Garrett78
Garrett78's Journal"7 ideas completely lost on people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal'
A post in another thread reminded me of an article from a couple years ago. The "fiscal conservative but socially liberal" position reeks of ignorance.
How many liberals and progressives have heard this? It's ridiculously common. Hell, even David Koch of the Koch Brothers has said, "I’m a conservative on economic matters and I’m a social liberal."
And it's wrong. W-R-O-N-G Wrong.
You can't separate fiscal issues from social issues. They're deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That's true even for the mildest, most generous version of "fiscal conservatism" -- low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don't intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called "social policies" that are supposedly separate from economic ones. Here are seven reasons that "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" is nonsense.
1: Poverty, and the cycle of poverty.This is the big one. Poverty is a social issue. The cycle of poverty -- the ways that poverty itself makes it harder to get out of poverty, the ways that poverty can be a permanent trap lasting for generations -- is a social issue, and a human rights issue.
For the rest of the article: https://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/7_ideas_completely_lost_on_people_who_are_fiscally_conservative_but_socially_liberal_partner/
The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
Any infighting aside, I just want to throw that out there as a reminder. Reach out to those who don't often vote or don't ever vote. We have to outnumber the opposition at the polls, plain and simple. We have to win elections. Our lives are at stake.
What *would* it take to prevent horrific legislation such as the Tax Scam Bill?
In light of the posted article about Democrats not doing enough to prevent the Tax Scam Bill from (potentially) passing, I can't help but think there's very little that would have done the trick (that includes marching in the streets carrying signs). What might have done the trick is very difficult to organize, even in this age of social media, and it's also something most can't afford to do. What I'm referring to is some sort of national strike, something that would shock the economy.
Such as if people, en masse, didn't go to work for a week or month, or didn't do any shopping for an entire weekend (that may not sound like much, but if tens of millions of people didn't do a lick of shopping - including gas purchases - for an entire weekend, it would send shock waves).
As I said, though, that's tough to organize and not something many can afford to do. Also, it would negatively impact some good people, including the strikers themselves in some cases.
So, short of that, the only answer is to GOTV. We have to outnumber the deplorables at the polls. We can't rely on them seeing the error of their ways. Even their suffering as a result of Republican legislation won't be linked, in their minds, to said legislation. They'll blame Democrats, especially those uppity women and persons of color. We simply have to outnumber them. We have to reach out to those who aren't engaged in politics, who don't vote. And we have to raise holy hell over race-based voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Doesn't Mueller report his findings to Rosenstein?
If so, doesn't Trump already know what Mueller knows? Wouldn't Rosenstein tell Trump what Mueller tells him?
"Identity politics saved the day."
Link: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14436467/identity-politics-alabama/
But let’s give credit where credit is due and admit that the real reason Democrat Doug Jones will be heading to Washington to represent the people of Alabama is identity politics. If white people in Alabama had their way, Moore would be heading to the Senate, where he’d be free to legislate what kinds of sex you and I would legally be able to have, free to impose theocracy upon us, and free to keep treating young women as he allegedly has in the past. An overwhelming number of white people, who make up the majority of the state’s eligible voters, cast their votes for Moore, just as they voted for Trump last year. At the same time, 98 percent of Black women and 92 percent of Black men voted for Doug Jones. And, despite the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression efforts, they came out to vote in droves.
Identity politics saved the day.
But wasn’t it a different kind of identity politics that gave us Trump in the first place? Wasn’t it “white identity politics” behind Moore’s strong showing with white voters? Not exactly.
Conservatives of all stripes, as well as liberals like Jonathan Chait and Mark Lilla, like to write off “identity politics” as divisive claptrap, but I don’t believe they understand the concept for what it is. Identity politics is not simply referring to the politics of any identity—its roots lie in grounding anti-racist, anti-misogynist and liberation politics specifically in the experiences of Black women.
Since when does Republican hypocrisy bite them in the ass?
Where do folks such as Nate Silver get their optimism that Republican hypocrisy will cost Republicans dearly? Republican hypocrisy has been so common these past several decades that "Republican hypocrite" is redundant. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has about as much power right now as any party has ever had.
If Democrats are relying on Republican hypocrisy to bring down the Republican Party, we're in even more trouble than I imagine...and that's saying something.
White House, US House, US Senate, vast majority of governorships and state legislatures.
Voter suppression and gerrymandering (two things Democrats don't raise enough hell about) alone don't explain why the Republican Party has so much power.
Is it possible the Democratic Party, as a whole, needs to alter its strategic approach? Is simply asking that question going to get me banned, or is it perfectly reasonable to engage in critical analysis in order to make strides as a party just as it's important for an individual to do so?
Enough already with telling people they are being distracted.
First of all, people have the capacity for multiple concerns.
Secondly, there is a massive amount of horror taking place. The looming tax bill is obviously a major concern. Meanwhile, we're long overdue for a national conversation and legislation regarding sexual assault, institutional racism, gun violence, etc. We need to be talking about how boys are raised in our society, the power problem, police brutality, access to guns, mental health, climate change, and so much more.
Hopefully everyone has a passion and can dedicate time and effort to fulfilling said passion. But that doesn't prevent anyone from also being concerned about and taking action over a separate issue.
Lastly, what's posted on DU has little to no bearing on what events/actions take place. Guess what, the vast majority of people have never heard of DU and don't give a rat's ass what gets posted here. And those of us who are familiar with DU have lives away from DU. So, get off your high horse and stop telling people they are being distracted because there are a lot of posts on DU that aren't about your #1 concern.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between economic and social justice.
Edited for clarification:
I’ve seen it postulated that social injustices are caused by wealth or income disparities. So, if we address the latter, we'll address the former. That reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between social and economic justice.
I'm sympathetic to what many dismiss as "far left" points of view, but this is one major issue that many leftists get wrong. In fact, you might even say people who make the above claim have it completely backwards. The fostering and exploitation of bigotry (along with race-based voter suppression and gerrymandering) is what enables Republicans to win political victories, which leads to right wing economic policies being enacted. Those policies hurt more than anyone those who are already most oppressed. Then, the wealth gap between white individuals and persons of color is justified using various stereotypes.
This has been the case since the founding of the US on the genocide of one people and the enslavement of another. Remember, race is a social construct. And "whiteness" (along with its supposed superiority) was an invention borne out of the desire to prevent a united front by all poor, oppressed people. Whites would be indentured servants with light at the end of the tunnel, while Negroes would be kept in bondage. Poor whites would be thrown a bone (and a whole lot of propaganda), enough to make them feel superior, enough to make them feel like they had more in common with their oppressors than their fellow oppressed.
Social Security (initially), the GI Bill, access to housing and other investment opportunities, the right to vote, access to higher education, access to employment with a decent wage, access to a fair trial and so much more was essentially denied to persons of color and women. Those injustices (even those that were seemingly resolved) continue to impact the present, including the wealth gap between white households and black and brown households, between men and women. Therefore, a rising tide has not historically lifted all boats. Ta-Nehisi Coates makes "The Case for Reparations."
This is why social justice victories (legalizing gay marriage) and breaking barriers (first Black POTUS, first woman POTUS, first transgender state legislator, etc.) constitute more than mere symbolism. They are cracks in the facade, and crucial steps toward addressing economic injustice.
Much has been made of the *white* working class, or even white working class men. Democrats already do better than Republicans among the working class. In saying Democrats shouldn't go out of their way to appeal to *white* working class men, the point isn't to denigrate that subset of the population. The point is that the Democratic Party platform should already appeal to the working class. And, for the most part, it does, based on exit polls following every election.
Why speak specifically of *white* working class folks? We all know why. Either it's because there's this assumption that only white people work (horribly racist and obviously false), or it's because a certain portion of *white* working class folks are voting based on factors that have nothing to do with candidate positions on wage stagnation, workplace safety, health care, equal pay, paid family leave and all of the other issues that should matter to the working class. If that's the case, and I think we all know that it is, what does one suggest Democratic candidates do?
Should Democratic candidates not talk about criminal injustice, the race-based "War on Drugs," race-based voter suppression, a path to citizenship and the fact that US policy has been a driver of immigration all around the world, reproductive rights, equal pay, a culture that suggests sexual assault is tolerable, and so on? If not talking about those things, or - worse - taking the opposite position is what it will take to win over a certain subset of the population, then that's just too bad. As Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Just as some rich folks recognize the danger of extreme economic disparity, we should all want less disparity (in terms of wealth, criminal justice, medical care, housing, etc.) between white folks and persons of color, between men and women, between gay and straight. Get on board with Democrats or lose, because ultimately "the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice."
So, in summary, going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural wealth disparities (again, stereotypes are used to justify the wealth gap between black and white households, for instance). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.
We must address racism (including xenophobia) and sexism head-on. If we don't, there's no hope of substantially redistributing wealth or opportunity. A common response to what I’ve written is that “we must fight for both economic and social justice” or that “it’s not an either-or situation.” Of course it isn’t. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, ending imperialism, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone (to say nothing of other forms of bigotry), the Republican Party would cease to be viable.
Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." Lament no more, as the reason has always been quite clear. The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.
And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.
Lastly, a message for the young folks and others who are hoping for a viable left wing alternative to the Democratic Party in this 2-party system of ours. The first step is ending the viability of the Republican Party. And we do that by significantly diminishing racism, sexism, heterosexism and xenophobia (because that, and not right wing economic policy, is what's keeping the GOP alive). In the meantime, you need to support the only viable party that stands in the way of fascism. And you need to recognize that addressing social injustice is key to addressing economic injustice.
Democrats already win among the working class. Why single out *whites*? We all know why.
In saying Democrats shouldn't go out of their way to appeal to *white* working class men, the point isn't to denigrate that subset of the population. The point is that the Democratic Party platform should already appeal to the working class. And, for the most part, it does, based on exit polls following every election.
Why speak specifically of *white* working class folks? We all know why. It's because a certain portion of *white* working class folks are voting based on factors that have nothing to do with candidate positions on wage stagnation, workplace safety, health care, equal pay, paid family leave and all of the other issues that should matter to the working class. If that's the case, and I think we all know that it is, what do you suggest Democratic candidates do?
Should Democratic candidates not talk about criminal injustice, the race-based "War on Drugs," race-based voter suppression, a path to citizenship and the fact that US policy has been a driver of immigration all around the world, a woman's right to choose, a culture that suggests sexual assault is tolerable, and so on? If not talking about those things, or - worse - taking the opposite position is what it will take to win over a certain subset of the population, then that's just too bad. Because, as Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Get on board or lose, because ultimately "the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice."
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
