Social Justice is the ONLY Path to Economic Prosperity for Workers in This Country

[McCamy Taylor]

I am truly dismayed at the number of folks posting today who dismiss "social issues" as if they are extras. Gravy. A cherry on the sundae but not something that we need to be concerned about right now, when so many people are unemployed, uninsured, homeless. So many white people. So many men. So many adults.

How do you think we got into this financial mess? Why is our minimum wage so low? Why do so few people belong to unions? Why do most folks in Western Europe have health care but we don't? Why don't working mothers get maternity leave? It's because the bosses, the capitalists who employee us can undercut wages and deny benefits by hiring the scapegoat du jour. Once upon a time, it was the Irish. Then the Italians. And the Blacks. Now it is women and Latinos.

Say you are an unwed mother, 18, no college degree with a small mouth to feed. You got pregnant because the Koch Brothers lobbied to deny you sex ed and birth control. That's because the Koch Brothers want you slaving in their Dixie Cup plant until the day you die. The Koch Brothers tell the world that you are a drain on the economy. Because you could not keep your legs together, now you have a baby you can not support. They make sure than everyone hates you---and your baby--and that they feel no sympathy at all for you---and your baby---as you struggle to get by. As you make the already insanely rich Koch Brothers even richer through your labor, which they are getting for a bargain price, because you do not dare go on strike or ask for more---your baby could die!

Worse yet, the Koch Brothers tell their "responsible" employees "I'm gonna have to cut your wages, because all those unwed mother sluts will work for less." And so, the workers who should be hating the Koch Brothers end up hating the unwed slut mothers and their undeserving bastards instead. They begrudge them health care and education. And so we raise another generation of underfed, undereducated, low income low expectation workers to drive down wages for all.

If we really did act like a village, if we demanded that all children get a decent start in life, there would be no one on the bottom to be exploited. There would be no hopeless, despairing, self hating demographic to work for less than a living wage.

Anyone who thinks that a few demographic groups can rise out of this depression while leaving the rest to wallow is deluding him or herself. When some workers get left at the bottom, everyone else is pulled down.

Wanna know the real reason why right winger hate and fear Hillary Clinton? It's because Divide and Conquer is the way they keep themselves rich and us poor. Their worst nightmare is that the 99% will look around at each other and say "We're not different! We're the same. We're united. We all have value. We all have worth. I have your back and you have mine. We're a Village---one big family--- and we aren't going to be pushed around anymore."

Angela Davis writes about this issue eloquently in "Women, Race and Class."

Oh, and before anyone gets any ideas about tombstoning this thread by saying "unwed slut mothers" and "bastards" are inflammatory words, those are what the Koch Brothers call us. I call us "mothers" and "children." I mention this, because Divide and Conquer really is the capitalist's best money making tool, and they will go to any lengths to keep us divided and conquered. It is that important to them.

[Fumesucker]

1. Whether we like it or not a great many jobs are going away and not being replaced

AI is a game changer over and above anything we have seen in the world of work in the past. I work with and study this technology, most people don't have a clue what's coming and how it's going to change their lives for the worse.

The one percent don't *need* you to do their dirty work any more, or soon won't, there will be machines for that, machines that they literally will own. Machines that require no food, no rest, no medical care and above all no paycheck.

Either we figure out how to have the vast wealth flowing from the robot workers more equitably distributed or the ninety nine percent will live a desperate existence at best.

Hillary not only voted but urged others to vote for pouring $3,000,000,000,000 down the rathole of the Iraq war, that is money that could have gone to economic development and yes, social justice, but rather was spent to spread death, misery and destruction both abroad and at home.

[woo me with science]

14. I challenge the neoliberals dispensing these talking points

to name all the countries that have grown authoritarianism and rampant inequality, in which women and minorities remain *empowered.*

What utter bullshit, this Third Way claim to care about vulnerable groups, when their policies are aggressively dismantling the very democratic and economic protections that the whole of human history teaches us are necessary for marginalized groups to be empowered.

Neoliberals are a MENACE to the future of vulnerable groups. They are a menace to democracy itself.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Ok, I'll bite. What is a "neoliberal"?

[woo me with science]

43. Nearly 15,000 posts you have, and you don't know what a neoliberal is.

See post 41.

What an illustrative thread.

Don't engage with transparent Third Way manipulations and talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

All of history shows that women and minorities do not remain empowered in countries that aggressively grow authoritarianism and inequality.

Neoliberal policies dismantle democracy, grow authoritarianism, and skyrocket inequality. Neoliberals like Hillary Clinton are a MENACE to the future of vulnerable groups and to democracy itself.

[Baitball Blogger]

50. Neo-liberal defined

Actually, this early in the morning it would be easier to give examples:

1) A neo-liberal is a Democrat who blindly supports the pro-Israel agenda (as envisioned by its warhawks, like Neti) and would jump to commit troops for that endeavor without much debate.

2) A neo-liberal is a Democrat who believes that government process can be skirted if there is a good cause behind the effort. Unfortunately, they just have a better cover-story or selling points to provide the public, than Republicans do. This is what makes Thirdwayers so dangerous. Since they are designed to "find common ground" and compromise with Republicans, who have absolutely no use for government process, the end result is usually government running amok. Someone's rights will inevitably be harmed.

In the end, they are no different than Republicans when it comes to lavishing large sums of public money to their campaign donors. A good example is public works projects. They will sell the benefits of the revitalizations efforts, when behind the scenes they make sure the construction money gets in the right hands. It's a deplorable thing to see, especially when you have government attorneys believing they are community activists and sitting in on public meetings where they allow the train wrecks to go on without interfering with their course.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. I still don't get what a neoliberal is supposed to be.

All elected officials bring home the pork, or they don't get re-elected. All elected officials give the president extra powers in times of war or national crisis. Almost everyone in DC supports Israel because of the Holocaust.

[Baitball Blogger]

61. I guess it depends on what you stand for.

Skirting government process generally means overlooking due process of law and equal protection of the law. I don't need pork, if everything about the process sets up a corrupting system that permeates the entire community. Pork, sometimes is just a bribe disguised as an inducement.

As a minority who lives in a right-wing community that is steep in good ole boy methods that uses the small government form of public administration, I am very attuned to the corrupting and inequitable society that is supported by such methods. Neo-liberals are part of that equation, because they are too quick to bargain with these people.

Public money has the capability of becoming a corrupting force in a society. As people see how certain individuals are "induced" with construction jobs and other benefits that only a government body can bestow, they turn around and use the same procedures in their own residential communities. In my community, this has gone on for so long that people are not concerned about breaches of fiduciary responsibility.

Frankly, if you want equality in our country, you have to commit and stop the bleeding from every orifice.

Not every "gift" that gets negotiated that claims to benefit minorities is truly a gift. There is usually something poisonous that will stymie whatever good it might bring.

[McCamy Taylor]

69. So LBJ was a neoliberal because he took money from Brown & Root

and gave them the war in Vietnam. Meaning that a Neoliberal was responsible for the Voting Rights Act and Medicare and all that other legislation.

[Baitball Blogger]

74. LBJ gave them the war in Vietnam?

That statement isn't consistent with history.

And LBJ had little choice but to commit to the Voting Rights Act. You can thank the Civil Rights Movement for that push. You might also remember that we had a strong Democratic congress back in that time.

[McCamy Taylor]

79. "LBJ had little choice but to commit to the Voting Rights Act" Sigh.

How soon they forget. The Democratic Congress back then included a lot of Southern old style Democrats. LBJ and Humphrey fought like dogs to get enough Republicans on board to get that legislation through. It was a heroic struggle.

I am starting to feel really old.

[Baitball Blogger]

83. Seeing what we are dealing with today,

it was an incredible feat for its time-though I would not devalue the importance of the growing protests and civil rights marches that were increasing in number in the South. That would have been an incentive for those Southern gentlemen Democrats, who could see the writing on the wall.

We also had the assassination of a president, that to this day, still has questions unanswered. Who knows if LBJ was trying to deflect attention from himself.

And then, the CIA starts dumping cocaine in black communities, but that's just my cynicism talking.

[McCamy Taylor]

86. The CIA dumped the coke in the 1980s. In the 1960s, they dumped heroin.

[McCamy Taylor]

58. Ok, I googled it.

"Neoliberal" From wiki

Originally neoliberalism was an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s attempting to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning.[9] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[7] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy.[7]

Neoliberalism also represents a set of ideas that are famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[2]

Today the term neoliberalism is mostly used pejoratively as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies, such as privatization, open markets, and deregulation.[7][10] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen by some academics as the root of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 claimed to be one of the ultimate results

So, basically "Neoliberal" means "Not-liberal" because Thatcher and Reagan were not liberals.

[Baitball Blogger]

66. The term is more evolved than that.

Think of a Democrat who will dispense with government procedure in order to find common ground with Republicans. In the end, they will be pushing Republican programs, because they have no game of their own.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. You mean like FDR interring the Japanese during WWII? That kind of illegal stuff?

And JFK and Bay of Pigs. And Robert Kennedy as AG letting Hoover bug MLK Jr. And of course, LBJ and Vietnam.

Man, that means all Democrats are Neoliberals.

[Baitball Blogger]

78. McCamy, you keep mentioning presidents, as if they

were monarchs. Until the Bush years and 9/11 came around, we had a triumvirate form of government. We have had drastic changes in our country which we are trying to address, and you keep searching back into history to pull examples that are anachronistic to our situation today.

The Republicans still hadn't come up with the logo, "drown government in a bathtub." This is the force we are currently faced with.

As an example of the difficulties in discussing this issue with you, Lincoln was a Republican. Maybe you want to use him as evidence that Republicans are really Liberal?

[McCamy Taylor]

84. If we had heeded the lesson of history, we would not have had the crash of 2008.

Many of us knew that it was coming, because the same economic forces were in play. Many of the same rich families were responsible for both crises. And Grover Norquist is nothing new. The purveyors of alcohol, gambling and other escapes from reality have always relied upon poverty to stay in business. Do not be fooled by that "bathtub" talk. Norquist is a lobbyist for folks who make a lot of money if a lot of people are very, very poor. And as for "drowning" the government, those Corporate Welfare Queens known at the Koch Brothers get rich off the public tit---there is no way they want to downsize our government. They just want all the money to flow into their coffers rather than into Head Start. Their Daddy learned that trick in Stalin's Russia.

[Baitball Blogger]

90. I don't see where the disconnect is with us.

Last edited Sun Feb 15, 2015, 02:29 PM - Edit history (3)

Because I agree with your conclusions. We just seem to differ on what the neo-liberals are doing to make our situation worse.

We agree that Republicans want to downsize government, but also privatize its functions. In other words, they are buying support by inducing their idiot voters with promises of lower t@xes. When they succeed and get voted into government, they disarm government's regulatory powers and fair practices, in order to divert public money to their special cronies. Nobody outside the inner circle is happy. Not even their idiot voters who are too stupid to see what's going on.

But the biggest assault is to minorities. A deregulated government at the local and state levels allows for a great deal of fraud, corruption and cover-ups. It is in these unfair practices where you'll find the source of inequality.

Neo-Liberals are just aiders and abettors.

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. "Neo-liberal" = Not joining the revolution ...

to put more money in white, male, "progressives" pockets. IOWs, "YOU join with ME. I'll get around to you, after I get mine ... and, as history has shown, right before I pull up the ladder behind me.

?zoom=2&w=640

[HereSince1628]

60. Corporate neocolonialism is sold with the same sweet smell of the old colonialism

Bringing in an industrial facility to manufacture "modern" products is primarily good for the corporation that exploits the asymmetries in wages, standards of living, regulation etc.

Overtime, the nation colonized by corporations bend toward the corporate interest and one-day finds itself a stranger in it's own land unable to manage the irresponsible behemoths in their midst.

United Fruit, Union Carbide, British Petroleum the lessons reach across entire centuries...and end badly, but the sweet smell of promise of 'development' is irresistible to the underdeveloped. Ad hoc addition of a corporation is so much easier than the development of local, regional and national economies.

[woo me with science]

64. A tactic of Third Way propaganda

is to hijack discussions by forcing people to "debate" self-evident reality. Like trying to create arguments over whether Hillary is a neoliberal or a traditional Democrat, when her record of Third Way corporatism could not be more clear and consistent.

it's insultingly dishonest. It's political manipulation, like pretending to have to "google" neoliberalism when you have nearly 15,000 posts on DU arguing these issues.






.



.


.




Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

[HereSince1628]

75. While I know the traditional meaning of neoliberal I'm not really bound to it

I can see a concept, regardless of how it is named, and respond to it.

Plasticity and adaptability are features of language use... shared understanding of communication for people who aren't frozen in fundamentalism of definitions.

The problem with the democrats' pro-corporate right (the use of the term 'centrist' and 'moderate' to describe it is imo more purposeful obfuscation, exactly like self-naming of the New Democrat elite as "Democratic Leadership&quot is that it promotes policies that are NOT GOOD for the US domestic economy.

As a nation we are going trade deficits and we are negotiating with nations to open up trade policies for nation-less corporations that will yield more deficits without broad domestic benefits that might justify such corporate mining of the national economy.

[woo me with science]

92. +1 Purposeful obfuscation is the MO of the corporate coup targeting our democracy.

In tandem with the assaults on journalism (The US has now plummeted to an abysmal 49th in press freedoms!), they have built and implemented a propaganda machine to deny reality itself.

Hillary stands for the malignant corporatism that is, quite literally, dismantling our Bill of Rights, implementing mass surveillance, criminalizing investigative journalism and whistleblowing, looting the masses into poverty, and protecting a criminal, warmongering elite. Her "trade agreements" are antidemocratic and fascistic at their core, because they are *designed* to allow predatory corporations to override our ability to use our own democratic systems to defend ourselves against predatory corporatism.

Yet we get a drumbeat of "2+2=5." We get Cass Sunstein and campaigns of lying disinformation and smear. We get insulting labels like "neoliberalism" and "centrist" for what is nascent fascism.

We live with the creepy voices of propaganda now. We marinate in it. Amd it tries to tell us that what we observe with our own eyes and live in our own lives isn't really being done to us.

[McCamy Taylor]

76. Hijack? As in what you are doing by introducing "Hillary is Neoliberal" in a thread about social

justice? So, that means...

You are a member of the Third Way? So, tell me about Third Way. Is that anything like Amway?

[McCamy Taylor]

67. What do "neoliberalism" and "neocolonialism" have to do with each other besides the "neo" part?

And the fact that Neo is also in "Neocon"?

[woo me with science]

71. Neocons and neoliberals have so much in common,

it's *almost* as though they are the same people!

Oh wait....

In their own words. An "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026216863

Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[HereSince1628]

77. Mostly I think it references the different players and the different contexts

in time and place.

[99Forever]

2. Nonsense.

Just how gullible do you think people are?

[woo me with science]

41. Apparently phenomenally so.

It's a tactic of the talking points, anyway, to either feign utter ignorance or to feign assuming it in your audience.

Look at the reply I just got above, from someone with nearly 15,000 posts at DU.

This is the level of engagement we have come to expect in political "discussion" now thick with the repetition of corporate manipulation and talking points.

[99Forever]

44. Yep.

This one either has it BAD, or has an agenda it isn't saying out loud. Either way, it insults my intelligence to read such utter bullshit being passed off on a supposedly "Democratic" poli board.

[dotymed]

48. I hope, so much,

that Americans will show that they aren't that gullible and elect Bernie Sanders as our next POTUS.
Like FDR, Bernie Sanders can save America.

[99Forever]

68. I couldn't agree more.

Neocons and neoliberals ARE the problem. President Sanders IS the solution.

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. Gullible? ...

Sanders, like FDR, can save America?

Well, alrighty then!

Never-mind, FDR's super-majorities in both Houses of Congress, and FDR's opposition being, at least, interested in governing; rather than, just being ... well ... opposed.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Very. That is why we do not have socialism in this country. Yet.

Here's a link from the Socialists.

http://www.solidarity-us.org/whysocialism

It should be underscored that it is the responsibility of white socialists, first and foremost, to champion and support struggles of people of color and to challenge racism wherever it exists. Needless to say, white American society, including the official labor movement, does not have an unblemished historical record on this score. But racism can be overcome when: 1) whites see that people of color and their allies will not tolerate it, and 2) white working people see that in order to remove the capitalist ruling class that stands between them and their freedom, common struggle is necessary.

[aspirant]

4. Sen Sanders

is a dem socialist. Do you support him for President?

[McCamy Taylor]

19. Yes, if he runs. Is he running?

[aspirant]

23. We will know in March

Have you called his office pledging your support?

[McCamy Taylor]

29. I'll get back with you when I see the polls.

I gave up my idealism in 1972 when McGovern crashed and burned in the general. Since then, I have been a pragmatist.

[aspirant]

42. You rely on polls?

Predictions,estimates or guesses are the essence of polls. To imagine that 500 people can accurately tell you what over 300 million people think is mind blowing. Polls are unverifiable, just call the polling companies and ask for contact info for the survey participants to check their data.

Will you risk your life on a poll?

[McCamy Taylor]

56. If you know how to read them, polls are very reliable. More than the tabulated vote sometimes.

[aspirant]

72. Read them, are they like books?

Will you risk your life on a poll?

Please research the difference between Inferential Stats and Descriptive stats.

There is no govt oversight on pollsters. The AAPOR is the assoc. involved and it requests only a signed oath of integrity. I called them, you can too, and asked if they are allowed to verify the polls;Response = NO. Asked them how do we know these pollsters aren't pulling #'s out of thin air; Response = absolute silence.

These pollsters operate in a complete vacuum and are no more than propaganda machines.

An inexperienced Tarot Card READER is probably just as reliable.

[Dustlawyer]

45. This is why we cannot get the changes we really need. You need to support the candidate that

best represents what you think needs to be done. Worry about electability after the Primaries, but support Bernie before (if you do agree with him) to demonstrate how much and how many are tired of being taken advantage of! I don't want a Republican in the White House either, but if we continue to do what we have always done, we will get what we always got, the shaft! At some point we have to say that enough is enough and fight for our ideals.

[dotymed]

53. Agreed, no more "lesser of two evils."

I want Bernie to run and win as a Democrat (he can instruct, by example, what a real Democrat is.

Failing that (worse case scenario because "our" party has been pulled so far to the right)....Greece managed to show how
a previously marginal third party, with the support of the people can triumph.
I am an FDR Democrat. Sadly, they don't seem to exist anymore in a solidly proven politician.

IMO....

[McCamy Taylor]

59. We'd need a parliamentary government to beak free of the two party system.

[dotymed]

65. IDK

prior to FDR we had some strong additional parties and I believe Eugene Debs almost pulled a third party upset.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Eugene Debs never came close to pulling a 3rd Party upset ...

he never pulled more than 6% of the vote.

[sendero]

5. Utter ...

..... drivel. They are placebo giveways the oligarchy hands over because they don't affect their bottom line. To shut up the easily fooled.

[stillwaiting]

6. I have good news for you! Economic progressives are GREAT on social justice issues!!

Looking forward to your support soon!

[sendero]

8. Thanks ..

... as if we have to pick one or the other.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. Except when they are putting economics ahead of social justice issues. n/t

[stillwaiting]

105. Economic justice and social justice MUST be fought for simultaneously.

It is possible to fight for both.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. Agreed; but, go back and read what ...

the DU "progressives" (quotation marks, intended) have said/are saying ... they are/have said (figuratively), "It's Classism, stupid" ... why else, would you see the running joke among some PoC and women on DU, that racism and sexism can only be talked about when there are no more poor white people?

That not be their intended message, but that for darn sure is what I, as a PoC (and others), hear.

[Autumn]

7. Let me ask you, That unwed mother is poor, those Koch Brothers are a nasty peice of work but when is

the last time you heard the poor mentioned by any politician? Bernie and Liz do it all the time but this OP of yours isn't about them. Oh by the way Bernie is ALWAYS speaking about the Koch brothers and the harm that they are doing. I don't know Hillary's opinion on them but her respect for Kissinger and her stand on the TPP and her support for Keystone gives me a small inkling as to what she would think of them

From your OP
"How do you think we got into this financial mess? Why is our minimum wage so low? Why do so few people belong to unions? Why do most folks in Western Europe have health care but we don't? Why don't working mothers get maternity leave? It's because the bosses, the capitalists who employee us can undercut wages and deny benefits by hiring the scapegoat du jour."

What are the Democrats doing about that? Why do they get a pass? Where does Hillary stand on that? Not twenty years ago or eight years ago but recently. I know she gave a speech to bankers in Canada but I haven't heard her out there front and center talking about those things.
I don't hate Hillary, I like her and I sure as hell wish she wouldn't run. Another eight years of the same financial inequality and we are screwed.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Julian Castro.

We know that in our free market economy some will prosper more than others. What we don't accept is the idea that some folks won't even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that America. In fact, that's exactly what they're promising us

.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/160574895/transcript-julian-castros-dnc-keynote-address

[Autumn]

35. Julian Castro does give a nice speech.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. Hillary Clinton

“Let’s stay true to our values” is, Clinton says, her message to the American public. “Let’s continue to stand up for those who are vulnerable to being left out or marginalized.”

From 2011 as Secretary of State

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/06/hillary-clintons-mission-to-help-women-and-girls-worldwide.html

[Broward]

10. The last 30-plus years in this country suggest otherwise.

[woo me with science]

11. No, the dismantling of democracy and the increase of authoritarianism and inequality

are ALWAYS associated with decreases in empowerment for vulnerable groups.

What you are trying to sell here is not just incompatible with logic. It is incompatible with what we see in the whole of human history.

Neoliberals do not improve the welfare and civil rights status of women annd minorities by dismantling the very democratic and economic systems that make it possible for vulnerable groups to be empowered.

Neoliberalism harms everyone, but it savages vulnerable groups most of all.

Women Facing Globalization: The Impact Of Neo-liberal Globalization On The Economic, Social And Cultural Rights Of Women
http://www.awid.org/Library/Women-Facing-Globalization-The-impact-of-neo-liberal-globalization-on-the-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-of-women

Neoliberalism’s Deleterious Effects on Women
https://genderandsocs13.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/neoliberalisms-deleterious-effects-on-women/

NEOLIBERALISM THRHOUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN
http://focusweb.org/publications/2001/neoliberalism-through-the-eyes-of-women.html

Racial Aspects of Economy are Significant for White House to Address
http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/28/racial-aspects-of-economy-are-significant-for-white-house-to-address

The Astonishing Collapse of Black and Latino Household Wealth
http://www.alternet.org/economy/black-and-latino-household-wealth-has-collapsed

The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf

Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/07/SDT-Wealth-Report_7-26-11_FINAL.pdf

[boston bean]

13. There's a bunch of "progressives" who sound just like right wingers

discussing/dissing "social justice warriors".

Warning.... when one hears or reads that, know it is coming from right wing land and be suspicious, very suspicious.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Social Justice Warriors?

Good lord. In my day, we called it "Civil Rights Activists."

[boston bean]

28. Ayup, been called that in a dismissive/rude way, many times.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. LOL ...

There's a bunch of "progressives" who sound just like right wingers discussing/dissing "social justice warriors".

As they declare themselves "good of social issues" ... despite, women, PoC, LGBT and others, telling them dismissing/calling for the delay of social issues is not being good on social issues.

[Number23]

124. I agree with you 100% and only have to look at the "quality" of the posters doing their damndest

to shut McCamy Taylor up to know that what you're saying is the truth.

Though I don't know if they sound much like right wingers or just garden variety ignorami who wouldn't know the truth if it mooned them in broad daylight despite their frequent howls and protestations that they and only they know "the trooth."

[TBF]

15. Not seeing the forest for the trees -

you are really missing it here in your blind adoration for Hillary. This is sad because I have always seen you as an exceptional DU poster and writer.

We are in this "financial mess" as you put it because capitalists DO NOT CARE about anything but the money. The Kochs' and their brethen have broken the unions through PR campaigns, co-opting the churches, and taking over the media. They could care less whether they are paying a woman, a black, or a white man less - as long as they get away with paying them less. Hillary's husband Bill did not help that by signing NAFTA which resulted in more than a million jobs being shifted right out of this country. The pitting of groups against each other is certainly not helping anyone but mass layoffs is the way people loss their footing and slip into the underclass - no matter what your race, creed, or color.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. Herman Cain and others come to mind

Herman Cain's Nationwide Worker Intimidation Tour

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170700/herman-cains-nationwide-worker-intimidation-tour


Don't even get me started on Log cabin republicans


who both represent the economic subjugation of the masses



economic justice first and other justices will follow

[winter is coming]

39. I'm brazen enough to expect both at once. n/t

[TBF]

46. As a socialist who is female I often

get annoyed when male communists will pay no attention to issues like abortion or gay marriage. Like you I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time. But what we can't do is focus solely on civil rights and hope the money will follow. It won't.

I think there are some very good potential candidates for the dems out there - Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro always come to mind first for me but there are others. Hillary has too many negatives and that is why she couldn't get past Obama in '08. I really feel that she is not the one we should be running.

[socialist_n_TN]

70. "What we can't do is focus solely on civil rights and hope the money will follow"........

Yep, because you're right, it won't. You focus on the civil rights issues because it's the right thing to do AND to show how this is how capitalism IS. But you NEVER forget that it's the system of capitalism that underpins all types of oppression. Until the people have control over their own personal economic situation, everybody will wind up like the unwed mother in the OP.

After all, even if EVERYTHING was equalized, upbringing, education, birth status, even luck, capitalism would STILL be a system where a few people win and the vast majority lose. The outcome IS the essence of capitalism.

[McCamy Taylor]

88. Agree.

[Number23]

125. That post you just agreed with seems to be in direct conflict with the point of your own OP.

[OneGrassRoot]

96. I agree with this as well. This discussion reminds me...

of some really intense discussions I had over the last six months, after immersing myself in "radical" group discussions. I put that in quotes because there are so many labels nowadays (like 50 subgroups under the feminist label, for example), that I just gave up on understanding what each and every group was truly about.

I sought out such groups when I realized that the so-called "new economy" movement is very segregated. It was like a slap in the face to realize that it's great that co-ops and other alternative economies are making a comeback, but nothing is sustainable without true diversity.

Without diverse direct engagement, the systems simply change from one "master" to another, regardless of the ism employed.

I met with tons of push-back in all of these groups when I discussed racism and bigotry, and how we can't have TRUE solidarity without dealing with the realities of our culture. Not only do we have systemic racism and bigotry, but it is indeed very much part of our culture -- and it has been from the start.

Wiping out capitalism and instituting another economic system will NOT be sustained until we have a cultural transformation.

Even if something truly radical happened economically, there is a HUGE segment of our population which feels they are superior -- for any number of reasons. Our society "others" a LOT.

I don't believe a radical change in economic system will wipe out our generations-long cultural views steeped in racism and bigotry. It would take many generations, if the economic system could be sustained without true diversity, that is, for the culture to follow, imho.

On the other hand, if we could reach critical mass regarding cultural transformation -- away from our bootstrap mentality (embraced by many young libertarians...yes, usually white male...the same ones who pretty much rule online culture and are the ones creating most of the most popular websites) -- I do believe cultural transformation could be swift, as we are seeing with the shift in perspective regarding same-sex marriage.

I don't think we can do one without the other and expect it to be sustainable. It has to be simultaneous.

Well, that's what I believe very strongly, and it's why I wasn't welcome in such groups...lol

[socialist_n_TN]

106. I don't think that a change in economic power would wipe out bias overnight........

but bias is merely a personal failing. It only becomes racism (or sexism or gender discrimination) when bias against social groups is coupled with economic and political power. IF, say, a minimum national income was instituted that provided a baseline living wage for every adult, along with improvement in public services including government sponsored health care, then why would it matter to me if an employer thought I was subhuman? He/she wouldn't affect my life at all. I wouldn't even have to be around that person if I didn't want to. In addition, if a socialist political institution empowered by the majority of the people, made it a virtue to take care of society rather than the individual, then eventually that attitude WOULD, over a few years, filter throughout the general society.

The problem IS capitalism at it's base. The denigration of various social groups as subhuman is overtly or tacitly condoned under capitalism BECAUSE THAT SPECIAL OPPRESSION PROFITS THE CAPITALIST! And profits the capitalist economically, politically, and socially.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. Wow ...

IF, say, a minimum national income was instituted that provided a baseline living wage for every adult, along with improvement in public services including government sponsored health care, then why would it matter to me if an employer thought I was subhuman? He/she wouldn't affect my life at all. I wouldn't even have to be around that person if I didn't want to.

Really? Did you miss the entire intellectual under-pinnings of the Civil Rights Movement?

[socialist_n_TN]

121. I don't know. Maybe I did......

I was around and in the south and got called a "nigger lover" more than once because I disagreed with segregation and, even as a kid, wasn't quiet about my disagreement with the Jim Crow system. I know that the civil rights movement was about integrating black people into the wider, in this case capitalist, society as a panacea for all of the oppression that black people faced during those times. BTW, it didn't turn out to be much of a panacea to judge by the headlines and stats about black oppression TODAY! And of course, now in my old age with what I've learned about capitalism, I know that integration into a capitalist society will not get rid of oppression because oppression is an integral part of capitalism. To get rid of oppression you have to get rid of capitalism.

As to my statement that you quoted, and? If I have a guaranteed income, guaranteed housing, guaranteed basic human necessities, why should I give a rat's ass what some redneck cracker thinks about me? If he/she gets in my face I'll take the Malcolm X/original Black Panther remedy. If he leaves me alone and can't affect my status and my livelihood, fuck him. It's just a personal failing on his part that won't affect me. The real problem comes when that personal bias is combined with state and economic power to make the SYSTEM oppress.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Okay. n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

120. I don't dispute your points about capitalism at all...

not at all. Capitalism created the concept of white supremacy, and the other institutions (media, education, etc.) worked to support that false theory over the years, in support of capitalism.

I still say that a cultural transformation is required. I believe with every fiber of my being that to not pay attention the need for cultural change, beyond viewing it as individual personal failings, while addressing economic change is naive.

EDIT TO ADD: Capitalism is supposed to be an economic system, a tool used by our society, but in many ways we have adopted capitalistic values as our SOCIAL system as well. It's ingrained now, these destructive domination/oppressive/othering culture now so entrenched.

[socialist_n_TN]

122. Well see that the thing, it's ALL interconnected......

As Marx and Engels showed, the political, the economic, AND the social are all together under capitalism to oppress. The problem with a lot of folks is in trying to separate them. The failures of social movements to change the BASICS of capitalist society (oppression) is because the social movements ignore the economic component.

Of course the reverse is true. Karl Kautsky was one who thought that labor through unions could lead to way to a peaceful transition to socialism by empowering workers to unionize and wrest reforms from the capitalists. He was ignoring the social and the political component. Only Marxism as envisaged by V.I. Lenin put all of the pieces together. The fact that Leninism was subverted later on by Joe Stalin and became only a shadow of it's former self does not change the original conceptions and breakthroughs of Leninism.

They are all of a piece and they all have to be tackled together.

[OneGrassRoot]

129. Indeed. I'm totally in agreement with that. :) n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

49. They got theirs ......... but fuck everyone else

who work for them........ think about it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. So Hillary is the answer to

Social Justice and the ONLY Path to Economic Prosperity for Workers in This Country

If you had left her out of the equation I might have looked at your theorem with more serious consideration

The Evolution of Dr. King
By the end of his life, Martin Luther King Jr was an avowed socialist.



https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/martin-luther-king-socialist/

[McCamy Taylor]

26. No. Social Justice is the Answer.

It's just that when I mentioned some of her social justice work, I was told that social justice does not matter in a recession. This is much bigger than any one Democratic candidate. This is about how a Democratic forum can say that social justice is optional and only something we care about when the economy is good.

[OneGrassRoot]

17. Are people disagreeing with the premise of McCamy's post, or the mention of Hillary?

If people are disagreeing with the premise of her post, I find that shocking. I shouldn't be shocked by DU any more given the devolution over the last couple of years, but it does shock me.

If the disagreement lies with the mention of Hillary -- and the natural contention that goes on here re: presidential candidates -- that I understand.

But the mention of Hillary in this OP has to do with "right winger hate and fear" -- not Democrats.

[winter is coming]

21. The premise of the OP. Look at the last 30 years of American life.

Social justice? Way up. Definitely still work to be done, but way up.

Economic justice? Way down.

Which makes the OP's assertion ludicrous.

[OneGrassRoot]

24. Wow, fascinating...

So, even though legislatively there has been improvement in the realm of social justice, the reality is that -- systemically and culturally -- there hasn't been significant change.

Personally, I never separate economic and social justice as is being done in this conversation.

Maybe I need to find the discussions which prompted McCamy's OP here to understand the origins of this post.

Thanks.

[boston bean]

30. There are many, even "progressives" who feel income equality

will solve social inequality.

And they take offense to the discussion of social issues as taking away from the issue of income equality.

It's a ridiculous assertion in my mind, but hey if they want to think that social justice is the enemy of income equality, there aint much I can do to stop the stupid.

[OneGrassRoot]

32. Yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding that, too. Thanks, boston bean. :) n/t

[winter is coming]

33. I don't think the two should be separated, and at one time, for Dems, they weren't.

But then someone decided there needed to be a third way. It's never been clear to me why we couldn't/shouldn't expect to have both.

And I wouldn't say there has been no significant cultural change in the realm of social justice, but there certainly hasn't been enough.

[eridani]

128. Right, Bill Clinton signed DOMA in the 90s, and now marriage equality is the rule, not the exception

No significant change at all!

[OneGrassRoot]

130. You're right...

There have been significant changes, but the depth of what remains to be changed and transformed is sometimes daunting.

[McCamy Taylor]

52. No, social justice is not way up. We were doing OK in the 1970s, but then Reagan

took us back. Gays---who had made a lot of strides---were pushed back down because of AIDS and Reagan's decision not to fund research. Black folks were turned into fodder for the so called War on Drugs. Reproductive rights were chipped away.

Gays have finally begun to climb out of that hole where Reagan buried them, but only because they were so oppressed it would be hard not to rise. I still see police killing Black folks---Blacks are oppressed in this country by assuming they are guilty of something until proven innocent. I still see reproductive rights being eroded---women are oppressed in this country by forcing them to give birth so that they get stuck in low wage jobs that they can not afford to quit no matter how bad the working conditions. Black women have it doubly bad. Infant mortality rates for Black urban women are shameful!

Our schools are becoming increasingly segregated. College is now too expensive for the poor and working class.

We still have Colonias on the Texas Mexican border that do not have water or electricity. Native American reservations are still home to some of the poorest people in the nation. We brutalize Muslims or anyone who looks like a Muslim and the press acts like it is ok because they are all terrorists anyway---

When I look around America, I see a country that has stagnated since the gains of the 1960s and 70s. In some cases, it has gone backwards.

[winter is coming]

57. There have definitely been reverses, particularly in reproductive rights,

but there have been advances, too. Several states have gay marriage. Gays can serve openly in the military, and (at a guess) most of them are out, even in the workplace. None of those things were true in the 70s.

Yes, cops are still murdering blacks, but at least there's widespread outrage about it. We brutalize Muslims because the media is selling us "Muslims are scary", which, by no coincidence, fuels the fear that makes it possible for politicians to sink vast amounts of taxpayer money into fruitless wars.

Yes, more people can't afford college and poverty is worse than ever, but I thought you were counting those as an economic justice issues, not a social justice issues.

[TBF]

80. See my post #15 and the followup - I disagree with her entire premise. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

18. MLK Jr's "Poor People's Campaign"

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_poor_peoples_campaign/

Suggested to King by Marion Wright, director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense and Education Fund in Jackson, Mississippi, the Poor People’s Campaign was seen by King as the next chapter in the struggle for genuine equality. Desegregation and the right to vote were essential, but King believed that African Americans and other minorities would never enter full citizenship until they had economic security. Through nonviolent direct action, King and SCLC hoped to focus the nation’s attention on economic inequality and poverty. ‘‘This is a highly significant event,’’ King told delegates at an early planning meeting, describing the campaign as ‘‘the beginning of a new co-operation, understanding, and a determination by poor people of all colors and backgrounds to assert and win their right to a decent life and respect for their culture and dignity’’ (SCLC, 15 March 1968). Many leaders of American Indian, Puerto Rican, Mexican American, and poor white communities pledged themselves to the Poor People’s Campaign.

I believe that this is what got Dr. King murdered. As long as he was seen as a Black leader, he did not threaten the status quo. But when he started reaching out to other poor workers, he crossed that canyon that was supposed to keep us divided and conquered.

Oh, and Brother Malcolm was killed when he began to talk about solidarity, too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. +1 ...

Wrote a paper arguing that/those very points.

[Harmony Blue]

20. I disagree because there is more than one way to economic prosperity

social jusstice is an ideal we strive for. Just like reducing crime but something we can never truly achieve.

This is why self empowerment is a far more powerful tool towards economic prosperity. It is working within the framework of the capitalist system. For social justice to truly work you have to tear down the capitalistic system and that will create a messy civil war.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. Self empowerment. Does that mean "bootstraps"? Too bad some kids don't have boots.

[boston bean]

36. I don't understand where the idea that social justice hasn't changed anything.

I suppose some need to read some history because as far as I know, most equality issues have been resolved by employing social justice tactics, not legislation.

ie, the social movement came first, through a lot of blood sweat and tears and then legislatively changes were made to satisfy the demands.

[winter is coming]

47. I don't think the term "social justice" has been used in the same way throughout

this thread. You seem to be talking about social justice as if it were the opposite of legislation, i.e., social justice tactics. Others appear to be talking about social justice as social equality issues, e.g., civil rights.

Pursuing civil rights, both through social justice tactics and legislation has given us more social justice than we had 30 years ago, but it hasn't done squat for economic justice. That doesn't mean that pursuing social justice is not a worthwhile pursuit, it just means that social justice isn't a floor wax and a dessert topping--nor is it the only path to economic justice. Really, the two should go hand in hand and I can't think of any economically progressive politicians who don't want social justice as well.

[boston bean]

54. It's common sense that neither stands on their own.

I agree it takes both.

No legislator is just going to do it out of the kindness of their heart without political pressure via social justice movements.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. Social justice HAS helped economic justice. For instance

once upon a time, a woman could not be a doctor. Now half the doctors are women, meaning there are more women making more money. Improved educational opportunities for women and minorities have helped with economic justice because once you get up to a doctorate, wage disparity by gender and race becomes trivial.

So what did they do? They made it extremely hard for poor folks---meaning people of color and unwed mothers---to get to college and graduate school. Because women, children and minorities are still disproportionately poor. So, if you cut back on financial aid, a seeming "economic policy" is actually a discriminatory social policy.

[Harmony Blue]

85. Self empowerment has been the cornerstone of the left

especially Feminism. The right doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of self empowerment and self determination.

If we fall into the idea that we can not escape the reality we are in because of circumstances out of our control we are n fact destined to fail. That is a self fulfilling destiny in the making.

Some people choose to look at a glass half empty while I personally choose to see the glass half full. That doesn't make me wrong or right but I strongly feel that self improvement is the way to inner peace.

[aspirant]

89. Bootstraps are the Repubs core economic policy.

[Harmony Blue]

100. The idea of self improvement and self determination

has long been part of human culture. The Republican party isn't even 200 years old and 3/4 of the history of the party they were not considered the establishment party.

If you don't believe in hard work and work ethic that is fine. But I strongly believe that is what leads to inner peace. The alternative is revolution of the capitalistic system which also requires hard work.

No matter the way you look at it...hard work is required. A tree isn't going to plant itself and a solar panel isn't going to show up on your roof out of nowhere.

[aspirant]

113. Dedicated meditation

is a path to inner peace and doesn't even require a shovel.

I would consider this a labor of love, not work.

[DonCoquixote]

126. hard work

if hard work made people rich, the people who would be running the nation would NOT be the bankers. Work Ethic? You find that in the poorer areas fo town, not among the boardroom yuppies.

Self determination works only when you set HARD LIMITS around the banks, such as Glass-Steagall was. If you do not, they will undermine the hard work people do, especially as it becomes apaprent that many capitalists do not give a dmaned about the hard work their employees made to build them, no, they would rather ship jobs to Communist China.

[winter is coming]

127. Hard work is not longer sufficient.

Ask anyone who lost their job during the recession. Ask the people who only have part-time jobs now, or no job at all. They worked hard, and they got screwed.

[woo me with science]

22. ALL of HISTORY proves this argument to be beyond dumb and dishonest.

Dismantling democracy and growing both authoritarianism and rampant inequality are incompatible with growing the rights of marginalized and minority groups. Minority groups don't retain their rights in rampantly unequal and authoritarian societies.

All you need to do is look at history.

Neliberals are a menace to democracy. Their policies aggressively dismantle democratic protections, and they skyrocket inequality. Neoliberals are a menace to the very democratic and economic systems that all of history teaches us are necessary for vulnerable groups to be empowered.

[libdem4life]

51. The tone of the responses is almost deafening. To me, it makes the case...nitpicking, criticizing

bringing out the Hillary haters, and I challenge any of these folk to read up on Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King.

This is not about Hillary, although god help the OP for mentioning her name. There is no social or economic equality until the conditions of families of ALL races and classes are raised. Yes they go hand in hand, but not synonymous.

A black president could not change it overnight, but he took a few stabs at it. A woman president won't right all the intrenched, and racial/economic/social wrongs. Next, a Hispanic president might just begin to get us back at least closer to the country FDR and Eleanor gave their all for. And no parsing, nit picking and hair-on-fire anti-Hillary brigades will do anything but delay or subvert the progress.

Indeed...Divide and Separate...the Purity and Perfection Party...all beloved and cheered on by the Republicans and their handlers. I understand where they are coming from, but where is it taking Us?

One could almost suspect that this is a Republican political ploy to empower the aforementioned and reliable temptations the Democrats seem to at very least, flirt with. Hillary is the only one they fear, thus they seek their peers in the Democratic Party...so maybe they will have a chance with any of their own seriously-flawed Republican candidates. And yes, to undo what has been accomplished...Rove v Wade, ACA, Gay Rights, et al.

Great, well-written and thoughtful post. In spite of the above DU mini-groups...keep it up. Maybe they'll get it and I hope we all do, because if we don't, Hello, President Bush III. I still have hope and there has been change...some would say minimal, but it will always be incremental...not a huge wave...unless another FDR steps up with incredible power and courage and strength of character. We can prefer, and discuss, point out things and disagree, but ultimately it boils down to two human beings...then to one.

I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party have, as I have since McGovern.

[McCamy Taylor]

91. Great post. And on topic, too!

[woo me with science]

108. ROFL! Actually, that post is predictable ad hominem

to which the Third Way always resorts when opposition to the Third Way predatory policy agenda can't be refuted. It boils down to, "Haters! Republican haters!"

That post is as vapid as the OP. It offers as a ludicrous article of faith that politicians can simultaneously pursue policies that *disproportionately* crush vulnerable groups within the 99 percent *and* hold themselves out as the stalwart defenders of rights for those groups.

What utter tripe. And followed, predictably, by the most absurd type of namecalling possible in this context: accusing those who sound the alarm about Republican policies of being secret Republicans.

You can't make this stuff up.

It reminds me of the very first time a pro-corporate poster here tried to label me as a secret Republican. What made it hilarious was that the accusation came after I had posted an article specifically criticizing Obama for continuing so many BUSH policies.

The title, the entire thrust of the article, decried his entrenchment and expansion of the BUSH agenda.

I nearly died laughing. I thought I had run across some delusional poster who didn't understand what "right-wing" meant, or who Bush was.

Later, of course, I realized that this is a Third Way talking point, like all the others that deal in utter absurdity: for example, trying to pretend that the agenda Hillary represents is not right wing itself, or that opposing it is even remotely "Right Wing."

Face it. You have no response whatsoever to the bald truth, which is that Hillary represents an agenda of predatory corporatism that harms all human beings, but that savages vulnerable and minority groups most of all. You are left with absurd attempts to pretend that a process of greater empowerment of marginalized groups can or has *EVER* happened in nations that also take a deliberate path of dismantling democracy, growing authoritarian rule, and skyrocketing inequality.

[libdem4life]

118. Thank you for sharing. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. Great Post! I only wish to add...

whenever I hear the "divide and conquer" line, I've noticed it is almost always in response to a PoC/Women/LGBT, or others, objecting to having people ("progressives&quot treat their issues as secondary, at best.

[libdem4life]

119. Thanks...and agree.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. People can arrive at the same conclusions through different approaches.

It is easy to conclude that the minimum wage is too low, labor is in surplus and taxes are inappropriately distributed without deference to social justice.

In fact, I'd argue that the pragmatic solutions to the problem are made less achievable when the goal is something other than simple collective economic health. Divide and conquer? I think we should carefully look at what we mean by social justice when we use books like "Women, Race and Class" as exemplary.

Fixing the problem is complicated when we demand that everyone first acknowledge where they stand by virtue of their color, sex or orientation on the hierarchy of merit. Divide and conquer or wedge politics works only when there are more voters on our side of the wedge.

Society benefits when everyone benefits... even straight white guys.

[madokie]

81. Without a doubt this is as true as true can be gotten

We have to go back to the tax system that gave us the middle class, that gave us our highway system, our airlines, our schools. Go back to the times that allowed anyone willing and wanting to get a better education could. A time where a working person could make enough money to survive to raise a family and enjoy some of the fruits of his or her labor. A time where there was much laughter and not so much cry. A time where we loved our fellow man, oops forgot that that was only only in amongst like people. That is what we have to change pretty close to first things first. Love for our fellow man or woman irregardless of his or her color, sexual orientation or beliefs. That last one, I've been both a Christian and a non-religious person and I'm here to tell you I am a much happier person as a non believer in the religious sense. I believe all things are equal under the laws of nature, whether they be animate or inanimate, whether they fly or swim, walk or run, rest at night or day, shed their leaves in the fall or not. Go dormant in the heat or cold.
We are all in this together and it is important that each of us be our brother or sisters keeper, work together towards a common good, simple as that

[djean111]

82. Oh, is this the meme wherein we need to be nice to the poor bankers, and just be

radiantly happy with the crumbs we have left? The secret to happiness is sharing those crumbs?

Um, that is not going to fly, it is not going to work, it is not going to make Hillary any more palatable to anyone who does not want her as the candidate for president.
Next!

[McCamy Taylor]

94. Hell no! I posted in 2008 that we needed our own Ferdinand Pecora and I still say we do.

In fact, now that I think about it, I think that I may be the one who introduced the word "bankster" at DU. I read about while researching Pecora, to see how FDR dealt with his greedy bankers.

Ooops. Make that 2008. Here's the link. One from the vaults. This is what we used to call a "Corsi" linking your own stuff.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4053650

[woo me with science]

109. We are like mere dogs trying to understand the internet.

The implementation of a corporate authoritarian state is clearly a necessary incremental step in the long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long. long, long journey toward a liberal, compassionate future.

They can't tell us people with limited smartness why, though. It's a secret!

[libodem]

87. Thank you for speaking up

In behalf of all us sluts and bastards. We need love too. Its too easy to hate on those less able to stand up for themselves.

[KingCharlemagne]

93. Awesome OP but are you sure right wingers 'hate and fear Hillary Clinton'? The

bourgeoisie love her and will do swimmingly under her administration. The misogynist fringe out there may hate her, but the bourgeoisie have her back. If Sanders tosses his hat into the ring, you will see 'hate and fear' such as few on DU (including me) have ever personally witnessed.

[McCamy Taylor]

98. Uh... yeah. I'm sure. Back in 2008 it took me three mega long OPs to chronicle all the ways

that the right wing news media and the so called centrist news media had smeared and maligned her. One of my biggest fears with a Clinton candidacy is that the press will not be able to restrain itself and will attack her even more viciously than they did poor old Al Gore in 2000 meaning that we could end up with Rand Paul/Ted Cruz in the White House which no one really wants.

It's sad to have to admit that I am afraid of the press, but some members of the press really, truly hate her with a passion I do not understand unless they are projecting their hatred of their own mothers on her.

[KingCharlemagne]

103. Hmm, that's interesting. Perhaps I shall have to examine Ms. Clinton anew with a

more sympathetic eye than I have heretofore. I still hold the 2002 Iraq AUMF against her but will easily set that aside if the alternative is a Paul\Cruz win. In fact, I'm almost willing to overlook her AUMF vote purely in the interests of combating misogyny, which seems a battle well worth fighting, based on your observations.

Thanks for the annotations and elaborations.

[TBF]

99. ^ This. She is establishment

so she will have just as much money as Jeb Bush. Walker can compete, despite his lunacy, because he has Koch cash behind him (they are the head of the teabaggerati). Bernie Sanders would scare the crap out of all of them - and so would Elizabeth.

[brentspeak]

97. Word salad as OP. n/t

[woo me with science]

112. ^^^ Nailed it. ^^^

[Ramses]

115. social and economic justice are fought side by side

Under Obama's presidency, hundreds of black men and murdered by cops daily, and nothing is done. Millions of minorities and lgbtq community folks have to rely on food stamps to survive. Hundreds of thousands more black men and women remain imprisoned at high rates. All under President Obama.

If you think Hillary is going to do anything for social justice, you havent been paying attention. Because all of the social injustices above are happening right now under a black Democratic president.

Ive never read such double speak since Orwell

[daredtowork]

117. These topics often drop like a stone on DU

It's amazing how many people think that being "progressive" means leaving the Left and social issues behind. I guess they just want to embrace our glorious techno future, scold everyone who is a buzzkill, and upload their brains to cyberspace or something.