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


Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

"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.

"Well, I'm conservative -- but I'm not one of those racist, homophobic, dripping-with-hate Tea Party bigots! I'm pro-choice! I'm pro-same-sex-marriage! I'm not a racist! I just want lower taxes, and smaller government, and less government regulation of business. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal."

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/

Roy Moore was an extreme danger to religious freedom and the rule of law for everyone living in the United States, but he posed a particular threat to the liberty of queer people, Black people, Chicanos, Muslims, non-Christians (including his own lawyer who, his wife noted with great enunciation, was “a Jew”), women, immigrants, and the poor.

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?
Go to Page: 1