Trickle down social justice will work out just as well as trickle down economics did.

[ehrnst]

No, affordable health care, higher taxes on the wealthy and strong unions will not "make right" the sexism, racism, nationalism and homophobia in this country.

It didn't in the United States in the 50's, and it's not happening in Europe now.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that prioritizing the issues that directly affect white straight men as the only "universal issues" at the expense of everyone else will move our country forward in terms of civil rights.

There is no reason to tell those of us who are not straight white men that our issues are merely "identity politics."

Women and girls die when they don't have access to affordable safe reproductive health care.

Young men of color die when instituionalized racism isn't directly dealt with and acted on.

LGBTQs die when they lose their jobs and health care when they are not a protected class.

It's not JUST about "bathrooms" and "getting a church wedding" and "inner city at risk youth" and "having to drive a little longer for an abortion" it's about LIFE AND DEATH.

When you tell us that only "progressive" candidates deserve support of Democrats, and the definition of "progressive" doesn't require that they vote for our lives, that is not acceptable to us and those that love us.

[frazzled]

1. Yes ...

And I might want to add that if you are interested in labor rights, you should be deeply interested in the documented widespread sexism that exists in the burgeoning tech labor force of our new economy (racism is barely documented here because so few African Americans are even employed). You should be interested in the well-documented fact that identical resumes submitted with a white-sounding name and a black-sounding name receive vastly different treatment. You should be deeply concerned about the conditions of the vast industry of home health care and nursing home workers, overwhelmingly women of color. You should be concerned with unregulated industries such as Uber, whose vast wealth creation for a few people exploit workers and put ordinary citizens at a public safety risk. You should be concerned about a young woman whose economic future is permanently compromised by being forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Indeed, I might say that there can be no economic justice until there is social justice. The two are intimately linked.

This isn't the romanticized labor movement of Eugene Debs's 1920s. This is 2017, and there are vast swaths of the American population--women, African Americans, Latinos--who never benefited from the gains of the mostly white male workers that ensued from that movement. This is not the industrial economy of that era. The many who were left out of postwar American prosperity were left out for a reason: social injustice. And until we work to fix that situation, no economic populist program can be called progressive. It's just a return to an imperfect past.

[ehrnst]

2. If we don't learn from history, we're gonna repeat it.

THere is an old saying "form follows function" that has been revised to "form goes hand in hand with function."

Reverse engineering of social justice after making white working class men happy in the workplace and in the public sphere after WW2 didn't work in the 60's, and it won't work now.

[Doreen]

30. We have not learned from history yet. What makes anyone think we ever will?

We now have the American version of Hitler. That there proves we do not learn. My boyfriend who is in Germany at this time says the Germans are actually shaking their heads and saying we did not learn from their mistake.

[ehrnst]

34. Which mistake? (nt)

[Doreen]

36. Hitler whom trump is like.

[ehrnst]

38. Most voters voted against him. (Nt)

[Doreen]

39. Yes, I realize that. It is our electoral college that screwed us and they are

the ones that are getting the shaking heads. Yes, the Russians helped screw us over but if our electoral college had pulled their heads out of their butt it might not have happened.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Thank you for all of this

A minor point - the Republicans always push the 22% of black Americans in poverty. They never point out the 78% who are not - and the sharp demarc between have and have not within our community. We are the canary in the coal mine.

[frazzled]

5. Good point

I didn't mean to suggest that black Americans are all living in poverty. But that is still not to say that racism and sexism still don't create unequal situations and opportunities.

Take, for instance, a story I read last year about a Pipe Fitter's union in New York that had been under federal order to admit minorities (who had been excluded for many decades). The union improved the situation, but the article pointed out how the black union members were not getting the same number of hours or job assignments as the white members, where nepotism (sons and nephews and cousins) was still keeping the original system largely in place by getting the lion's share of work. The black union members were not living in poverty, and could earn the same hourly wage, but they were impeded from earning as much as the dominant tribe.

[ehrnst]

8. Very good point. (nt)

[Starry Messenger]

14. That would be a great OP.

[bigbrother05]

52. US Labor Unions were strong and growing into the 50's & 60's

When available growth from white male membership started peaking and minorities and women were the path to continued expansion, we started to see the rise of Right-to-Work states. Union equity rules meant that white privilege was being eroded and so the corporations saw their chance to tip the scales back in their favor. When a company can open a factory in a low wage state and cut pay & benefits compared to their existing workforce, but still beat out the existing local pay structure, they can put more money in their shareholders pockets.

Is it any surprise that those same companies have now off-shored those jobs to 3rd world locations? The pattern was set, they just expanded it globally and our governments and banking systems have multiplied the benefits for the few.

[mcar]

4. I do not understand the factions

who think one should be ignored in favor of the other. It really is possible to focus on both.

[ehrnst]

6. The Democratic Party platform says that it is neccessary to focus on both

because there without addressing those "identity politics" there will be no justice.

Only very recently has this been challenged, with a very narrow, exclusive definition of "progressive," that sees social justice as optional when it comes down to who runs for office as a Democrat.

[mcar]

7. I stand with the Democrats!

[ehrnst]

9. You and me both.

The neighbors, I'm not so sure about. (Yentl reference....)

[needledriver]

10. Disclaimer: I am a straight white male.

My work partner is a straight white female who does the same job I do and gets paid exactly as much as I do.

My immediate supervisor is a black gay female. The department supervisor is a straight white female, and the department head is a white female and I don't know if she is straight or gay because the subject never came up and it is not important in relation to how well she does her job.

The supervisors and department head make more than I do because their pay scale is defined by our union contracts according to their job classification, not their sex or sexual orientation.

In the rest of my department we have straight, gay, male, female, Anglo, Latino, and Filipino workers, and in case you were wondering the Filipino workers are paid more than I am because of their highly skilled job classification.

We have a well funded pension plan, an excellent health plan, aggressive work place safety training, and strong support from the Local office, who will fight for your rights in the workplace regardless of your sex or sexual orientation.

Because I belong to a strong union I have affordable health care and my fellow workers are guaranteed equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, race, national origin, or sexual orientation.

So why do you shit on it calling it "trickle down social justice"?

[dsc]

11. but here's the thing

If your state passes or the feds pass one of those religious liberty bills it would take only one person in your department to claim it goes against their religious convictions to take orders from a gay person and your boss would be gone or reassigned.

[ehrnst]

27. But that's "shitting" on policies

that are apparently benefit said poster....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Notice how white Univ rapists get 3 months & black blue collar rapists get 30 years? Trickle Down.

Not much justice left over by time you get to the lower, oppressed rungs of society.

[ehrnst]

15. OK, what did I "shit on" again?

Can you clarify specifically what exactly I "shat" on?

[Wounded Bear]

16. So, you got yours, right?...nt

[ehrnst]

26. So I'm not the only one who picked up on that.... (nt)

[ehrnst]

19. So, are you saying that because things are fine where you work

They're OK everywhere?

Not following you - also, what did I "Shit" on?

Still waiting for that answer.

[needledriver]

20. No, I don't.

But neither do I think that advocating for affordable health care and for strong unions is limited to "straight white men", nor is it at "the expense of everyone else".

Not following you - also, what did I "Shit" on?

You shit on advocating for affordable health care, higher taxes on the wealthy and strong unions as though success with these issues will not help make right sexism, racism, nationalism and homophobia in this country. You dismiss it as "trickle down social justice".

I don't see how higher taxes on the wealthy will do anything for sexism, racism, nationalism and homophobia so you can have that.

I do not claim that things are OK everywhere - that's the whole point!

I gave you an example from my own experience, that being in a strong union has had a positive effect on economic and social justice.

That means that advocating for strong unions can have a positive effect on on economic and social justice in other places where it isn't happening yet. In what way does advocating for strong and effective collective bargaining occur at "the expense of everyone else"? We straight white males and "everyone else" should advocate for affordable health care, and strong unions everywhere we don't already have it!

There is no reason to tell those of us who are not straight white men that our issues are merely "identity politics."

There's no reason to tell those of us who are straight white men that advocacy on affordable heath care and strong unions occurs at your expense.

Women and girls die when they don't have access to affordable safe reproductive health care.

Well DUH! My wife has survived three cancer surgeries and it hasn't ruined us financially because we have affordable heath care as a result of my strong union.

LGBTQs die when they lose their jobs and health care when they are not a protected class.

LGBTQs in my union are completely covered and protected in part because of my strong union. LGBTQs are welcome, and an unremarkably normal part of our work environment. That's the way it should be. That ain't trickle down - that's just plain justice.

[ehrnst]

22. Again, you seem to think that because these problems don't exist in your union workplace

that criticizing a politician who states, on more than one occasion that the concerns specific to POC, women and LGBTQs are merely "identity politics" = "shitting" on any and all economic policies that particular career politician espouses.

Got it.

[needledriver]

24. Ah, context!

Now I get what you were posting about.

It was nowhere evident in your OP that you were referring to a specific comment or position by a particular politician.

If that that particular career politician happens to be a horrible old shouting carpetbagger from a very small state I have no awareness of his economic or social policies because I pay as little attention to him as possible.

I still firmly believe that advocating for affordable health care and strong unions is a pathway to social justice for all people.

[ehrnst]

25. So you agree that throwing social justice issues under the bus in the name of

"economic justice" is self-defeating. No matter who that politician is.

You will find that I don't take bait very easily.

Shit doesn't catch too many fish...

Enjoy your time here.

[ehrnst]

35. Your rant about

"a horrible old shouting carpetbagger from a very small state I have no awareness of his economic or social policies because I pay as little attention to him as possible," sounds like it comes from a very deeply personal injury.

Can you tell us about who said this? Was it here on DU? Who was it referring to? Which state?

Did they try to take your guns or something?

Don't keep us in suspense.

[Adrahil]

44. I'd say it's a piece....

But there is no way it can do so alone. Also, what about those of us who never seem to be eligible to join unions?

[ehrnst]

51. Irrelevant issue, apparently... (nt)

[brush]

31. Not referring to your situation. Strong, unbiased unions are a good thing.

Trickle down social justice is a reference to a concept that for the Dem party to attract white working class males we have to address their issues first over those of women, POCs, gays etc. (identity politics).

Needless to say it's not a popular concept with the base of the Democratic Party, despite it being pushed by a popular non-member of the party.

[needledriver]

40. Trickle down social justice is an offensive concept

It took me a while to figure out that it was being promoted by a particular horrible old shouting carpetbagger from a very small state. I pay as little attention to him as possible and can't wait for his 15 minutes of fame to be over.

[Doreen]

32. Because A LOT of places do not do the same as the place you work at.

I am glad that you work for a place that is equal to ALL of its employees. Unions are a dying thing and a lot of them that still do exist are in bed with the ones they are supposed to protect you from.

[moriah]

53. Those things are great, but fixing working class economic struggle, by itself...

... will not eliminate racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. The idea being thrown around by those advocating this is that if we appease the needs of financial stability for poor bigots that they will stop being bigots. If that was the case, "whitening" resumes wouldn't result in more callbacks -- hopefully hiring managers aren't having to to find the cheapest meats in the "reduced for quick sale" area of the grocery store in order to meet basic protein needs for their families.

And sadly, this phenomenon exists even in union jobs. It's harder to get fired with union protection because of bigotry, but it doesn't change the fact that Lewis gets more callbacks than Luis, Lamar, or poor Lakisha, who is the least likely to get called back and the most likely to be directed to a lower-paying job.

I want to see every worker with as good or better of job protections as the ones you have in your union.

But economic security isn't going to erase institutionalized bigotry.

[PatrickforO]

12. Indeed. The best treatise ever refuting 'trickle down' social justice

is MLK Jr.'s Letter from the Birmingham Jail.

It's going to be downright inconvenient for the corporate funded politicians to face massive civil disobedience, but it works.

[kcr]

17. Yes to all of this. And it isn't Bernie bashing to point this out. It's too important.

If we follow his lead on this, the movement will be doomed to fail again.

[ehrnst]

28. We might as well just chuck climate change into the "flexible" category. (nt)

[Exilednight]

48. I'm a single issue voter, and that issue is climate change.

This is too important an issue to let slide. If climate change comes full circle, then social and economic justice will not matter since human life as we know it will cease to exist.

The bigger problem is no politician wants to deal with the biggest problem facing mankind. A single car uses 450000 lietrs of clean water during production. A new highway will use 100 times that amount for every five miles created. But instead of finding ways to get people off the roads, pols instead look for ways to build more highways and sell us new cars. Why? (That's a rhetorical question)

[ehrnst]

50. Then you understand why I consider it as non-negotiable as women's health care

The science behind both man-made climate change and the necessity of affordable accessible abortion and contraception are the consensus of those scientists.

Both issues are too important to let slide.

Among those this registered Democrat considers "flexible:" the payer method by which we achieve universal health coverage (Europe has several models), whether a the national minimum wage is $12 or $15 in the next five years, the method by which we make college financially universally achievable for those who choose it.

[dlk]

18. Voodoo Social Justice

Over and over, Republicans demonstrate how little they actually believe in democracy. Their warped idea of social justice is just more voodoo - same as their economic outlook.

[Demsrule86]

21. 1000+

You can not be a progressive if you use the term...identity politics ....to disparage the need for civil rights for all including but not limited to women, POC, and LGBTQ folks.

[bigtree]

23. k&r

[tonyt53]

29. The difference maker between now and the 50's is the number of women working outside the home.

This is the very reason us Democrats failed this past November. Our Party platform addressed every other issue for every other group - EXCEPT the white working women and of the middle class whites of the working class aged 45-65.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for so many people? These groups will never put social justice on a back burner and they never have. However, these groups also want to hear a message directly at them. Trump gave them that message, and that was the only message they received that was directed to them.

Again, why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

[kcr]

33. So, your argument is Dems didn't taylor their arguments specifically to WHITE workers

and that is the reason we lost. Well, no. It's not difficult for us to grasp, and thank you very much for illustrating the argument perfectly right there, tony53! Because number one: it's no secret that Trump voters voted for Trump because they're racist. And number two, a significant number of us are not interested in being the party of white people for the white people. Number three? The numbers don't actually support your argument anyway.

[ehrnst]

37. In what way did Democrats "fail" us in November?

HRC did everything except advance white male privilege.

Are you saying that's some sort of failure?

She got the vote.

[forjusticethunders]

42. You do know those groups never vote for the Left as a majority right?

[Adrahil]

45. What is it that you think is unique about thes groups?

The factor that emerges in the post election data is racism and xenophobia. I'm not flexible on that.

[Starry Messenger]

49. The group he won was 6-figure+ income-earners

Boy, they have it rough out there.

[Cha]

41. Excellent refreshers for us all!

Mahalo, ehrnst!

[Kentonio]

43. Excellent example of the kind of thinking that keeps costing us elections

Bonus points for the attack on straight white men, who are obviously the privileged enemy of the party, and must be reminded of how much they suck on every conceivable occasion. If they foolishly expect the party to have some policies to improve their lives, they must of course be hounded into exile immediately.

This divisive crap is horrible and should be trashed.

[Adrahil]

46. So you favor trickle down social justice?

And you don't consider That divisive?

[Kentonio]

47. I think the entire premise is complete bullshit

The two are not mutually exclusive. It's a shitty new tactic designed to paint those on the left as somehow not caring about social justice just because we also think economic justice is essential also.

Believing in justice is something that is supposed to bring us together as Democrats. We don't have to chose, we can just work damn hard to improve many of the broken, unfair parts of society. We don't achieve any of it by sitting playing endless games of 'who is the better progressive'.

[moriah]

54. Gag me with a forklift.

If you're going to suggest the way Democrats should win elections is to throw equality and choice under the bus solely to appease the demographic you feel is so mistreated, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you that's really going places... and you can see Russia from there!

Fighting for economic justice and the ability for all workers to have a living wage, health care, family leave, paid sick leave, etc, helps everyone. And undoubtedly Democrats need to fight for those things.

But we can't stop there, or expect any Democrat or Progressive to stop there, either. We have to fix the fact that Lewis and Laura do far better at even getting callbacks with the same resume than Luis, Lamar, or Lakisha (who due to the effects of intersectionality ends up screwed over the most for failing to "whiten" their resume and is directed to worse jobs, where Laura might get offered a job not even in the system to get a more palatable "diversity" hire) to get that job with a living wage.

And even if Laura might seem to be doing rather well from the above, all of the five L names mentioned suffer if that job gets to decide what medical care Laura and Lakisha can receive, or if they care if Laura's spouse is Lisa. Or if Lewis used to be Louise. If nothing else, they have to work harder while Laura's on bedrest because her body couldn't handle another pregnancy so soon, or until they replace Lewis.

It doesn't have to be either-or. We can easily advocate for both economic and social justice, and recognize the two are so intertwined that they can't be separated. Anyone who just wants social issues and doesn't give a crap about economic justice should probably go to a different forum -- like a Libertarian training camp.

[Kentonio]

55. No-one is suggesting we throw equality and choice under the bus!

Like seriously, no-one on our side is doing that!! You're exactly right, we can do both! We're all just being dragged into this crazy in-fighting where everyone seems to have become convinced that we all disagree on fundamentals and have magically stopped believing in the core principles of the party. It's not actually true!

After speaking to another poster in a different thread, it's made me realize that we're just being feeding into a cycle of craziness right now. I'm going to follow their lead and stop posting in these threads, because they're deeply destructive and divisive. We're a group of people all on the progressive side of the country and who substantially disagree on very little. It's silly that we're fighting so much.