9 Ways FDR's 'New Deal' Purposely Excluded Blacks

[bravenak]

Many people seem to be stuck on FDR nostalgia and try to use it to lure black voters into their camp. I am posting this to explain why we black folks are MOSTLY NOT nostalgic for FDR and why claiming to be an FDR Democrat just gets them the side eye, rather than the utmost adoration that many seem to think they deserve for being so 'progressive'. There are many many many reason why we are not interested in going back to the policies of the past or in revisiting the FDR era and HELPING those 'progressives' bring back those times that were soooooo good for them but sooo shitty for us. FDR was no great liberator of Black/Colored/non-white people.

Segregated Camps in the Civilian Conservation Corps
The CCC was created to employ young single men from ages 18 to 25 on outdoor conservation projects. Enrollees had to be physically fit and come from families that were on relief and to whom they were willing to send most of their pay. During its nine-year existence, the CCC distributed more than $2.4 billion in federal funds to employ more than 2.5 million jobless young men (up to 519,000 were enrolled at any one time) who worked in about 3,000 camps. According to the Texas Almanac, the CCC was of very limited assistance to Black families because of local bigotry and national CCC leaders’ political concerns. Though CCC rules forbade discrimination based on race, color or creed, the local relief boards often refused to enroll Blacks, particularly in the South. When they were enrolled, Blacks were almost always placed in segregated camps, not only in the South, but all over the country.

Black-lynching
Roosevelt Refuses to Support Anti-Lynching Bill
The president disappointed Black leaders by failing to support an anti-lynching bill and a bill to abolish the poll tax. Roosevelt feared that conservative Southern Democrats, who had seniority in Congress and controlled many committee chairmanships, would block his bills if he tried to fight them on the race question. In 1938, liberal congressmen attempted to pass federal anti-lynching legislation to halt the most horrific type of anti-Black terrorism. Southern Senators angrily filibustered, and FDR defied Black leaders and his own wife by refusing to throw his support behind the measure.

Roosevelt’s Programs Widened the Gap Between Blacks and Whites
Ira Katznelson, a political science and history professor at Columbia University, in his book, ”When Affirmative Action Was White,” contends that Roosevelt’s programs not only discriminated against Blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and Black Americans — judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policymakers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly Blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960s.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/02/04/9-ways-franklin-d-roosevelts-new-deal-purposely-excluded-blacks-people/2/

Now, people may get upset at this view of history from the perspective of black people, but it is factual and I will continue giving my side-eyes on the regular. Just because FDR was wonderful for whites during that horrible time in history does not mean that we poc will see him the same. All that bragging about being FDR style Dems seems to be because people either forgot, never knew, do not care, or have re-written history by viewing it through rose colored glasses and want to pick and choose which parts of history get discussed. Time to start discussing the bad too, so we can help our allies discover why we are never ever ever going back. No THANK YOU!

[no_hypocrisy]

1. FDR had an impossible dilemma, not to apologize or excuse his choices.

In the 30s and 40s, the democratic party was rife with southern racists. FDR was politically aware that if he implied integration, his coalition for the New Deal would be dead and the entire country would suffer.

He wasn't perfect and like stud poker, he had to play the hand that was dealt to him.

[bravenak]

2. That's fine

I just want folks to see why FDR nostalgia or any other kind of nostalgia for the past does not work with nonwhite americans.

[JI7]

3. exactly. the problem is not that people may like him

it's the demands that others feel and view things the same way they do even though there is good reason they don't.

even after it's explained to them why others may not feel the same instead of accepting it and learning from it it's just more badgering and throwing out bs terms about third way .

[bravenak]

4. Yep. That's exactly it.

[BlueMTexpat]

37. +1!

One can appreciate the good that FDR did and still accept that his programs were not enough to "lift ALL boats" and may even have helped to sink some. Racism was indeed a factor in that. The very sad thing is that we seem not to have learned valuable lessons from the past.

But FDR's programs did help the country as a whole to recover. Our very difficult task is to continue the work of ensuring that ALL populations and genders have the same advantages and opportunities that white males take for granted.

[Igel]

62. No, no.

He didn't help everybody, so he should have committed political suicide.

That's the logic behind the "he made the gap worse." If he couldn't have helped everybody, then the gap should have been minimized by making everybody suffer.

If I can give one person a $100 and another person only $50--that's the best I can do without making it so I can't give anybody any money--then no money's better. Otherwise I've created inequality, and equality in penury is better than inequality. It's not about food on the table, it's about the dignity of seeing that you're like others. All dignity is from the outside.

[BlueMTexpat]

80. I haven't seen anyone here

argue that FDR should NOT have made the efforts he did.

You seem to be reading into this what YOU want to. Not what we are saying.

[greatauntoftriplets]

45. Excellent point.

[BlueCaliDem]

101. +2!

[brush]

7. LBJ on the other hand, defied the white racists in his civil rights . . .

Last edited Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)

bills and inclusive Great Society programs. He predicted the Dems would lose the south but he didn't back down, which is why the dixiecrats left the party and went over to the republicans.

He stood by what was right and engineered inclusive programs that rival FDR's New Deal programs in their significance, and in addition, with civil rights leaders, steered through the most important equal rights legislation since Lincoln.

I think the FDR-style Dems need to start saying LBJ-style Dems as he saw where justice was needed and didn't bow to racist southern Dems.

[bravenak]

9. I agree.

I respect what LBJ did for civil rights. He led on issues that many shied away from or ignored.

[AgingAmerican]

12. The Dixiecrat's were a separate party

And yes, most right wing conservatives in the south were members of the Democratic party in the early 60s. Southerners couldn't get past the fact that Lincoln, who defeated the south in the Civil War, was a Republican.

When the civil rights acts passed, they joined the Republican party en masse.

[brush]

19. Do some research. The dixiecrats weren't a separate party.

That was just a name used for southern Democrats.

And as I pointed out, they, the dixiecrats, left the Democratic Party in 1964-65 and went over to the repug party because of the passing of civil rights legislation authored by Democrats.

[sabbat hunter]

227. The southern rights party

were called the Dixiecrats. Broke off from the Democratic party in 1948. Ran Thurmond for president and won 4 states.

Most returned to the D fold, until the late 60's, when they split off to the American Independence party (led by Wallace). Most of those eventually became R, some like Wallace returned to the fold and 'found the light' to become civil rights advocates.

[brush]

240. During the civil rights era of the '50s up to the mid-'60s can we agree that they were part of . . .

the Democratic Party, who subsequently left and eventually tainted, and continue to taint the repug party with their racism?

[oberliner]

41. Remember, though that LBJ came almost 20 years after FDR

Very different political climate developing with regard to race at that time.

[brush]

76. The dixiecrats still wielded a lot of power. People finally decided to stand up to the racism

[no_hypocrisy]

39. It's appreciated.

[floriduck]

102. But today's world view of FDR blends his positive approach to banking and depression repair

with the knowledge that the 1965 Civil Rights Act exists. Having said that, the level of racism today appears worse now than 10 years ago because it has become so open to even whites once we elected a black president. Plus we have a presidential candidate who openly displays a racist approach in his campaign.

I think most people refer back to the FDR era as one of economic improvement, not the existence of racism that was evident because of the laws that came 30 years later. But I get your point.

[fleabiscuit]

151. It was WWII that gave America's economic improvements. eom

[floriduck]

192. Then in your opinion, what was FDR's greatest accomplishment as President?

[fleabiscuit]

217. Marrying the right woman. nt

[floriduck]

219. In case you're a Democrat, please don't respond to any of my posts as I will not respond.

[fleabiscuit]

223. I think you phrased that perfectly. eom

[treestar]

48. It's sort of like President Obama not getting single payer

out of the 111th Congress. There are or were people on DU claiming FDR would have "fought" and Obama didn't "fight" hard enough. So aimed at those people, these facts should be disconcerting to them. People can quit using FDR to bash Obama, he didn't get it all at first, either.

[m-lekktor]

5. you post the interesting stuff just when i need to be getting to bed.

I glanced quickly over your cut and paste paragraphs and recognized the name of an author of a book I have but , of course, i haven't read yet, Ira Katznelson's "Fear Itself" If i remember correctly the book deals with all the compromises FDR had to make to get the support/votes of the racist southern Dixie(DEMO)crats for the New Deal. I first heard of the book mentioned in an opinion piece last winter by Ta Nahesi Coates ( i am sure i butchered the spelling of his name)

https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Itself-Deal-Origins-Time/dp/0871407388

anyway i will read this tomorrow what you have posted!

[bravenak]

6. I should post earlier, but I always get too busy

[m-lekktor]

8. considering where I live compared to you

It will probably always be late on my end whenever you post. I will read it tomorrow.

[Betty Karlson]

10. Wow: the PTB must be really scared for them to smear FDR's policies like this.

No doubt the New Deal was imperfect.

No doubt the status quo is even worse.

[bravenak]

11. The status quo is most certainly NOT WORSE for Black Americans.

[Betty Karlson]

13. mass incarceration, lower life expectancy, voting rights abridged, poverty, ...

Respectfully, I understand your "animus" gainst New Deal nostalgia. But suggesting that we shouldn't try the somethig similar again, because it was tried the first time with segregation, and instead stick to a status quo that includes all the above for People of Color - and disproportionately so:

that is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[bravenak]

15. Lynchings, Jim Crow, beatings, segregation, miscegenation laws, race riots, chain gangs...

Only us blacks can decide for ourselves if it is better today than then and we most certainly do decide that we prefer now to then. Our outlook on the future is far more positive than the white outlook. Unless you have a plan to make sure it does not go like last time, and it is spelled out with clauses that force affirmative action before any funding is given, I say it is empty.

[leftinportland]

20. Really?

Your arguments makes no sense...

[bravenak]

21. They make perfect sense

[Betty Karlson]

25. They amount to: I like being slapped in the face because no-one is kicking me in the teeth

It is most reasonable to ask why you put up with the abuse at all? Do you realise that abuse is abnormal, and that the discussion should never be about the acceptable level of violence against people of colour, but rather about systemic changes that prevent economic, political, and social abuse?

[uponit7771]

35. Cause somehow intimating there was no mass incarcerations etc under FDR is totally logical!?

... we know history, we're not doomed to repeat the bad parts of it

[Betty Karlson]

50. No: but when the status quo includes de facto debtors' prisons, the good parts of history

deserve a repeat, not a condemnation by association.

[AllTooEasy]

30. Makes perfect sense to this Black Man

We want well defined assurances that a Newer Deal will help Us as much as it helps Whites, unlike the New Deal. Without assurances, a call for a Newer Deal goes in one Black ear and right out the other. You FDR lovers already fooled Us once. We're not getting fooled again. We're not voting for a Newer Deal candidate and then watch Whites rake in all the benefits, Fuck That!

By assurances, I mean that every Newer Deal's socialist(govt funded) program mandates that Blacks get a portion of the employment at all levels and contracts that's equall to our percentage of the national population, or the program immediately halts.

[uponit7771]

34. Nah, they make perfect sense to those who have empathy and a sense of introspection

[melman]

111. Of course not

They never do.

[awoke_in_2003]

130. She is making perfect sense

Things were not better for black folks back then. Shit, in my lifetime people were still being lynched.

[stonecutter357]

253. it makes perfect sense.

[alarimer]

53. Nobody wants those things back.

It is a straw man to suggest that anyone does. What those of us who care about economics want is a New Deal for a new age. Clinton is not going to do that. Status quo or incrementalism is not going to do that. Forgiving some student loans for some "entrepreneurs" who are already privileged is not going to do that.

Universal, single payer health care WILL.
True Social Security WILL.
A jobs program like the CCC (but including everyone) WILL.
Free or low cost higher education WILL

And never forget Bill Clinton's sins:
Mass incarceration
A massive increase in the drug war, which led to mass incarceration and did not, in fact, end the drug trade.
Massive job losses due to NAFTA.
Repealing Glass-Steagall, which led to the 2008 financial crisis and banks which are still unaccountable.
Etc.

[bravenak]

88. I want affirmative action written into ANY New New Deal.

If that is too much to ask, then I know damn well what it means. It means we will have to 'trust' the same folks who left us out last time to not screw us over again. Why is it asking too much to have affirmative action in our policies? That is the only way to get black people our fair share. If people do not want affirmative action written in, then they don't want EVERYBODY to get a share relative to their population and are trying to pull a fast one.

[Ken Burch]

241. What would your response be to those who might say...

...that existing civil rights protections would guarantee that POC would not get screwed over in this?

And could you offer examples of language that would satisfy your concerns and put your suspicions to rest?

[bravenak]

246. I would say bullshit

[Ken Burch]

247. OK. n/t.

[jack_krass]

98. Things you mention were not policies or consequences of the New Deal

[bravenak]

99. They existed and were not addressed

[AllTooEasy]

27. Didn't Blacks have mass incarcerations, lower life expectancy, etc under FDR?

How were things different under FDR for Blacks?

[Betty Karlson]

57. Perhaps we can focus on the point here:

FDR's policies were far from perfect, especially when racial equality was still 20 years away from even being tried.

But the idea that his economic policies wouldn't work again because of that shortcoming, doesn't make sense. The only reason People of Colour had it bad in those days is because the New Deal in itself was not enough to help them. But that doesn't mean we should never have a new deal again; we definitely should! Not for the sake of nostalgia, but for the sake of our society! Only this time we must pointedly include People of Colour in the intended beneficiaries. (As they should have been in the first place.)

---

If we are going to play a round of identity politics, allow me to introduce the plight of LGBT people in those days - we were still 30 years away from even fighting off the daily harrassing by the police. But even when FDR did nothing for LGBT people in those days - his economic policies were still very helpful, and they were not "homophobic by association with shortcomings with regard to sexual minorities".

[AllTooEasy]

158. Perhaps You should focus on the point here:

...and the point is that We want ASSURANCES, not just pro-FDR rhetoric. FDR was not the messiah to Us. To Blacks, FDR was a political coward and a major fraud/disappointment. FDR's "good parts" completely missed Us.

You said it yourself "The only reason People of Colour had it bad in those days is because the New Deal in itself was not enough to help them." So, why would We want another New Deal if that was the case?! Do you think Blacks will be satisfied with the return of the White Middle Class?

Then you say "But that doesn't mean we should never have a new deal again". Absolutely it does!!! I will never vote for a program or candidate that only helps White people. The New Deal was that kind of a program. If Whites win, Blacks win. If Blacks suffer, Whites suffer. I'm not voting to uplift your demographic (again) while mine continues to suffer...in other words, I'm not voting for another New Deal without ASSURANCES.

I truly think that Bernie lost because he preached New Deal, but didn't preach minority assurances enough. Blacks heard his message, waited for the assurances, waited...crickets...waited...more crickets...and then voted for Hillary. Bernie and his supporters can blame Us for their defeat if they want. No apologies from Us, try learning and empathizing with Our history better next time.

[Betty Karlson]

189. The new deal had nothing to do with racial equality.

And if you say or imply that it did, you are either misinformed or misinforming. Playing identity politics with macro-economic issues not the way to go.

Again: if you vote for a slap in everyone's face because you are afraid of being kicked in the teeth, the obvious solution is to systemically stop the violence, not to spread it around more evenly. That last position is spite, and when has any good ever come from spite?

There is no assurance in the status quo, except the assurance that slumping economic developments will exacerbate social tensions.

[Squinch]

61. This message is STILL not getting through to you guys. No one is saying that we shouldn't

try something similar again. What is being said is that if we try something similar, we'd best damn well make sure we are explicitly including EVERYONE in it, explicitly addressing the needs of traditionally un-included segments of society, like people of color and women. And if it doesn't explicitly address the needs of those people, then people of color and women are correct in assuming that their issues will never be addressed. We know this because we have seen it before.

BS never had anything better to offer people of color and women than to say that a rising tide raises all boats. We have been told this before, and it has simply never helped us. It doesn't address our needs. From our point of view, it is little different than trickle down economics.

This was told to the BS people during the campaign, and those of us saying it were told that we simply didn't understand how great BS was. That ignoring of this fact that bravenak is trying to give you IS the reason BS lost. The refusal to acknowledge the fact of this is the reason BS lost.

And you guys are STILL insisting that there is no there there.

[mcar]

74. This!

[awoke_in_2003]

131. "The refusal to acknowledge the fact of this is the reason BS lost"

sad, but very true.

[Squinch]

132. What is sad is that even now, as we make the platform and plans for the future, we have to

fight the same fight with the same people who STILL don't seem to understand the same issue!



They have paid the price for the wisdom of the lesson, but they clearly haven't learned the lesson because they still react to a thread like this by saying, "You hate FDR!!!!!!1!"

[awoke_in_2003]

133. Some just refuse

to look at the world through somebody else's eyes.

[Squinch]

134. There is no other explanation. And to do that, to see this from someone else's eyes, doesn't

actually cost THEM anything!!!! But they absolutely cannot bring themselves to see it.

[awoke_in_2003]

136. It migh cost them

their preconceived notions. In 2003 I started questioning everything I thought I believed, and still do. Admitting that perhaps you are wrong is scary for some.

[Squinch]

138. That day happened for me in the eighties. Felt like the earth had opened up under me and there

was nothing under my feet.

My life has been happy, though, because of it.

[awoke_in_2003]

140. I always thought I was republican

but the run up to the Iraq war (which I opposed) got me to thinking. I soon realized I didn't agree with the GOP on anything. My parents were hippies, and I think I thought I was GOP because kids sometimes rebel. I am amazed at how much smarter my dad gets the older I get

[Squinch]

141. I was always Independent, and politics was only part of it. I had a lot of bad information in

my upbringing, and I needed to toss most of it and redo my world view.

I think that any thinking person must have to go through the time where they grow up and examine their beliefs and align them to their heart.

[KeepItReal]

135. You either didn't look or never cared about Sen. Sanders' racial justice platform.

He had a clearly stated agenda on his site for months before Hillary even posted any type of racial justice component on her campaign site.

Check the DU history on the subject.

[Squinch]

137. I'm not rehashing the primary, so all I will say is that, no, it was long after hers had been

published and it was a weak paraphrase of hers, and he had to be dragged to it kicking and screaming.

[bravenak]

159. She was way earlier that that on racial justice

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-takes-hard-truths-about-race-and-justice

That is from Dec 2014. She was out front on Ferguson too, before that. And she spoke out way before BLM started interrupting. That platform you posted was a rip-off from Project Zero and I said so at the time.

[KeepItReal]

164. "the likely presidential candidate". Your post ain't about the actual campaign.

[bravenak]

165. It absolutely is. Hillary will stand up for our right against Trump, and she started back in 2014

For the 2016 cycle. Actually, she has been out in front on social justice and women's rights for YEARS.

[Adrahil]

43. Well, there were the Japanese internment camps too....

Entirely unrelated to the New Deal. And the continues deportation of American citizens of Mexican heritage under his watch.

FDR had many good qualities. But he was not the perfect Progressive savior some represent him as.

[Squinch]

58. This isn't the powers that be, this is Bravenak. And stating the truth is not smearing FDR's

policies. He moved the nation forward, but that move largely excluded black people. Them's the facts.

[Betty Karlson]

187. I'll agree with you on that summary.

But I still resent the intimation that FDR's New Deal was bad. Or that opposition to TPP is the new racism, and similar nonsense.

[Squinch]

194. The OP is saying the New Deal had glaring and large problems. It is saying that nostalgia

for the greatness of the New Deal without acknowledgment of those problems is ignorant. Both of those statements are true.

Resent whatever you want, and project whatever words you are going to project into what others say. No one can stop you.

[Betty Karlson]

197. And the OP is wrong to do so: the TIME of the New Deal had glaring problems.

But even when those problems were contemporaneous with the New Deal, they had no causal connection with the New Deal.

[Squinch]

199. And the present TIME has glaring problems, hence the desire from people of color and women to put

language into progressive programs that specifically guarantees that they will get an equal share of the benefits of those programs.

What is it about that that you are fighting so hard against? What would such language cost YOU that you need to argue against it?

[Betty Karlson]

218. That spin is repulsively disingenuous. I object to vilification of economic reform - and somehow

that makes me racist and sexist? Come on!

Have a look at what I have written in this thread. Nothing says we shouldn't all share in the benefits of economic reforms.

What I fight against is the shortsighted people opposing economic reform because of shortcomings that happened eighty years ago: that is intellectually dishonest. It is as if they say: "I can't learn from history, so I discount out of hand any possibility that you can learn from history. We will never do better, so let's settle for doing not as bad as the other guys."

[Squinch]

220. Oh, for fuck's sake. You are shadow boxing! It doesn't matter what I say, or what anyone else

says. You are simply pulling shit out of thin air to become outraged about.

Well have at it.

What you are saying is happening here bears no resemblance to what is happening here. What is happening here is that people are saying that it needs to be explicitly stated that everyone shares fairly in the benefits of economic reform. Obviously, from every historical fact we know, that is true.

I am sure, however, that there is no way to convince you that. You are too invested with the idea that others are stupid and they are being mean to you personally.

Enjoy. I'll be going. Clearly you don't need my help for you to finish this conversation with the horrible people in your head.

[Betty Karlson]

244. Certainly you are being mean now:

personal accusations, swear words, and now calling my objections an outrage too.

And more spin. Great.

[Gene Debs]

143. I must admit my first reaction to this post was "OK, now it's time to begin distancing Clinton

from anything resembling the New Deal."

Gotta get starting on priming the voters not to expect too much in the way of much-needed changes.

[Betty Karlson]

188. Yes, it's pretty disgusting.

[No Vested Interest]

14. OTOH, Eleanor Roosevelt stood up to the racist policy of the Daughters of the

American Revolution, who refused to permit Marian Anderson perform in their Hall.

[bravenak]

16. Yes She DID. She was the best of the two.

Without her he would have never gotten us.

[AllTooEasy]

28. We're talking about FDR.

FDR didn't do shit for Blacks. If he had, we wouldn't have needed a civil rights movement a generation later.

But Eleanor did let a Sista' sing for White folks, so Blacks should be satisfied

[cprise]

38. Interestingly, if FDR hadn't stood for economic fairness and

redistributive policies, appeals for racial equality might have seemed absurd to most people in the decades that followed. The ideological shift and language of equality helped throw the realities of discrimination into high relief... that not enough people benefited because there was more to address than class.

And yes, FDR lovers sometimes turn a blind eye to what FDR himself turned a blind eye to. And that IS why we shouldn't separate the social from the economic.

[AllTooEasy]

166. Appeals for racial equality were STILL absurd to most people in the decades that followed.

LBJ had to bully people to achieve any racial justice. The courts had to overrule discriminatory laws that were the Will of the People. The Civil War (and the Emancipation Proclamation, but really the Civil War) ended slavery.

America's path to racial justice has never been achieved via White Americans having a better understanding and voting for it. Pre-Civil Rights era, wealthy Blacks still couldn't send their kids to schools with poor White kids...or drink from the same water fountain as poor Whites. Solving class issues has never weakened racial, sexist, LBGT injustices.

And it's still that way. Barack Obama won every racial demographic in 2008 and 2012, but the White demographic. How did that happen? Obviously, Racial equality was STILL absurd to most (White) people.

[Haveadream]

242. In case they missed it

Solving class issues has never weakened racial, sexist, LBGT injustices.

Thank you for this!




Maybe if we keep repeating it they will eventually get it.

[cprise]

264. Moving the goal posts = Slippery argument

"Will of the people" segue to "Most white people", and the assumption that change in one area must follow others in tandem or else have no causal relationship at all.

Very disingenuous.

Whenever the idea and language of fairness spreads in society, it causes a sea change across the board. It creates opportunities to demonstrate hypocrisy and discrimination along other fault lines.

The left has long concerned itself with the 'socio-economic' nature of inequality. But what I'm seeing in some of these reactions is that economic elites (indeed, even your "wealthy Blacks&quot are the ones responsible for racial equality. Its a very odd thing, considering how insistently leaders of the civil rights movement railed against liberal elite attitudes and the same tendency for denial you're displaying here.

So you want radical change, but insist on leaders who have made it their life's work to prevent anything so drastic.

MLK died while trying to advance the cause of a labor union, just weeks after inveighing against capitalism. It really is some epic, revisionist denial.

The fallacy underpinning that denial is represented by: Whites shifted towards racist politicians in the late 20th century, therefore the pro-labor left ignored or abandoned non-white people.

Obviously, Racial equality was STILL absurd to most (White) people.

Obviously, you missed the part about Obama being portrayed as a tax and spend redistribution-ist. Many whites were just reacting to Obama (and Gore and Clinton before him) the way any better-off demographic might have. Was race more of a factor? I have no doubt it was, but the way you put it is absurd.

But seriously, lets just forget that racial equality is connected to anything else except the ability to make and spend money unharassed, as one sees fit. We could redefine yet another strange "white" cause, environmentalism, as against the interests of well-off black folk--another manifestation of racist repression. And BTW, hispanics, Muslims, native Americans, gays, etc. can all line up to get their little footnotes in this grand, dualistic struggle (someday, when BLM can stop choking on any labels not their own).

[pnwmom]

17. Thank you, bravenak! This is important to share.. n/t

[bravenak]

18. Very important right now.

[nikto]

22. So LBJ is a bigger "hero" than FDR now?

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 05:08 AM - Edit history (2)

No one says The New Deal was great for everybody, and it is well-known some of its effects were mitigated
by racist southern democrats and others.
African=Americans did get the short end of much of the New Deal, due to the stifling climate of racism back then.
Yeah, FDR should have fought against it harder.
FDR also should not have signed-off on the Japanese Internment, or rejected the German transatlantic liner St. Louis,
with her 1000+ Jews aboard, most of whom ended up dying in concentration camps. (I'm Jewish, so that hurts especially).

FDR also should never have allowed corporate insider Harry Anslinger in his administration, who pushed for the illegalization
of cannabis, destroying the lives of millions via incarceratiion in the decades that followed, for smoking a flower.

But regardless, many of FDR's economic ideas are worth keeping, and adapting and improving, in our era, right now.

So now, instead of admiring what was good about the New Deal, and speculating about *how we could do it better now*,
we get a convenient new "Centrist" narrative
about how great LBJ was, and FDR wasn't really all that hot, etc.

Beware the coded message:
The New Deal wasn't so good after all, and should not be replicated.
A perfect GOP/Conservative/Reaganite opinion.!
And that's a fact, dear deFacto GOPers!

So this is how FDR's acknowledged failure to extend the New Deal properly to African Americans in a racist era
becomes a possible rationale (wait for it) for more corporate-leaning, Conservative fiscal policies (you, know, stuff that ain't the New Deal, maybe even more tax cuts and trade deals like TPP and NAFTA, more for-profit prisons, and other goodies).

Both men did good things, and both men had feet of clay and made some big mistakes.
That would be the realistic way to view history.
But that doesn't support some folks' agendas quite enough, does it?

Sounds like some folks are preparing themselves, after Dem victory, for a
scattering of a few shallow social programs, a bunch of investor-friendly policies and a great BIG war,
under Hillary (maybe Libya can be the new Vietnam under the Neocons, eh?).

That could well turn out to be what happens after 2016 (but I hope not).

This thread seems to me like one big rationalization for what is very possibly to come,
under the expediency of Democratic Party "centrism".
This is how people get led astray, little-by-little.

Sorry, JMO.


But I am really wondering about some of the things I've been reading on DU lately.

If you wanna' know the truth, I find it increasingly creepy.
Again, just MO.

BUT...
It is a fact that Democratic Party "Centrism" (as seen in the 1990s, especially)
tilts decisively towards corporatism. This is measurable and has been documented,
so I'm not going to list the pro-corporate policies that were passed then.
You probably know what they are.
If you don't, then you are not ready to form a respectable opinion on this topic.
Go back and do some reading.
I will respectfuly suggest refrences if you need some guidance.

Dem Centrism = pro-Corporatism.
It is all part of the "slippery slope" towards the corporate state.

Why are so many Democrats blind to this dangerous truth?

[bravenak]

23. Many seem to ignore the flaws

[Igel]

67. It's easy to so focus on the bad that the good becomes invisible.

To so see that inequality is worse as to miss that things were better.

A decade or so ago some enterprising folks disaggregated some education data. Overall, achievement was improving slightly. The achievement gap between blacks and whites, bottom quintile and top quintile, was growing smaller. The equality folk were celebrating.

The great mass of kids were improving slightly. The bottom tier of kids--disproportionately minority--were also improving, but no faster than before ever after numerous modifications intended to boost learning. The top tier of kids was barely improving. The gap was decreasing not because the lowest tier was speeding up their gains but because the "improvements" led to the top tier slowing down. This was the cause of the celebration, and a lot of people saw no problem with this. Parents and many educators, however, did, because the goal of education is education and this wasn't it.

For equality, it was a good thing. For the kids, not a good thing, because that top tier could have been learning more and doing better.

You do the best you can, and hope not to be judged badly for not doing the things you can't. Empathy for others is good, but it's so 20th century a value. Mostly the 21st century value is in-group empathy.

[BzaDem]

40. There is a lot of truth in your post, though perhaps not in the way you intended.

Let's take Obama's big three achievements in domestic policy: the stimulus, the ACA, and Dodd-Frank.

I'm not sure of your opinion on these, so I will just say that many people with similar views would call those "conservative fiscal policy"/"corporate leaning"/etc. Of course, that is utterly false when compared with the status quo ante. The problem is that people aren't comparing Obama's policies with the status quo ante. They are comparing it to a mythical new deal that didn't actually pass, didn't come close to passing, and never had any hope of passing during FDR's time.

The new deal that actually passed only passed due to the exclusion of minorities. While of course FDR made mistakes, it wasn't something that FDR could have fixed if he just "fought harder." Instead, it was the only way the votes would add up, despite a much larger Congressional majority than we have seen in decades.

So instead of blaming today's Democrats for "conservative"/"corporate leaning" fiscal policy, by citing as precedent FDR's new deal, people should be asking: what about our political system makes it so incredibly difficult to move the ball forward at all? So difficult that FDR himself could not pass progressive policy without excluding minorities from said policy? Instead of asking why today's democrats aren't doing better than the new deal, people should be asking why FDR couldn't even pass the new deal itself (at least in the form that many pretend it was passed, that this thread does a great job of exposing as false).

None of this is providing a rationale for "conservative"/"corporate leaning" policies. None of this purports to attack an ideal of new-deal-style economic policy that is actually inclusive (unlike the new deal). But it should make people question their assumptions about what types of policy is actually achievable, even if that makes them feel uncomfortable with the results of such questioning.

[Monk06]

180. A good response to another one of these left wing revisionsist threads cutting down progressive

pioneers because they didn't do enough by today's standards Whatever standards those are in the real world

The lack of response to your thoughful comments is deafening It is also defining in the case of pseudo progressive unicorn worshipers

[nikto]

250. I guess it's indicative of just how far Conservatives/GOP/Reagan have, successfully moved ...

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 06:10 AM - Edit history (1)

... the entire political conversation, over time, in America
rightwards.





But, IMO:

ACA is a step in the right direction (towards Single-payer tytpe system).
But as an ending point? Nope. Unsustainable, due to profit$.


Dodd-Frank?
has some nice stuff in it, but is too weak without Glass-Stegall restriction. It did not make us safe.
There will be another big RE bubble.
It is building as we speak.

The Stimulus---Great!! Contains too many tax cuts, but that mean GOP is sooooo hard to stop.
It was good as far as it went.

[Squinch]

64. This leap you are all making is interesting. Bravenak is pointing out a flaw that must be

addressed if New Deal policies are pursued. You all jump right off the cliff with that and say that she is saying that New Deal policies should be abandoned.

It's really very hard for some people here to hear the idea that, in the future, the issues of women and people of color need to be explicitly addressed, and that addressing only the economy is not enough.

[sheshe2]

110. Yes, thank you Squinch, precisely.

[nikto]

252. Issues of Women and People of Color, and Economics...are separate?

IMO, it is an error to see them as totally separate.
I do not.

Neither did MLK in his last year of life.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/martin-luther-kings-economic-dream-a-guaranteed-income-for-all-americans/279147/

http://fortune.com/2016/01/18/martin-luther-king-i-have-a-dream/


MLK:
"From the outset, King’s stated goal was to rid America from the triple evils of poverty, racism, and militarism."

MLK was deep enough to see, on some levels,
it is all one.

[Squinch]

258. Oh, Jesus, Mary and Joseph...

It never ends.

[nikto]

259. Yeah, if only the Democratic Party can get rid of those old, dead ideas from the 30s thru the 70s

Don't want to be a filthy hippie or anything.

[jtuck004]

24. W. Wilson, The AF of L, and Business Unions killed off the Progressives by the 20s.

What was left was a country which had to remake those definitions to live with them. Our ways of viewing them are much different than they were then.

There was a progressive union, the IWW, which made the distinction between them and us based on class, not color or other divisions. They were on the side of labor gaining control of their work. Unions, Industrial Unions, were never stronger or more feared, which is why they were destroyed. They were the definition of progressive.

FDRs policies helped some people, but didn't save our economy. The war did. The war helped to open the door for people of color by opening people's minds, a door which the liberals and FDR kept their foot against. Dong that helped us blow up half the world and profit from training ourselves and rebuilding it. We were then scared into more action by the space program, which prompted another round of investment in ourselves, another period in which our national debt mattered less than our national future.

I liked the piece. Thank you for putting it up here.

[bravenak]

100. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[Chan790]

44. Anybody nostalgic for Clintonism...

is nostalgic for the administration of a Democratic President whose policies were the most-racist since Woodrow Wilson.

...or did you forget about Bill Clinton's obsession with social-welfare program-reform because they were to him the main causes of inner-city crime and drug use among the blacks. Yup, that's the solution to race-based poverty...take away people's TANF, WIC, SNAP and welfare to "encourage" them to end gang violence, stop taking drugs, and get jobs. That's what he preached, that's what he governed...just because it followed 12 years of even shittier and more-racist policies doesn't make it less shitty and racist on its own merits.

Can we stop pretending that Bill Clinton didn't drink the Reaganite Kool-aid, please?

[AllTooEasy]

29. FDR: Best President White America ever had

Just another pre civil rights president to us Blacks. We've been Waiting on our New Deal for 80+ years.

[bravenak]

87. It was wonderful for them. They say so all the time.

[ananda]

31. Thank you for pointing out FDR's dilemma

It's a mixed bag.

While I'm sure he seemrd pretty craven on the issue
of race, we can all hope that hearkening back to New
Deal politics is more inclusive now.

Also recall how Johnson's Great Society and the Civil
Rights bills of the sixties did exactly what FDR feared
would happen in the thirties... namely drove the south
to the GOP and states rights politics that has resulted
in the mean stupid crazy stuff that is so prevalent now.

If you follow the money, it's clear how racism has been
used as a tool to widen the wealth gap and keep people
of color incarcerated or disenfranchised.

The only upside to all this, if there is one, is that the crazy
is now SO crazy that it might not be able to sustain itself
on a national or international level, though it still has
considerable traction in state and local communities,,sad
to say.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. And out of homes, mortgages, and decent public schools

I've never been in jail or prison and never has anyone in my family. I've always voted (franchise)

If you follow the money, it's clear how racism has been
used as a tool to widen the wealth gap and keep people
of color incarcerated or disenfranchised.

However, in the 60's, after leaving the Air Force as an aviator and accepting a management position at Xerox in their engineering department - my Uncle Doug and Aunt Mildred had to move into their home in Rochester NY (yep - up North in a city known for abolitionists and women's rights) during the middle of the night. Don't get me started on seeing the home and purchasing it. He was never in prison and had his voting rights secured in the 1960s.

we can all hope that hearkening back to New
Deal politics is more inclusive now.

Trust issues. I refuse to "hope". And I refuse to pay more into a system until I see every single detail that guarantees me and all black folks that this isn't a typical American money grab from black Americans and then the door gets slammed shut in our face.

The devil is in the details and cold hard cash analysis on the spreadsheet.

[heaven05]

93. I stopped hoping

for an all inclusive society many times and my derision for the word 'hope' is immense. That word has been used to delay and distract from the fact that POC are still not as equal as people without melanin in the general american society and culture. Till we can get rid of the Klan mentality of the majority of the RW, their hate radio and their MSM, America will NEVER be truly equal in all areas, financial, educational and social.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. I'm kicking this- bravenak

Until I see ground given by supposed allies on the 36 year head start they were given - the marriage is over. You want that ring and don't want to change a thing? Too bad. I'm outta here!

Give me built in guarantees that you won't make it illegal for my bank to hold my mortgage or seize my home because it is in an FDR red lined district - and we can talk.

Also assure me that my contributions into SS aren't going to be redistributed to someone based upon my job - and the color of their skin.

If anyone gets upset at those two requirements for me getting on board with these "The times were just fanfuckingtastic" fantasies - then they have no idea how those two policies greatly impacted the building of wealth in the black community.

Riddle me this - why weren't domestic workers, porters, and share croppers allowed to participate in SS at launch? Here we go again.

We have serious trust issues in this relationship. Reminds me of that Prince song - Strange Relationship. What say you bravenak?

[bravenak]

86. Oh yeah! I have major trust issues.

I want everything spelled out and affirmative actions applied or no funding for anybody. Too many times we were made to pay into things and not allowed to get our fair share back out. No more trusting. I prefer legislation to trust.

[BzaDem]

36. There is a very important lesson in WHY that was the case.

When people point out why Obama couldn't go way above and beyond what he was able to get passed (why single payer was a pipe dream in 2009, etc), others respond citing FDR. If FDR could pass a new deal, why couldn't Obama? In general, FDR is cited for the general proposition that it is easier to make large policy changes than the nay-sayers think.

Of course, that is largely false. One reason is that the democratic party under FDR practically had veto-proof majorities in Congress -- majorities we haven't come close to since the 60s.

But the other reason is that even with such gigantic majorities, FDR simply could not pass his program without substantial support from the racist wing of the Democratic party (one of the larger parts of the coalition at the time). Our political system requires a much greater consensus among many different levers of power to change anything, compared to other political systems. The exclusion of African Americans from the New Deal is a sad, sorry consequence of that fact.

This is not to excuse FDR in any way. Rather, it is to stop viewing FDR's policies through rose-colored glasses. People should stop using FDR as precedent for big progressive change being easy (or only a matter of willpower, or only a matter of electing the right President, etc). His policies show how structurally difficult it is to actually pass progressive legislation that benefits everyone, which he did not.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. ^^^ THIS ^^^

My mother, born in 1930, grew up under Roosevelt. In the heart of the depression, a large segment of the U.S. was heartened to have FDR in to try to dig the country out of despair. However in order to do so, a whole segment of the population's additional woes (racism) were put on the back-burner, where legal, de jure segregation (including in the U.S. military, where my father served in WWII in a segregated army, prompting A. Philip Randolf to organize a march on Washington unless something was done), Jim Crow, lynchings, redlining, and all sorts of other atrocities, were permitted to continue - all to pander to the racist southern dixicrats.

People tend to forget that FDR was elected to 4 terms (but only survived until the very beginning of the 4th), so it's not like he didn't have enough time to attempt to address civil rights issues beyond sending his wife out to soothe the community.

LBJ faced similar, but being from the south, he eventually chose to take them on in the aftermath of the 1963 "March on Washington" (prompted by assassination of Medgar Evers and all the previous atrocities committed against POC). And his doing so, after taking the helm of the nation upon the 1963 assassination of JFK (another who did little to rock the dixicrat voters outside of calling up the National Guard against them on several occasions when the news of egregious wrongs became embarrassing), to shepherd a nascent Civil Rights Act through to completion. This eventually lead to the scum dixicrats fleeing to the GOP, but in return, it gave us a series of more potent Civil Rights-related laws that began to confer what should be considered "human rights" onto a population that had such stripped away.

[pampango]

73. Some great points. FDR did much, more than any other president in many ways, but there is much he

did not do, particularly with respect to African Americans.

I heard Obama say the other day that being president was somewhat like being part of relay race. You take the baton from your predecessor when you are inaugurated and hand it off to your successor in 4 or 8 years. While you have the baton you try to best you can but you are influenced by your own strengths and weaknesses and affected by the strengths and weaknesses of those who oppose you.

[Chan790]

42. While FDR was far from perfect...

one would have to have some serious rose-colored glasses; be a bigot or an idiot; or be utterly lacking in any kind of moral principles to argue that FDR wasn't problematic for a number of reasons and a deeply-flawed human being (The same can be said for that matter of LBJ)...it's very hard to argue that the economic programs of these Presidents...which is all anybody is nostalgic for either of them on the basis of...wouldn't be better for all Americans--black, white, brown, red or yellow (I think that covers everybody)--than the nostalgia some in the black community have for Bill Clinton and Clintonian economics, a president whose economic policies did more to harm minorities (and explicitly blacks more than other minorities) and those in poverty than any Democratic President since the unrepentant, open racism and misogyny of Woodrow Wilson. Bill literally drank the Reaganite Kool-aid about welfare queens, lazy blacks, and the need to "reform" social-welfare programs in order to "encourage" inner-city blacks and other minorities to get off drugs, stop committing crimes, and better themselves. It's hard to hold more anti-black racist economic policies than Bill Clinton did and be a post-Civil-Rights-Era Democratic President.

How the Black community could be nostalgic for Clintonism to the extent that they overwhelmingly supported Hillary during the primary is frankly inexplicable to me from a logical standpoint. Honestly, I don't get it. It makes no sense to me. FDR was terrible for blacks...and Bill Clinton was worse.

[treestar]

52. FDR has a Democratic majority at least

Clinton didn't always and he was in post-Reagan and during the rise of the extremists on the right. That's when the Republicans started things like government shut downs. They are more and more rabid. Instead of insulting our Democratic leaders, we should GOTV and vote in midterms and state elections and get majorities like FDR had, rather than letting the Republicans keep taking Congress due to their willingness to vote in the friggin' midterms. And their rabidness of grabbing state houses which allows gerrymandering so they can keep Congress. I'll never understand why people prefer having that happen and complaining rather than just being as dogged as the right is.

[ismnotwasm]

56. Inexplicable to you?

What are you saying, exactly?

[Squinch]

78. I think it's something he wants the black community to explain to him...

[BumRushDaShow]

70. "I don't get it."

When the black community was FINALLY allowed to vote, we were ALWAYS left to vote for the "lesser of evils" because certainly none of us would be running. This occurs at every Presidential election and POC look at the choices and make a decision.

And regarding Bill Clinton (and this could apply to Jimmy Carter and LBJ) - it seems many non-"southern" whites (or other non-black POC) are completely oblivious to the relationship dynamics between "southern" whites & "southern" blacks and "northern" whites & "northern" blacks (using the terms based on the areas settled longer than other areas of the U.S.). I.e., there is quite a sociological contrast that the regionalism in the U.S. brings to bear. Or in other words, the "public" faces of these regions often-belied what went on in "private" -

<...>

When the young historian Mark Schultz ventured to Hancock County, in Georgia's lower Piedmont, to collect oral reminiscences of the intersection of black and white lives in the first half of the twentieth century (primarily the 1910s through the 1930s), he expected to gather a record of unrelentingly brutal oppression and a rigid color line. His actual findings, presented in The Rural Face of White Supremacy (Illinois), an unusually rich and dense portrait (as much a work of sociology as of history), have led him to draw a far more complex and subtle picture. To be sure, Schultz found abundant evidence of a white-supremacist society (one ultimately upheld by violence, and in which blacks who found themselves in unfamiliar circumstances had constantly to negotiate the convolutions of racial etiquette). But in this rural setting he failed to find the formal segregation that characterized black-white relations in the South's cities. Instead he discovered a world defined by what he calls "a web of interconnectivity," in which blacks and whites (especially in the lower classes) regularly attended one another's churches; played ball, fished, hunted, and ate together as neighbors; chatted and spun yarns together, visited one another's homes, and helped and consoled one another in times of sickness and death. ("[You could] act like you were of the same family with close white sharecroppers," one black sharecropper remembered.) In short, in this shared culture the races were intensely intimate—and their interactions were usually characterized by decency and good manners—if never equal. Although Schultz scrupulously eschews romanticizing what Martin Luther King Jr. called the "intimacy of life" between rural blacks and whites, his work corrects some of the best-publicized recent chronicles of southern life in this period, which too often treat white racial attitudes and behavior as a static and monolithic force.

<...>

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/11/the-south-in-black-and-white/303566/

Since the majority of the black population lives in the south, the above dynamic very much colors the decision of who to vote for and why. And this is what makes the U.S. a fascinating but often frustrating nation to study.

Interestingly, I grew up hearing about this black/white dynamic in my household - basically being told and observing for myself, that in the south, whites and blacks were often distant "in public" - maintaining separation in work life or in various public venues, but in private, they had much more social and personal interaction (eating meals together at home, attending weddings or funerals, etc). Where in the north, black/white relations tended to be quite a display of public interaction during the day - willing to work together, go to school together, etc., but with very little "socializing" after dark (e.g., bbqs, clubbing, etc). This is slowly changing during my lifetime, but nonetheless, the regionalist differences cannot be dismissed.

[Albertoo]

46. With all due respect, the OP makes no sense

FDR was a product of his times, mired in the society he lived in.

FDR was about halfway between before the Civil War and a mixed race president.

How could he not have turned a blind eye to things he couldn't reform wholesale?

Re-writing history in the light of modern times just doesn't work.

[alittlelark]

146. ^^^ THIS ^^^^

[bravenak]

149. That's nice

[AllTooEasy]

167. ^^^ THIS ^^^^ is Bullshit!!! Product of his time?!

What about taking a stand?! He was the fucking President!!! Calls to end racial discrimination predated Roosevelt by decades. Why didn't he join that side?

Should I also should forgive Washington and Jefferson for not taking a stand against slavery? For being slave owners?

When I hear this "product of his times" argument, I can only assume that the arguer is justifying their own cowardice. They are basically saying "Hell, I would have been a racist/sexist/homophobe back then too! I would have been too chickenshit to take a stand during that era, even as the fucking President. Would you have hated me for it?"

Yes. Your answer is Yes. I would have been just as disgusted of you back then, as I would be now if you were stil a racist/sexist/homophobe.

[bravenak]

172. Exaxtly

[Albertoo]

236. A person in charge cannot change society with a magic wand

The leader has to deal will n issues. Can he/she reform all at one go and maintain popular support? Not the case. An intellectual can take as many stands as he/she wants, there are no directt consequences. A leader has to tread carefully, composing with public opinion.

I do not see how FDR could at the same time
- fix the 1929 depression
- get the country ready for war
- and make drastic changes in racial inclusiveness

There is something as task overload.

[treestar]

49. It was said somewhere that the US would be the most progressive

country in the Western Hemisphere - if it were all white. Racists don't have any real objections to social programs. Their real objection is sharing them with nonwhite people. To avoid that, they'll do without a safety net themselves. We've seen this. Whenever you talk to a white racist about welfare they presume they are working and paying for these brown people to stay home and have babies. As if there are not a lot of government programs that benefit them that they seem to have no problem with. Or that most people on welfare are white. And that it's temporary - the claim of the permanent welfare recipient who is always black is not justified in any way but they go on as if that's the way it really is.

[bravenak]

90. I agree with that.

[etherealtruth]

121. + infinity

[ismnotwasm]

54. K&R

[My Good Babushka]

55. So because progressive politics against inequality were racist in the past

we should no longer try to correct inequality with a progressive agenda? I'm having trouble imagining what the takeaway is of this exposé.

[Squinch]

59. What are you talking about? No one said anything remotely like this.

[My Good Babushka]

63. That's how it reads to me

"because progressive, socialist agendas were exclusionary almost a hundred years ago, let's still not trust them, let's vote centrist-corporate democrats, for some reason."

[Squinch]

65. Then you need to read it again.

[My Good Babushka]

66. I'm perfectly able to read and understand

Why don't you give your alternative assessment of why this was posted, here and now, during the 2016 election season, and what the takeaway is for the democratic community? That is how discussions work.

[Squinch]

68. Try this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7979646

[My Good Babushka]

69. Today's democratic party

is the least racist party that there is. I would have expected either candidate to do equally well in applying laws fairly.

[Squinch]

72. I don't know what that means. BS and his followers insisted throughout the primary that

we only need to address economic issues and thereby everyone's life would get better.

Women and people of color told him that was not sufficient, and that social programs needed to be explicitly addressed. They told him this in plenty of time for him to pivot and add this absolutely necessary element to his campaign. If he had done so early in the campaign when it was pointed out to him, I think it is likely that he would have won the primary.

Instead, women and people of color were told by BS and his followers that they just didn't understand, that they were ignorant and that others knew what was best for them.

That proved to women and people of color that BS and his followers were the ones who simply didn't understand.

In this thread, bravenak is pointing out AGAIN that economic programs are not sufficient unless the social issues faced by people of color are EXPLICITLY addressed as part of the plan. She is showing that this is born out by history. She is showing that even the best economic programs do not "trickle down" to people of color on their own.

And all you guys can do is run around with your hair on fire saying, "You're against economic programs! You hate FDR!"

[My Good Babushka]

75. What is the EXPLICIT plan

that is good for women and people of color? And who is promoting it? I just don't believe that either democratic candidate was racist, or would have applied their agendas in a racist way.

[Squinch]

77. .

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/

[My Good Babushka]

84. And other people believe

that an increased minimum wage, universal healthcare and expanding college opportunities would have been a better way to address those issues. I believe either way, they wouldn't be implemented in the same way legislation was implemented in the 1930s, before the civil rights era, and there is no need or usefulness to paint progressives as latent racists.
It's just petty and spiteful.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. That's the thing ... Those "other people" ...

are mostly white men ... As mentioned above, (the majority of) PoC and Women have indicated differently.

Regarding "paint(ing) progressives as latent racists" ... what would you call someone that continually pushes policies that maintain the social (racial) status quo, after being told (and in some cases, acknowledging) that the policies they are pushing, maintains the social (racial) status quo?

[My Good Babushka]

92. There is nothing status quo about reducing inequality.

Some paint the centrist Democrat that has won the candidacy as status quo, but I don't go around insinuating she's a latent racist because of something that happened 80 years ago.

[bravenak]

97. Why is it asking too much to apply affirmative action to any new deal type legislation?

I really want to know why so many seemingly progressive people totally balk at the idea of applying the system fairly and ensuring that we who were left out last time, are written in explicitely? Why should pointing out the flaws not cause them to find a solution rather than to become indignant at the factual account of history that shows it was certainly NOT applied fairly last time? Do they oppose affirmative action remedies for minorities who have been left out of so many things in our society? Do they not realize that their opposition to explicitely state that we will get a share relative to our population otherwise the program will end, shows that they know it is not fair and will not be fair, and they do not care about that part. Until peopke are willing to right the wrongs done, we will never move forward on any big legislation. If we are not written in, history shows that we get left out. Name one time in history where blacks were treated fairly in any of our 'welfare' or 'new deal type' legislation. You will not find one no matter how hard you look.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. You know the answer to those questions.

[bravenak]

105. Damn. Same answer as back in those wonderful days of nostalgia. NO!

[My Good Babushka]

108. Both democratic candidates supported affirmative action

Neither of our democratic candidates are/were racist.

Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Affirmative Action. Many believe that she was a driving force in her husband’s successful diversification of his cabinet during his time in office. For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith states “Hillary assigned herself the task of ensuring that Bill kept his pledge to appoint more women and minorities than any previous president, to make his Administration “look like America.” She pressed him to fill half of the senior positions with women. And she urged her husband to make history by appointing the first woman to one of the big four cabinet posts.”

When asked about Civil Rights issues, Clinton states that she believes in reparations for the past, but she also hopes to focus on fixing issues here and now. In a 2000 Senate debate she stated, “We have mental, emotional and psychological reparations to pay first. We have to admit that we haven’t always treated people in our own country fairly. We have some issues that we have to address when it comes to racial justice right now. I’m willing to work hard to be a strong advocate for Civil Rights and human rights here at home and around the world. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the programs and policies that have helped generations of African-Americans have a better life in this country continue. I think we should be focused on the present and on the future. We owe an apology to African-Americans for hundreds of years of slavery.” Clinton has also worked avidly for equal pay initiatives and other women’s rights efforts.
Bernie Sanders on Affirmative Action

Bernie Sanders not only supports Affirmative Action, he received a 97% by the NAACP on Affirmative Action. This score has been interpreted as extremely pro-Affirmative Action. Despite this rating, Sanders is severely disadvantaged among African American voters. In a recent poll, he saw only 3 percent of black voter support, as opposed to the 91 percent that supported Hillary. Sanders believes that this is largely due to a lack of knowledge about his stance on such policies. In an interview on This Week, Sanders stated, “I have a long history in fighting for civil rights. I understand that many people in the African-American community may not understand that. But I think the issues that we are dealing with, combating 51 percent African-American youth unemployment, talking about the need that public colleges and universities should be tuition free, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure. These are issues that should apply to every American.”

[bravenak]

109. The difference in the approaches are remarkable

And it is why we are happy to help defeat Trump. I see a big difference in their approaches, namely explicitly stating how one will help right the wrong that have caused such inequality.
The other approach was rather generic and did not explicitly state that any affirmative action would be applied, rather, opting to explain that perhaps we simply did not 'understand'. We are capable of understanding far more than we are given credit for. Harumph!

[My Good Babushka]

112. I prefer broad, universal changes over

specific programs. Specific programs beget specific bureaucracy, funds get misappropriated, the people who are supposed to be served end up neglected or worse off than before. For instance, the proposal to enact specific reforms to stop the "classroom to prison pipeline", presumably with some sort of task force and new bureaucracy and a million chances for money to go missing, seems less optimal than something like a universally raised minimum wage, since poverty is what makes these once good institutions like public education fail to function like they are supposed to. And the money goes right into the pockets of citizens. I have a great deal of suspicion reserved for "targeted programs" that end up being a million little piggy banks for corrupt officials, who also get to make all the decisions.

[bravenak]

113. I prefer targeted relief to those who need it most

Rather than ignoring the fact that relief misses the same groups every single time, I refuse to go along with any solution that does not target historically disadvantaged groups. And will fight any solutions that do not include targeted relief to those who need it most, as those solutions simply INCREASE the wealth gap between groups who have not been marginalized and those who have. My way is the correct approach.

[My Good Babushka]

116. To say that people who disagree with your preferred methods

are probably racist is divisive and false. The more something looks like "welfare" or "charity", as in when it's targeting a specific underprivileged group, the more willing politicians in the future will be to cut funding to it, and paint it as "waste". It is much harder to end things, like social security and Medicare, that have become bedrock institutions. As a living wage, universal healthcare, and universal right to a secondary education would have been.

[bravenak]

117. Except I never actually called anyone racist this entire thread.

I think you may be reading things into things that were never stated. My approach on this is the correct approach and will be the way we move forward in this diverse nation.

[My Good Babushka]

123. No, no one's racist except FDR

I'm glad you wield so much political power that your way will be the way forward. I don't trust anyone who is certain their way is "correct". If it all falls into a mushy pile of fraud, abuse, misappropriated funds and dogshit, that will be on you, too, then.

[bravenak]

125. That's nice. I have no idea how this discussion got to this point.

[JustAnotherGen]

209. I do

[bravenak]

211. Right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. There is EVERYTHING status quo about ...

pushing economic policies that, at best, do nothing to address what PoC (and women and the LGBT Community) have told you concern them/us most, and at worse, maintain/reinforce the economic disparities ... and pretending that it will resolve the concerns, most of interest to PoC and Women.

And that is happening TODAY ... and specifically, with every word you've typed in this thread.

[Squinch]

128. No. Increasing minimum wage, universal healthcare and expanding college in NO WAY address

the social issues that face women and people of color. And that is the point of this thread.

Economic New Deal type policies are good.

However, women and people of color have no reason to believe that they will benefit from them unless there is specific language within those policies that explicitly includes them. If such language is not included, women and people of color are right to believe they will be excluded from these policies and their issues will not be dealt with. This is a logical conclusion for them to draw because this is what has always happened.

The New Deal is an example of this. Great progressive policies. No explicit protections within them for women and people of color. Therefore women and people of color did not benefit AT ALL from those great progressive policies.

Women and people of color are therefore are right to demand specific and explicit policies and language that guarantees their inclusion.

[Sunlei]

126. I don't think many people even know what Americas "economic programs" are in America.

It's a short list and many are old, obsolete programs not changed from the times of our countries- Congresses segregation laws. A couple on the list Sanders has directly addressed. And addresses with the Clinton campaign D platform now. Glass–Steagall Act for example. I think a lot of those trouble makers 'sanders followers' weren't really for Sanders or the D party.




Economic Programs in the United States are created for the purpose of helping the economy.
fixed link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Programs_United_States

[Ken Burch]

225. Actually, that isn't true.

Bernie pushed economic justice issues, but he never, at any point, said that they were the ONLY issues that matter, or that economic justice itself would end racism.

He went into dialog with POC and women and changed his program significantly in response to that program.

And he took much explicitly stronger anti-racist positions as the campaign went on.

Your post there is based on accusing Bernie of taking positions he didn't actually take.

And in any case, Bernie is out of the race, so the positions he took in the primary are no longer the point.

An economic justice movement still needs to be built.

People who worked for Bernie get it that the things that needed to be said to win the support of POC weren't said or said explicitly enough during the primary. Now, building for the future, we want to work with those POC and those women who didn't support that campaign(some did, for the record, and a growing number did as the primaries went on)to build a long term economic justice/social justice movement.

Can we move past the call-out stage now and try to work together to build something together for the future? Bernie's not going to be nominated, so there's really no reason to still be attacking his campaign on that. You wanted him stopped, and you stopped him.
What matters now is the future and working together for the future.

[Squinch]

228. No interest whatsoever in rehashing this. The point is that the language needs to be explicitly

written into the laws going forward, or any claims to progressivism and social justice are bullshit.

It shouldn't be a big deal, but reading this thread and the kneejerk claims about accusations of racism and sexism, one realizes that for some people it is a huge deal, and that for some people this concept is still not clear.

[Ken Burch]

231. I agree that it should be. Always have.

Do you have any record of Bernie saying anything to indicate that he WOULDN'T agree with that?

We're on the same side here.

I think some of the reactions you're getting are people feeling that you're still attacking Bernie and that you're still acting as though he never acknowledged the issues you raised, that he never responded and changed.

But you and I agree about the inclusion language. I hope you can accept that.

[melman]

118. There is no takeaway

other than trashing a Democratic icon in order to Bernie-bash in a way the OP thinks is cleverly skirting of the rules.

[dembotoz]

60. i admire both fdr and lbj both had flaws but both heroes to me

perfect folks tend not to show up much...if christian....last one was over 2000 years ago.....just saying

[mcar]

71. Thanks for this perspective, brave

[Gothmog]

79. K&R

[betsuni]

81. K&R

[Sunlei]

82. I agree, many Americans never knew or do not care to face their REAL History.

Our 13th amendment still allows slavery of American prisoners. Our local/state criminal 'justice' system is set-up to wring profits off the backs of those who can least afford fee & fines. Our neighborhoods are still excluding people using covenant and association rules & fees.

This documentary uses actual government records from the White House, Congress and Senate. Many of the unfair laws are still in use today. Many of todays Corporations take advantage of the 13th & still use our prisoners as 25 cents A DAY-Slaves.

[dembotoz]

83. but that gets in the way of our chanting usa usa usa on every stupid occasion

[Sunlei]

94. shallow ignorant people are always unhappy and easy to 'herd'

ig·no·rant


/ˈiɡnərənt/


adjective

adjective: ignorant




lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"


synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
inexperienced, unworldly, unsophisticated


"the plight of these ignorant children should be an international concern"



antonyms: educated



•lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"


synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More
informalin the dark about, clueless about


"they were ignorant of working-class life"



antonyms: knowledgeable




•informal
discourteous or rude.
"this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist"

[heaven05]

85. I NEVER get upset at the truth

[bravenak]

89. I know thats right

[hollowdweller]

95. I totally understand what you are meaning

That the democratic party needs to focus less on economic fairness and inequality and more on race and cultural issues.

That it is OK if we have Wall Street running the show and outsourcing jobs as long as we focus more on minority rights.

That when people in the party say we need to have more New Deal type ideas that we really need to be more deferential to big business as long as we are colorblind.

That we need to get rid of New Deal ideas because they started at the time when there was too much racisim and anyone who is interested in economic populisim should vote Trump??

I think this is sort of a shakey strategy to trust Trump on this one. I think we dems can be populist and be for racial equality. I don't think we have to choose one or the other.

[bravenak]

96. What I mean is that affirmative action must be the foundation of any new deals or we wont

be interested. We do not trust anybody to make sure we get our fair share, we want it written into the legislation. That is not too much to ask considering how unfairly we were treated last time. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice? Can't get fooled again!

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. And, you know what J Cole says happens on the third time!

[bravenak]

107. Fuck tha peace signs!!

We can post this same op once a week and get the exact same responses.

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. I know ... sadly! Why does a segment of the left ...

see the fight for what they want as the defining point of progressivism ... and everything else as a fight for the status quo?

[bravenak]

115. Because they are specialer than we are

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. LOL ... specialerest!

[Squinch]

129. What is it in YOUR thinking that prevents you from seeing that it is possible to pursue all the

progressive programs that you want, while AT THE SAME TIME making sure that those progressive programs are fairly constructed to include all segments of society?

Why is it so difficult to understand that throughout history, progressive policies have excluded people of color and women, that even the greatest progressive movements like the New Deal, had no benefit to those segments of society? Why is it difficult to understand that, given that unbroken history of exclusion, women and people of color correctly require explicit language and policies that include them if they are to support such progressive policies?

And why is it so difficult to say that, yes, we will pursue economic justice WHILE AT THE SAME TIME pursuing social justice because the two are not the same?

Why is this so difficult to do? What do you lose by acknowledging these things?

[gollygee]

119. Again, some people don't actually read what you're saying

People have a knee-jerk reaction to your name and don't actually read or take in what you're saying.

It's reasonable for people of color to be skeptical of economic plans that don't specifically address how they will fairly address the needs of all people of all races, based upon past economic plans (and the New Deal is only one example) that did not specifically address racism, and therefore didn't help people of color. The phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" is simply a lie. Metaphorical rising tides have never lifted all boats.

[bravenak]

122. I know. They actually read a whole bunch of stuff I did not say instead of what I say.

[johnp3907]

124. K&R

For edification.

[DonCoquixote]

127. FDR democrats

There are those who do think of FDR times as rosy, I am not one.

However, if I was asked if I am an FDR democrat, I say I am closer to him than many other Democrats, not because of racial policy (which was wanting) but because ever since reagan, we have backtracked from what little progress we had. I do not proclaim FDR is a Zenith, I define him as a Bottom, the sort of mark that says "Come on, we cannot dig lower than that point or else we will cave ourselves in."

Do we need programs that are equal to, or even dwarf, the New deal made for the purposes of bringing about social justice, Yes, and yes, a lot of that effort must be to directed for AA's to ensure that not only do "black lives matter" but that those lives can thrive, no less than anyone else. But I would ask that just because you see people abusing and hiding behind FDR to justify their failures, that you also realize that some of us use FDR as a barrier against those who thought Herbert Hoover was fine, because many of those folks also think Jefferson Davis would make a fine president.

[bravenak]

152. I just wanted people to know why trying to use FDR to pull in minorities is failing

Maybe if they can put themselves in our shoes, they won't fail so terribly at bringing in minority voters. They assume that things were better for everybody because they were better for white people, and that just is not true. They assume that we will accept a plan that does not have provisions for disadvantaged groups spelled out, or that if we demand evidence that monies will be distributed fairly, we are somehow evil and calling them racist. I want them to know that the reason we need everything written into any egislation is because our nation has a history of NOT distributing funds fairly to the same groups every single time. I feel that anyone who refuses to apply affirmative action to a new deal type program is not on my side and is trying to gaffle me and exclude me and thinks I am dumb enough to be fooled. History shows that if we do not spell things out, we get left out.

This is my whole issue with those that call themselves 'fdr dems'. They cry for fairness and equlaity but when we say, okay, write us in explicitely, they get angry and attack. Not cool. Time for them to get social justice written into every damn thing they try to do, or they will never get enough of us on their side. The nation will not ever get whiter again. Time to treat us dark folks just as well as the white folks, and write that fairness into laws.

[Midwestern Democrat]

139. FDR was the man who delivered the Democrats out of 70 years of post Civil War minority status

Any Democrat with a pulse probably would have gotten elected president in 1932, but had we nominated a man of only average ability that year, we would almost certainly have been thrown out of power by 1936 - God knows many other presidents have stumbled over far less trying economic circumstances.

[bravenak]

150. That has nothing to do with my op

[Starry Messenger]

142. K&R

Great discussion--I'm in the UK right now and it's 2:30 am here, so I am too jet-lagged to post anything intelligent, but this thread is required reading.

[bravenak]

174. Hope yr having a good trip!

[William769]

144. I have been apologizing for my forefathers all my life when it comes to POC

And I will continue to do so till the day I die (because it's the right thing to do).

I understand why you brought this up bravenak and I thank you for doing so.

I will end with this, we've come a long way and we still have a ways to go but as long as we talk to each other and not see color but fellow human beings, we are on the right track.

[bravenak]

145. This is why I love you Bill

[WinkyDink]

147. So you'll be refusing that Social Security, I guess.

[bravenak]

148. I Was excluded from the original SS. I thank Johnson for fixing that up for me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

184. You were excluded from the original Social Security? Do tell.

[JustAnotherGen]

202. From the Social Security Administration Web Site

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

The Social Security Act of 1935 excluded from coverage about half the workers in the American economy. Among the excluded groups were agricultural and domestic workers—a large percentage of whom were African Americans. This has led some scholars to conclude that policymakers in 1935 deliberately excluded African Americans from the Social Security system because of prevailing racial biases during that period. This article examines both the logic of this thesis and the available empirical evidence on the origins of the coverage exclusions. The author concludes that the racial-bias thesis is both conceptually flawed and unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the early program was due to considerations of administrative feasibility involving tax-collection procedures. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias.

Just giving you a link to the Social Security Administration.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

215. Thanks. I hadn't realized bravenak had reached such an advanced age.

[JustAnotherGen]

216. If you pay in - you have a stake

We all get our annual *this is what you get when you retire at almost 70 years of age* letter from the Admin.

[Ken Burch]

153. Nobody who cites FDR as an example today is defending his appeasement of segregationists, though.

And no Democratic presidential primary candidates this year would have repeated that appeasement.

So, while your critique of FDR is accurate, it's also a strawperson.

A revived New Deal would not repeat FDR's choices on race.

[bravenak]

162. It is accurate anc true because it is history

And harkening back to those days gets one my super side eye. Without assurances that affirmative action will be applied before any funding is given we are at a stalemate until assurances are written into any proposals and legislation.

[Squinch]

195. You are saying there is no chance that any progressive programs enacted today would exclude people

color and women.

So why, then, would it be a problem for you for the laws to be written in a way that explicitly includes those groups?

[JustAnotherGen]

203. That's a really good question

The resistance is interesting.

[Squinch]

204. They are fighting this like we're asking them to give us their right arm. I truly don't get it.

[JustAnotherGen]

206. Yet - they want our money!

[Ken Burch]

224. It isn't a problem for me, and I honesly have no idea why you think it would be.

I've never objected to that idea in any post I've ever made here.

As far as I know, it isn't even a problem for the candidate I supported, if that's what you're getting at.

And even if that candidate had said he had a problem with that, the Civil Rights Act would make it illegal to exclude women and POC from those programs.

Do you really think any one in progressive politics today would insist that ANY program she or he proposed be restricted to white men?

[Squinch]

226. It is the entire purpose of this thread. POC and womed are saying, again, that they want the

language explicit in all progressive policies going forward. Whenever that is said, people come out of the woodwork and say we are calling them racists and sexists.

I have seen what has happened in history, as has the OP, who is giving this OP as an example of what has happened in history. There is an almost unbroken trail of exclusion for women and people of color. We are saying that "do you really think?" kinds of positions require us to take it on faith that everyone will be nice to us. Because that has never happened in real life, we are requiring the language is written into in the laws.

That is what this thread is about.

[Ken Burch]

229. And I fully support this. So would all Sanders supporters, AFAIK. You're right to ask for this.

To the best of my knowledge, Bernie was ok with the idea. It was wrong that FDR handled race as he did, and no one today defends that part of FDR's record.

(Although, to be accurate, it wasn't an unwillingness to say POC and women were included in the Thirties...it was specific language at that point that POC and women were banned....this was horrible, and it shouldn't have happened.)

Wha4t I'm saying is that you and I aren't actually in disagreement here. I stand with you. Pretty sure most Sanders people would have if this had just been said in this way in the primaries. Mainly what was being said then was that Bernie didn't care about racism and that he thought nothing BUT economic justice mattered...which was never true. Simply never true.

And I'm pretty sure any program for economic justice, in the post-1964 era, will include specific inclusion language form women, POC, also LGBTQ people. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would make it impossible NOT to have such language, as far as I know. Or to have inclusion in actual fact.

[Squinch]

230. Read the thread. This, for some reason, is very difficult for some to accept. And was been very

difficult for some to accept throughout the primary as well.

[Agnosticsherbet]

154. FDR was a person of his time.

He is no more worthy of lionizing than Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. We can recognize that they advanced the cause of human freedom without overlooking their deep flaws. They were all men of their times.

[bravenak]

161. I agree

[eridani]

155. I'm sure that elderly AAs appreciate your attack on a major portion of their retirement incomes.

Guess what? If a program doesn't exist in the first place, it can't be expanded later.

http://www.ncpssm.org/SocialSecurity/AfricanAmericansandSS

While Social Security is expected to be only one part of a person's retirement income, many minorities rely on it for more of their income. Because African Americans tend to have lower earnings and less pension coverage than White Americans, Social Security is extremely important for African American retirees. Based on the most recently available data:

Almost three-fourths (72 percent) of African American beneficiaries rely on Social Security for at least half their income, compared to less than two-thirds (65 percent) of all beneficiaries.
Almost 50 percent of African American beneficiaries rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.
Approximately 37 percent of African American beneficiaries rely on Social Security for all of their income.

Minorities rely more heavily on Social Security due to a lack of other income in retirement. Few elderly minorities receive income from pensions and assets. The greatest disparity is in the receipt of income from assets. Again, based on the most recent data,

26 percent of African Americans received income from assets, compared with more than 55 percent of Whites.
21 percent of African Americans 65 years old and over reported receiving income from private pensions or annuities, compared to 28 percent of Whites 65 years old and older.

[bravenak]

157. This is an attack on the system not on black people

And besides, most who were actually alive and working inthe 1930's and 40's are no longer with us. My grandmother was left out and my grandad only got to use his GI bill by moving to another state and 'passing' as WHITE. White folks ever had to uproot themselves ad pretend to be another race to use govt programs they fought in WWII for and nearly died to recieve.
You said nothing about the CCC, lynchings, Jim Crow, or anything that matters most to us, our lives and saftey were paramount and that was ignored. I have many manylynching photos from that time. Those folks never recieved one thing dime of SS. An easy way of keeping peoplefrom recieving benefits is to not let them live long enough. We were sold out so that the legislation could pass. It could only pass by leaving us OUT. We want to be explicitely written IN amd i have no idea why people are fighting against explicitely writing women and minorities IN. Why fight against that unless one wantsthe same thing to happen as last time?

[eridani]

160. You are written into Social Security now, which would not have happened unless it existed.

No US president has been able to accomplish much against systemic racism, although Johnson came closest. FDR was not, AFAIK, responsible for the massive increase in incarceration rates for POC after 1980.

[bravenak]

163. Has no bearing on the fact that we were intentionally left out by him

So using him to get to us is absolutely not an effective way to pull in african americans. I see no plans to correct any of the flaws in any programs or assurances that we will use affirmative action to distribute any funds or services.

[eridani]

170. There was a major correction when agricultural and household labor were covered by Social Security.

Lower income Americans of all colors get proportionally more out of SocSec than they put in. This is another deliberate adjustment to spread the benefits further. Oh, and FDR wasn't responsible for the mass incarceration thing either.

[bravenak]

171. I never said mass incarceration was his failt. We have been holding blacks in incarceration

since the founding of this nation, see slave camps, that was also mass incarceration. My point is that he intentionally left us out, so harkening back to those times is counterproductive, regardless of what 'corrections' were made. Those corrections were not made by FDR, they were forced by black activists putting their lives at risk and demanding changes, they were not made by FDR democrats demanding or legislating fairness. Johnson Democrats demanded racial fairness. Now, we want to ensure that any new programs have affirmative action applied from inception, or it is a NO GO situation.
If people oppose us all getting our fair share and refuse to accept that it must be legislated so that we get a share proportional to our population size in this nation, then they are not really for economic equality, they are fine with whites getting more out of the programs than blacks. Things have always gone that way and no, we are not interested in going back and fixing it in thirty years or trusting 'fdr dems' to protect our interests for us. We want afirmative action written in or they can keep their 'new new deal'.

[eridani]

175. I agree about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act

But Eisenhower expanded Social Security well before 60s activism. This lifeline program is the single most effective anti-poverty program ever, especially for PoC, but for poor people of all colors as well. Unlike AFDC and Medicaid, it is administered federally and therefore not subject to the machinations of southern governors and legislatures. Given the average lower incomes of people of color, there is already affirmative action in benefits assignment. The lower your lifetime earnings, the more you get back per dollar invested.

Bush was not able to succeed in privatizing it, and Obama failed at cutting low income senior's budgets with the chained CPI. And Clinton will fail if she should try to combine adding a caregivers' credit with a raise in the retirement age. Plenty of angry geezers with be defending it on behalf of people who are mostly too busy right now to realize how much they are going to need it.

Maybe it's FDR's fault that the Voting Rights Act no longer means much?

[bravenak]

179. Eisenhower did do that. And also did a bit of pre integration integration

But he was not an FDR Democrat, and that was my point. FDR worked on economic equality without doung a damn thing about racial justice and it increased the gap between white and black by the way the monies and benefits were distributed. That is why the title FDR dems means, economic justice with no social justice. So those who use the title may think it is an all inclusive title that anyone shoukd want to bear, but in actuality, those who were left out are not interested. We know FDR focused exclusively on economics and did nothing about FAIRNESS. Regardless of the things he did, the damage that was done by not making these programs fair in the first place caused harm.

I think folks should stop getting angry that we black folks are not nostalgic for the same times that they are and try to understand WHY we are not. And they should maybe realize that they are nostalgic for no reason or a reason that we do not share. Things were not the same for everybody. A trip back in time to the FDR days would get my black self lynched real quick like.

[eridani]

237. Everyone is good at lip service to social justice these days

--but income inequality is just something we should ignore. Being a Republican who is good on social issues is an easy, no-effort stance. And PoC have lost more ground in this race to the bottom than anyone.

[eridani]

238. Are you going to stop voting to protest the racism that established women's suffrage?

The first suffragists were also abolitionists, but standing on principle did not get women the vote. What did is when the next generation (Carrie Chapman Catt et al) explicitly appealed to white male legislators by saying "Black men can vote, but your own mothers can't."

[treestar]

186. Like the ACA?

[Squinch]

196. Why are people fighting so hard against the idea of explicitly including people of color and women

into laws that enact progressive programs, and making sure they have equal access to the benefits of those programs? What does it cost you if the Democratic party commits to doing that? Why is the suggestion that we should do this something that angers people?

The New Deal did not do this. It explicitly excluded African Americans. Yes, eventually they were covered, but why is it a bad idea to commit to making sure that exclusion never happens again?

[AllTooEasy]

168. This post has created a great discussion! K&R for that alone!

[bravenak]

173. Went better than expected

[Rex]

169. Can't swim in a pool, can't drive a nice car, can't get a mortgage and this is 2016.

If there is one huge chunk of western history, it is the domination of whites over other races. It is the fabric of our history; oppressing other groups for our gain in power, wealth and influence. We did that and a lot of it and created America on the backs of minorities and foreigners workers.

FDR was a traitor to his class. They hated him for rocking the boat.

[Squinch]

221. Yes. He addressed class imbalances. The point is that going forward we need to always explicitly

address gender and race imbalances as well in all progressive policies, or those policies are by definition not progressive.

The best we did in the past is not good enough for the future.

And we all know this. I am truly baffled about why so many are fighting the idea so hard.

[Rex]

222. Good question, I see people claim to be progressives and then turn around and say

something you would expect from a conservative. Go figure.

[The Second Stone]

176. So which politician of the era was better for blacks? 1932 to 1945

name some.

I'm an FDR Democrat, and I will be the first to admit that he was far from perfect. But he was our third best president ever. Unlike Washington, who did nothing for blacks except own them, or Lincoln, who wanted to ship blacks to Africa and emancipated only those slaves not under the control of the union, who were number 1 and 2 in my book, FDR laid a lot of groundwork. Among other things, picking Truman as his successor.

Only two US presidents put their political careers on the line for black progress: Truman and Johnson. Truman integrated the armed forces over vocal opposition. Johnson finessed the Voting Rights Act through Congress at the expense of 50 years of racist backlash against the party. Both were the very direct political heirs of FDR.

FDR (and Eleanor influencing him) changed the foundation of rights in this country. He isn't clean in any sense. He never outright openly supported the rights of blacks, he interred Japanese Americans and he provoked war with Imperial Japan, which was murdering millions in China. He got his hands dirty.

It's okay to look at it with side-eye. Just keep your eyes open and realize that nobody in his era in the government did anywhere near as much, all of which would have gone up in smoke if he did it openly.

Roosevelt was hardly a saint, in fact he was very much a sinner. Let the purists embrace the pure, who had no following and laid no groundwork and accomplished nothing but inspiration to the downtrodden and those who did lay the groundwork.

Ultimately, it was the Democratic party, the direct heirs of Roosevelt, that got the legislation passed, over tremendous opposition and with virtually no black votes in Congress. Some liberal Republican votes (there used to be such a thing before Reagan) helped, but it got done due to commitment and sacrifice.

As for you looking side eye, unless you are a John Lewis, you are a beneficiary of those that walked the walk, like LBJ, who wrangled the legislation through, or those like John Lewis, who took the beatings.

So don't get all superior.

Ghandi suspended his liberation of India campaign to defeat Hitler and Tojo because he knew justice would prevail and that as evil as racism is, there are worse things than racist white people like Winston Churchill.

[bravenak]

178. Today is better for Blacks

Our politicians are better for blacks right now. We don't need to 'look back' to find the solutions to today's problems. We have the people and the motivation to do the right thing today. They did not have the wherewithal to do the right thing then, FDR was just a man. And he did leave us out and did not support anti lynching legislation and there is no way I Should ignore that when deciding which type of democrat I am, and which type I prefer.
I can look side eye all I want to at anybody I want to at any time. I am not the intended recipient of the new deal and if my bringing that up upsets folks and hurts feelings, too damn bad! My feeling are hurt by the very fact that it is supposed to be okay with me that I was left out and that the 'liberal icon of the ages' would have done nothing had I been lynched on the Whitehouse Lawn, no laws, nothing. I do not have to accept that it was supposedly okay to leave blacks out of things back then, and pretend that everything is fixed now. It is not. Until we are exlicitely written in we are left out. So affirmative actionize any 'deals' or deal with folks like me saying 'pfffttt!'.

[The Second Stone]

181. You're right, he was just a man. A man in a wheelchair

leading a country through its worst economic crisis and the world through its most perilous war against Republican opposition that hated him. You give anyone you want side eye. He saved the world. You give that a big zero. You are entitled to your position and opinion, even if it disagrees with the legacy of FDRs heirs.

And you are entitled to define what kind of democrat you are, or even not be a democrat.

Pardon me if I have no respect for your views and "side eye", but those views are ignorant and built on the sacrifice of others.

[bravenak]

182. Nobody saved the world. That is deification.

I see it for what it was. He appeased dixiecrats by kicking us to the curb. It is what it is but you can't say it was the right thing to do.

[The Second Stone]

183. I disagree with everything you wrote,

and I can't respect your opinions on the matter. They show an extraordinarly poor grasp of history and cherry picking of information to support a conclusion. "9 things that prove JFK was a SOB" isn't a historical presentation, it's a legal brief and argument. It's shameful. Yes, you have reasons for your position, but they are not in full historical context.

Cherry picking is a serious academic sin. You've started with a thesis and only picked information that supports your conclusion. It doesn't contain balance.

http://millercenter.org/president/biography/fdroosevelt-the-american-franchise

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history/

The most prominent white American in the 1930s who had excellent relations with black Americans was not FDR. But it was Eleanor Roosevelt, who had spent her whole life working hard on those issues. The first US President who had a black dinner guest was Eleanor's uncle, Theodore Roosevelt, and he had such a backlash from it that he didn't repeat the invitation. Expecting the Democrats in the 1930s to destroy their political power over an issue that they did not either yet understand or acknowledge in full (outside a small circle of people that included Eleanor Roosevelt) and that most had firmly set racist views against is a huge misunderstanding of history and racism in America.

While Lyndon Johnson was fully subversive in his desire to integrate the US government 30 years later, it was in a different context and with a full blown civil rights movement at his back. Johnson was one of the few US presidents able and willing to get in front and go against the tide for an issue that helped a poor minority, Lincoln and the 13th Amendment being the other.

Older people aren't necessarily stupider and more senile than you, sometimes we have a whole lot more experience and education and put things in the context of a whole view.

[bravenak]

185. That's fine that you disagree

But it is not fair to place words in my mouth, such as describing me as thinking older people are stupider than myself. Even putting things into context, it is never right to leave african americans out, and this attempt to justify wrongs done, rather than to say how we can avoid the very same pitfalls in the future is being done to lionize a man and an era that was discriminatory to african americans.
I also do not justify or excuse the founding fathers being slave holders and I condemn the wrongs they did to those HUMANS, regardless of the historical context of the situation.
Those who can look back and justify discrimination, racism, lynchings or any other racialized aspect of society can either do it from the comfort of light skin or the comfort of living in the now. Had I lived back then, i'd still say at the time that it was not fair, not right, and we can do much better than that.

[JustAnotherGen]

205. Great statement

Those who can look back and justify discrimination, racism, lynchings or any other racialized aspect of society can either do it from the comfort of light skin or the comfort of living in the now.

And if you can justify it then - and see others as less than human - then why should we trust you in the here and now. Those were our parents, grandparents, great grandparents.

Maybe it's more 'real' to us - not some lofty idea in a textbook - because they run in our veins?

[bravenak]

207. We have the experience needed to empathize with oppressed people

Some seem to not see those people as real for some reason. Which is sad.

[JustAnotherGen]

210. They also demand EXPLICIT answers

Yet won't give explicit reasons as to why we should just trust that they will be kind, fair and just when historically - America is a place of Everyone For Themself.

[bravenak]

212. I'm still comfused as to why they are fighting the idea of legislating fairness into

any plans that they want us to put our MONEY into. Fighting hard as hell against the very idea! Amazing.

[JustAnotherGen]

213. Shhh - don't tell

Seriously. They don't realize perhaps we pay taxes too - and not ALL of us are on TANF and SNAP. Not even the majority of us are using those programs. You've read my comments enough - no money grab without accountability. The only one I would allow would be the expansion and increase in pay in SS Benefits by continuing to collect SSDI from me the entire year. However even then - Give her a raise. My mom has a little 10/12 hour a week fluff job with a Convention Visitors Bureau now that she is retired - but she is working with a 90 year old woman who MUST work.

It's not that 90 year old woman's fault that she was deliberately paid less than her male peers at Kodak. It's simply not. And now we have to do the right thing and give our "girls" a raise. It's the right thing to do - it will make it right for our Rosie The Riveters still in the workforce - or struggling to eat.

[bravenak]

214. I agree with this so hard

We need to target relief to those who we screwed over and to those who need it first and foremost. I get that middle class white kids want free college but we have so many people who need help right now, to eat.
I noticed the flaws in these 'new new deals' instantly. I really think it is because it really was never about people like me in the first place. With how hard folks is fighting the very idea of blacks getting a share that is PROPORTIONAL to our population? Oh boy!! That tells me all I need to know and I am glad that the wool was removed from my eyes last summer.

[Ken Burch]

232. Things are better now...but NOT because New Deal economic policies are gone.

But because people of color(many on the left)led a movement to end segregation (joined mainly, but not exclusively, by people of other races who were on the left).

And nobody today who would call for a revived New Deal would include reviving 1930's racial policies as part of that revival.
The Civil Rights Act would make it impossible to revive that kind of exclusion even if anyone today was proposing it.

Nobody today is defending Jim Crow, or the exclusion of women and people of color. And the things FDR agreed to on race would never be part of a revived New Deal in the 21st Century.

What we mean is FDR's economic policies combined with the gains of the freedom movement.

[bravenak]

233. Then why are people on this thread so opposed to writing affirmative action in?

It cannot be because they are super in love with affirmative action.

[Ken Burch]

234. I haven't seen posts that actually are opposed to it.

No one should be.

I myself want affirmative action written in.

[bravenak]

235. There just seems to be so much anger at the very idea that we do not trust

[Ken Burch]

239. I think it's anger that you're still attacking a guy whose presidential campaign is basically over.

And that economic justice advocates share the indifference to racism you believed that candidate exhibited.

Anger doesn't equate to opposition to the idea proposed here.

It's a proposal I'm confident we all would all naturally support.

I'm going to do a poll about the idea and see what supporters of each primary candidate feel about the idea.

[bravenak]

245. Fdr is not running for election

[melman]

248. This is a Bernie-bash thread

Just because you pretend it's not doesn't mean other people won't notice that it is.

[bravenak]

251. Bull

Not everything is about him. Other people existed before and will after. Might be time to stop reading him into everything

[Ken Burch]

249. I wasn't talking about FDR.

Look, I agree with you(and am confident that anyone here would also agree with you)that we need to make sure no one is left out in the cold by a new economic justice program.

Do you truly think anyone now who works for economic justice would want women, or POC, or LGBTQ people, or anyone else in the 99% to be left out? That we would WANT economic justice to be whites-only?

Do you not think we'd want as many working-class folks and jobless folks, regardless of identity, to be included in those programs, in order to make sure they had the broadest base of popular support possible?

I personally am all for whatever affirmative action language is needed to win your trust on this. Would you please post an example, in response to this post, of the wording you would like to see?

You can use this as a way to educate and to build support for what you want and what a lot of us would gladly join you in supporting.

Please take the chance.

OK?

[Cali_Democrat]

177. Well said!

[aikoaiko]

190. FWIW, I think you're right to expect/demand that economic justice programs be discrimination-free

And that the economic justice programs actively work to close the gap between POC/women and white men.

[Squinch]

198. Right? What is so hard about this? What you have outlined is all that is being proposed here.

It should be simple. It shouldn't be such a big deal on a Democratic board.

Honestly, I don't get what this brouhaha is about.

[Odin2005]

191. I think is why many of us who supported Bernie had trouble getting support from African-Americans.

They saw it as "more populism for white people", and I can't really blame their skepticism, sadly.

[malaise]

193. Institutional racism was and is widespread

in America. That said the USA is way ahead of places like Britain and France.

[Bad Thoughts]

200. I can't wait for the follow-up: How the Constitution excluded Black peoples

Because nothing can be perfected, we might as well tear it all down.

[JustAnotherGen]

208. Tear it down?

I didn't see that in the OP or the article at the link.

[David__77]

201. I can understand criticizing historical figures in this manner.

I think that some parties may make the counterpoint that "historical context" is called for. That's a matter of personal choice. One can accept or reject FDR, Jefferson, Lincoln for the words they spoke or actions they took in their lifetime.

[Haveadream]

243. K&R

Superb OP and fantastic thread. Thank you!

[stonecutter357]

254. K&R!

[Sancho]

255. Thanks for the OP

I see parallels between this history and proposals of some current populist ideas.

[bravenak]

256. I see it too

[merrily]

257. FDR also took the most important integration steps taken by the federal government since

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 07:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Reconstruction.


What about every President and Congress between Reconstruction and FDR? No condemnation for them, only condemnation for the guy who tried to keep the country from going down the hopper and took the first step toward integration since Reconstruction? Interesting choice.


I dislike any pretense that economic justice or populism has to be twinned. That's like saying we can't have Head Start or Medicare without war in Vietnam because LBJ gave us both. It's a lie that keeps people from expecting things like a fair taxation plan and government that works for everyone, not only the wealthiest. America can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[fleabiscuit]

260. What's the matter? A History that you do not want to believe? eom

[merrily]

261. Um, which part of history are you falsely claiming I don't want to believe and why do I supposedly

not want to believe it?

Base, yet totally baseless, personal pot shot at me but zero about the substance of my post. Your post says nothing about me but it does say quite a bit about you.

[craigmatic]

262. If we're going to be 100% truthful the only 2 Presidents in the 20th Century who actually did

anything for black people were LBJ and Jimmy Carter. LBJ got the civil rights and voting rights bill while Carter hired more black people into the federal government than any president before him.

[lovemydog]

263. I'm tired of people overly sentimentalizing the past

while ignoring large segments of the population who were treated as second-class citizens and worse.

I like living in the present. And having a clear-eyed view of history.

Thanks for this post, b.