Last edited Wed Jul 25, 2018, 06:26 AM - Edit history (1)
This is where Sanders and Co. go so wrong. Much of what they advocate for is perfectly reasonable and far too often dismissed as extremist or fringe or "far left." ***But*** they couldn't be more wrong on the subject of "identity politics." And that quote implying that Clinton had no message other than "I'm a woman; vote for me" is terribly insulting and just plain wrong. Will he dare to say, "It is not good enough for somebody to say, 'I'm a Black woman; vote for me'" when he's competing against Kamala Harris for the 2020 nomination?
Bernie and his fan club also have a messaging problem in that they don't seem to understand what socialism is. Many mistakenly seem to think anything publicly funded (schools, police and fire, etc.) is an example of socialism. They confuse socialism with Social Democracy (e.g., the Nordic Model).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anyway, to repeat a post I made a while back:
No Democratic presidential candidate has won the white vote since LBJ. In other words, "economic anxiety" has persisted since the Civil Rights Act. That, of course, is a coincidence.
And the large minority of white folks voting Dem, as well as the large majority of persons of color voting Dem, don't experience economic anxiety.
And the Republican position on labor rights, wage stagnation, equal pay, health insurance and every other issue important to working people is clearly superior to the Democratic position on those issues. Such as the recent Supreme Court ruling (quite favorable to workin' folk, right?).
Racism, sexism, xenophobia and jingoism has nothing to do with Republican support.
The end.
In case it wasn't obvious, the preceding was a bit of sarcasm.
Or, as I also wrote not long ago:
People often bemoan the fact that millions vote against their economic interests. But the reason why is clear. They are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.
Absent racism, the Republican Party would cease to be viable. The Democratic Party message is infinitely better on every issue that should matter to working people.
In Ohio, Rob Portman (a major advocate of NAFTA) outperformed Trump. So much for the issue of trade (and opposition to NAFTA) being oh so important to Trump voters.
It's been 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 need 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 or experience economic anxiety (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."
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. Let's imagine waking up tomorrow in a world that is magically free of racism (including xenophobia). Does anyone honestly think the Republican Party could sustain itself on right wing economic policy, right wing health care policy, right wing foreign policy and right wing environmental policy? Absent racism, there's no chance that party would survive. Support for right wing policy would all but disappear.
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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
