what you preach or shut up" idea of yours go, MIMIC? And, more importantly, can you point to any politician that you believe exemplifies the behavior you think people like Clinton should aspire to?

Click to expand...

davepoobond said:

preserving inequality isnt justified just because everyone's numbers are bigger.

"raise all boats but raise the PoC boats faster" is exactly what people are saying when equal rights and improving the economy should be seeked in tandem. not one first, and then the other. they are separate, but linked, issues.

Click to expand...

kirblar said:

This was Sanders' refrain during the campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...still-wont-update-his-message-on-race-issues/ (This is THE reason this topic comes up.)


Statements like these from Sanders kept flowing throughout the campaign- he was getting feedback on this consistently (an example from relatively early on) through the campaign, but he never adapted his message in a way that reflected that he understood people's concerns.

I'm not trying to present a dichotomy-you absolutely can and should hit both at once. What myself and others are reacting to is when people appear to be saying that economic issues should supersede "identity" ones, or that economic fixes are good enough to solve economic inequality that's due to non-economic factors.

Click to expand...

excelsiorlef said:

Not the only of course not but they are the most reliable base to which the left cannot win without them because they make up a huge, majority part of the voting base. They literally vote in such strong Democratic numbers that they can in fact overcome the GOP winning the white vote since 1968. You depress that turn out and you're fucked and I don't care about many white working class folk you pick up in the rust belt.

Your plan of action is literally to basically bench social rights, you literally said we'll just have to wait.

You've called minority voters not the average voter. You've othered them and ignored that they are the key to the Democratic party.

If there any better way to morally depress turnout of minorities it is by telling them that their issues will need to be white washed or snuck in, and that they'll have to wait for the right time (as determined by the benevolent leaders of the Democratic party and folks like you and of course how long they'll have to wait is defined as simply when the time is right) .

Economics cannot be ignored and should not be ignored but the answer to what happened here isn't to go well guess it's just not time worry about social issues that affect minorities.

Click to expand...

Vigilant Walrus said:

Again you're going on about that that addressing inequality is white washing. Dealing with Inequality is massively beneficial to improving the lives of minorities.


I look at history and I look at other countries, and what it tells me is that if this radicalization continues life will be unfathomable more dangerous for any refugee, immigrant or minority. In nearly every society I can think of, western or not, once the resources dry up and inequality reach levels where enough people are displaced from work and from having a home, you begin to breed actual physical radicalization and anyone who is a minority is on the receiving end of their wrath. This is not hyperbolic. This has happened over and over and over again. Donald Trumps presidential run is mild compared to what things will be like if this gets worse. And from all the estimates we've seen, inequality is going to get a lot worse. Markets are going up and investors are incredible happy because total business centric policies that forego worker, consumer and enviornmental protections is going to head us for another crash. I'm utterly convinced that if Trump goes through with more deregulation, greed and too fast growth will have disasterous effects.

I look at the damage of not dealing with income inequality, and I see situation similar to Europe in the the early parts of the 20th century when similarily millions of people had their lives ruined by the industrial revolution. I am telling you- If we do not take income inequality serious those who are the weakest will be the first to face the blunt trauma of the rage. It always has been that way.
In this climate there is nothing productive to be gained from a national conversation about minority issues. We're literally voting for insurgents who've been elected under the pretense of phasing off incompetent and corrupt shill politicians. It's for the same reason why Trump has gotten away with everything.


We need to put minority issues on the backburner for now. People will not listen to this. They just become more angry and feel they are not understood. There is no logic in it, it's pure emotional. If we fight for equality and stronger welfare now we can help a lot of minorities now, and from that angle tune further in. That model worked for Scandinavia, why can't it work for the US?

Click to expand...

Raw64life said:

Extremely relevant to how this thread has gone so far.

Click to expand...

Balphon said:

Could we please stop proving MLK right about the white moderate?

Click to expand...

Melkezadek said:

Have you ever said this to a minority in person? This is unbelievably offensive to me and I don't get offended by much. Has is any self respecting PERSON supposed to accept this?

I can't take people seriously when they say "No one is saying we have to dump minorities, literally no one". Right here. This is the type of mentality that's infecting many of my "allies" and they wonder why so many of us are angry.

Click to expand...