HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Garrett78 » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721

Journal Archives

Birtherism is rooted in racism.

As is the denial of white privilege and structural racism. As is anti-Muslim sentiment (it's not purely a matter of Christian supremacy). As is the opposition to *certain* immigrants.

Opposition to feminism is rooted in sexism. As is opposition to equal pay for women.

Opposition to LGBTQ rights is rooted in heterosexism.

So, please stop saying that only a fraction of Trump supporters (or Republicans more generally) are bigots. It's embarrassing.

Finding common ground. Can most all of us agree about the following:

1) the Democratic Party must do all it can to combat voter suppression

2) the Democratic Party should make a big stink about gerrymandering

3) the Democratic Party should promote media literacy and critical thinking in schools, while drawing attention to the GOP's complicity in people subscribing to patently false beliefs

4) the Democratic Party should draw attention to the media's obsession with spectacle and penchant for false equivalencies, while promoting media responsibility (because long overdue is a strong pushback against the "liberal media" narrative; and the airwaves are part of "the commons"

5) Neither Clinton nor Sanders will be the nominee in 2020

Agree? Partially agree? Disagree completely?

"Social justice encompasses economic justice."

Given the way people keep referring to social justice and economic justice (the latter being a component of the former), I thought it worth sharing some definitions. And I think this is relevant to the postmortem because much of the post-election analysis is rooted in a misunderstanding of those terms.

From the Center for Economic and Social Justice:

Defining Social Justice

Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others, at whatever level of the “Common Good” in which we participate, to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.

Defining Economic Justice

Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.

From Wikipedia:

Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.[1][2][3] In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.[4][5][6][7][8]

Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity and equality of outcome.[9]

4 Completely Wrong Post-Election Things Democrats Are Fighting About

I could nitpick aspects of the following piece, but I think it makes many an excellent point: "4 Completely Wrong Post-Election Things Democrats Are Fighting About"

Additionally, Senate candidates running to Clinton’s left on economic issues did worse than she did. If more progressive economic policies were the key to electoral victory, those Senate candidates would have done better than Hillary, not worse.

When you believe strongly in something, it’s hard to accept that most of your fellow citizens do not. Especially when you surround yourself with like-minded people, and get your information from like-minded media. But the evidence that a majority of Americans are eager to pay higher taxes, and give up their employer-provided health insurance, in exchange for a European-style welfare state is nonexistent.

Besides, Hillary did talk about economic issues. A lot.

But Trump’s appeal is cultural, rather than economic. It’s a mix of anti-elitism, anti-political correctness, and white identity politics, not carefully cultivated policies.

The fact that we’re talking about the white working class, instead of just the working class, is a pretty big clue.

If they’re smart, Democrats will pour their time, money, and effort into winning state elections. That will shape policy, help the 2020 redistricting, and cultivate a deep bench for future Congressional and presidential elections.

Run someone without Hillary Clinton’s baggage and lack of charisma, or Bernie Sanders’ history and far-left policies, and you’ve got a good shot at the presidency.

But if you don’t win more state elections, you’re screwed.

That 2nd excerpt contains points I've made numerous times. If a portion of the *white* working class has much different priorities or desires than the working class as a whole, one need not think too long and hard about why that might be.

If you don't have the support of the base, you won't be the nominee.

It's fine to like Bernie and his message. Most Democrats probably agree with him on most things. But without support of the base, it doesn't matter.

There have been plenty of threads about whether or not Sanders would have won had he been the nominee. Posts about aspects of his past that may have caused serious problems, posts about how Bloomberg would have run, speculation about what turnout would have been like, etc. ***THIS THREAD IS NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE MORE OF THE SAME***

The writing was on the wall after Super Tuesday. Many of us were saying back in March that it was clear Clinton would become the nominee. The race was essentially over after March 15, if not after Super Tuesday. And caucuses, which are undemocratic, are the only reason the race was even remotely close.

Clinton had the support of the base. Sanders did not.

That's the reality. You may not like that reality, but it is what it is.

So, instead of arguing about whether or not Sanders would have beaten Trump, perhaps folks should be thinking about what it would take to produce a nominee in 2020 who speaks out strongly against plutocracy/corporatocracy *and* has the support of the Democratic Party base (and can, of course, pass the inevitable vetting process).

It will need to be someone who gets that not all disparities are rooted in class. Someone who views so-called social justice and so-called economic justice through the lens of a Venn diagram (there is a great deal of overlap and there are also important distinctions). Someone who has a proper appreciation for how historical injustices (both race-based and sex-based) continue to impact the present (to say nothing of ongoing institutionalized racism and sexism), and that even wealthy persons of color often get horribly mistreated based on race. Someone who gets that it's not enough to simply promote policies that help all poor people in the same way to the same extent.


Defining the base: The base, for quite some time, has been predominantly POC, women and urban dwellers. The base is not nearly as fluid as some in this thread are claiming.

In what way is the Republican Party platform more "populist" than the Democratic Party platform?

Will someone please answer that question?

Thanks in advance.

Trump supporters would be most likely to turn on Trump if...

A) he continues to align with Wall Street and establishment types (no draining of the swamp)

B) he leads an effort to privatize Social Security, Medicare, public education, etc.

C) he doesn't destroy ISIS

D) he doesn't bring back millions of jobs that have been outsourced (and attempts to reduce the minimum wage to boot)

E) he doesn't withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal

F) he doesn't withdraw from the Paris Agreement

G) he does a 180 on civil rights and pisses off hate groups like the KKK (no mass deportations, no Muslim registry, full support of LGBTQ rights, full support of Black Lives Matter, etc.)

Which of the above would piss off the most Trump supporters?

The surest way to get rid of the electoral college.

Turn Texas blue. If Texas goes blue, Republicans will have no choice but to advocate for doing away with the electoral college. Or at least some sort of proportional allocation system.

"More outreach to rural areas of purple states" and "Change the message" are 2 different arguments.

Some seem to conflate two different arguments.

Obama has spoken about the importance of doing outreach to rural areas of purple states like Iowa so as to minimize the losses in those areas in order to carry the state. There are Democrats (not all of whom are white, by the way) in rural areas of purple states, and they (like any other group) are more likely to vote if they're the target of GOTV efforts. I, for one, think that's totally valid.

And then there's the argument that Democrats don't have a strong economic message (never mind the evidence to the contrary), or that they need to substantially alter their overall message.

Now, some may subscribe to both arguments, and that's fine. But let's not conflate the two.

The time has come to once again address the myth of the "independent" voter.

I've seen one too many posts suggesting that "independents" are swing voters or non-partisan issue-based voters who must be appealed to, so let me once again address this myth.

A piece in The Nation offers the following excerpts:

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”

And part of the rise in non-affiliateds can be attributed to young voters making up such a large bloc at this time in our history. Many will become affiliated by their late 20s.

More articles:




Go to Page: 1 2 Next »