The (D) should not stand for defeatist. It should stand for determined.

[guillaumeb]

I have read a number of replies that talk of the unfeasibility of single payer, or free college, or a living wage instead of a minimum wage. These responses generally insist that no matter the issue, the country is not ready for it, or a plan needs to be devised, or there is no political will for it.

Have some Democrats devolved from determined individuals to defeatists?

In 1850, blacks were slaves. Abolitionists were scorned as being unrealistic.
And in 1865 the South was defeated, as was slavery. So who was unrealistic?

In 1900, the eight hour work day was an unrealistic dream. Most workers worked 10 plus hours a day, six days a week.
In 1917, the SCOTUS constitutionalized the Adamson Act to establish an eight hour day fro railroad workers. Other unions and industries followed. So who was unrealistic?

In 1916, women could not vote. Suffragettes were the unrealistic ones.
In 1918, women finally won the right to vote. So who was unrealistic?

In 1963, segregation and grossly unequal treatment was the rule in the South. The Civil Rights marchers were unrealistic.
In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed. The fight is ongoing, but who was unrealistic?

In 2010, marriage equality was not the law of the land. Advocates were derided as unrealistic.
In 2015, marriage equality was the law. That fight also is ongoing, but who was unrealistic?



====================================

People who talk of a living wage are called unrealistic. People who talk of single payer are called unrealistic. People who talk of expanding Social Security to provide better benefits are called unrealistic. But when talking of what is realistic, we must remember that the term "realistic" in all of these instances refers not to the literal ability of something being actually accomplished, but to the political will to accomplish something.

[Lee Adama]

1. I generally disaagree with your entire post here.

Last edited Mon Sep 11, 2017, 12:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Democrats have NEVER been defeatists.

Democrats are REALISTS.

[guillaumeb]

2. Welcome to DU, and the discussion.

There are many posts and responses here that talk of the unfeasibility of these positions that I named. Single payer is dismissed as being unrealistic in spite of the fact that many countries already have successful single payer systems. The US is ranked #37 in health outcomes, not #1, so the obvious solution is single payer, but it would interfere with the ability of Insurance companies to profit from sickness.

[Lee Adama]

4. In every case you cited, Democrats were 100% correct.

Minds had to be changed in order to change the legislative course.

This has been a fact throughout history.

And just as they were correct about everything you cited, they are further correct now.

There is simply NO WAY IN HELL you will get single payer with a Republican Congress. Ryan alone can shut that down and there will never be a vote because Ryan has absolute power to deny the bringing of any bill to the floor for a vote. So long as Ryan is speaker, there will NEVER be single payer healthcare.

And thus I have proved my axiom, Democrats are NOT defeatists, they are REALISTS.

[guillaumeb]

7. PArt of being realistic is realizing that what is considered realisitc changes.

All of the things that I mentioned were passed over strong opposition. But it is also about convincing others that the changes are possible and realizable.

[Lee Adama]

18. The Democrats DID recognize when the changes were realistic.

That's precisely WHY the changes occurred WHEN they did.

Again, you have just proved me correct.

[Expecting Rain]

3. The (D) should not stand for demogogery.

This is just another in a series of attacks on the Democratic Party on a forum for DEMOCRATS.

Bad show!

[guillaumeb]

8. Perhaps you misunderstood?

And when did advocating for realistic change become attacking anyone?

I await your more "realistic" posts so that I can learn how you see things.

[Expecting Rain]

11. Do I understand perfectly. You are attacking the DEMOCRATIC Party...

as a "defeatist" party on a website for supporters of the DEMOCRATIC Party.

It is a highly offensive false narrative that you are peddling.

Who needs this shit?

[guillaumeb]

13. Feel free to post an opposing viewpoint.

And you are quite free with your accusations, but realize that your accusations are merely your personal opinion.

Also feel free to explain why none of these changes can be implemented, or comment on the changes that I mentioned.

And sorry, but if you read the post and misinterpreted a question as an accusation you actually did misunderstand the point.

[Expecting Rain]

30. I have expressed an opposing viewpoint. Clearly.

Calling the DEMOCRATIC Party a party of defeatism (as you have done in the OP) is a galling statement to read on a forum for DEMOCRATIC loyalists.

[guillaumeb]

34. Again going to understanding:

I asked a question. I did not make a statement.

[Expecting Rain]

43. LOL.

[JCanete]

19. dude, if you can't weather this level of "attack", we are in fucking trouble. We have to be able to

Last edited Mon Sep 11, 2017, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

discuss our direction with one another and what we believe it should be, and why we believe it should be that. There is room for criticism and honest disagreement without impugning motives. That is the place where we get ugly on this site. We can assume people want what's best for America and Americans and global citizens, and still disagree with their approach. It is perfectly fine to make an argument you believe, like Sanders was selling us ponies, or unicorns, and it is perfectly fine to refute it. It is perfectly fine to say we are wary of one of our leader's ties to one industry or another, because that could denote either a blind-spot due to that connection, or a pragmatism that is worth debating as to its actual pragmatism, or simply the reality that that industry prefers this candidate over potential alternatives. All of those have to be discussed, and our politicians need to see us discussing these things so that they can address them...so that they can get a pulse on what we want out of them.

[Expecting Rain]

27. I can weather this nonsense as can the DEMOCRATIC Party.

It just a shame that with Trump in the White House and the Congress in GOP control that we need to fight rear-guard actions on a website for DEMOCRATIC loyalists.

Calling the DEMOCRATIC Party a party of "defeatism" is beyond the pale. I have ascribed no motives to the spreading of this false-narrative on a forum for DEMOCRATS, but I sure don't like reading it. What DEMOCRAT would?

*Sigh*

[guillaumeb]

35. To make it really clear:

The (D) should not stand for defeatist. It should stand for determined.
I have read a number of replies that talk of the unfeasibility of single payer, or free college, or a living wage instead of a minimum wage. These responses generally insist that no matter the issue, the country is not ready for it, or a plan needs to be devised, or there is no political will for it.

Have some Democrats devolved from determined individuals to defeatists?


The actual post. Notice the question mark after the last sentence.

[Expecting Rain]

40. You were clear the first time.

And the charge is no less galling to read when it is repeated.

[guillaumeb]

45. Something else is also clear.

Good luck with your framing.

[emulatorloo]

5. "Or a plan needs to be devised". yeah, it would be awful if we made a plan to implement our policies

[JCanete]

6. And knowing what the democratic voters and the american people want of our politicians by giving

them a taste of one dream or another is how we get people to deliver on that plan. You need political will, and there is no advantage to tamping that down with the all inspiring message of making tweaks.

[guillaumeb]

10. Yes, the inspiring message of lowered expectations

and incremental change.

[emulatorloo]

24. Ah here we go again. I say Dems need to tell people how we are going to reach our goals

And y'all pretend that means I am against single payer.

[guillaumeb]

26. But before Democrats can devise that plan, they must actually state that there is a goal.

And they must talk of why the goal is achievable rather than announce, as one Senator from Missouri did, that she will not vote for any single payer plan.

And I am not accusing you of being for or against anything. I am pointing out that we must argue for the change and frame it as achievable. we must take the framing away from a GOP that frames any advances as unrealistic. Democrats must advance a narrative in the media and to their constituents.

[emulatorloo]

14. I think you misunderstood me. Policy needs foundation of how to implement it. Something people

can look at, something the CBO can score. Trump got away with espousing policy without any concrete plans. That is not how Democrats roll. We talk policy and we show how it works.

[JCanete]

21. Okay, I think I did misunderstand you. Take care! nt

[emulatorloo]

31. ...

You too!

[guillaumeb]

9. Single payer has already been implemented in many countries.

It requires the political will to overcome the financial interests of Insurance companies and the politicians that they buy.

[emulatorloo]

16. Good! So let's roll out our concrete plan to make it happen in the US

We aren't like Trump, we don't promote policies without a plan for implementation.

[guillaumeb]

20. Agreed.

Now, what politician will start? Even Max Baucus said he feels single payer is inevitable. So who will incur the wrath of the Insurance companies?

[emulatorloo]

29. A good number of folks co-sponsoring Bernie's bill so that is a good start.

Yes was glad to hear Baucus say that.

Yes that is another thing to figure out, where do the regular folk (not execs) who work for insurance companies go? I expect some could move into the fed govt but may need to do retraining

[guillaumeb]

33. Agreed, it is a start.

I think/hope that like marriage equality, the avalanche is just starting. The current system is unsustainable.

[clu]

12. nice weather at least

it's going to be a long season. hup hup to all the old-time posters I still recognize maybe one or two names. keep fighting the good fight this has gotten tricky

[guillaumeb]

15. Nice weather in Illinois.

Thank you.

[Eko]

17. I took all of your examples and averaged

Them and it came out to 10 years. Maybe when they say it is unrealistic they are referring to a timeline such as now or soon.
I also want to note that a lot of those dates are arbitrary. For slavery you should have started at a much earlier time as with some of the other things and that would change how fast it appears things have happened. Sometimes things change fast, sometime slow. The trick is to keep pushing for those things and if they are good they will happen.

[guillaumeb]

22. True. The beginning dates I mentioned were fofr convenience only.

Women's suffrage was a long term project, as was abolition. I did not mean to imply that the changes happened in a 10 year time frame.

[SaschaHM]

23. For many of these things, a plan was devised.

Civil Rights marchers, Suffragettes, LGBT activist, and Abolitionists were organized, devised plans, in many cases waited until there was the political will to act and sought for years/decades even to achieve their goals. This post just seems to negate all of that work. These things didn't happen over these small spans of time that you point out in your post.

[guillaumeb]

25. No I am not negating all of the work, simply pointing out that what is considered

realistic is changeable. And people have to work for that change.

[George II]

28. You've chosen some unrealistic (and convenient for your point) starting milestones.

I don't think anyone thought or thinks any of these accomplishments were unrealistic, just that none of them happened without decades and decades of struggle.

In 1850, blacks were slaves. Abolitionists were scorned as being unrealistic.
And had been slaves for more than 200 years
And in 1865 the South was defeated, as was slavery. So who was unrealistic?
That took 200+ years to accomplish

In 1900, the eight hour work day was an unrealistic dream. Most workers worked 10 plus hours a day, six days a week.
And had been for decades prior to 1900
In 1917, the SCOTUS constitutionalized the Adamson Act to establish an eight hour day fro railroad workers. Other unions and industries followed. So who was unrealistic?
After many decades of trying

In 1916, women could not vote. Suffragettes were the unrealistic ones.
Women couldn't vote way back to 1776
In 1918, women finally won the right to vote. So who was unrealistic?
After about 140 years

In 1963, segregation and grossly unequal treatment was the rule in the South. The Civil Rights marchers were unrealistic.
Segregation existed in one form or another back to the 1600s
In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed. The fight is ongoing, but who was unrealistic?
That was 100 years after the end of the Civil War

In 2010, marriage equality was not the law of the land. Advocates were derided as unrealistic.
For centuries prior to 2010 marriage equality was not the law of the land
In 2015, marriage equality was the law. That fight also is ongoing, but who was unrealistic?
After decades and centuries of fighting for it

The way you present this it's as though each of those were accomplished in only a few years, which is certainly not true.

Nothing like any of these happens in a few years, even a livable minimum wage. The first minimum wage was enacted back in 1938 under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

[guillaumeb]

37. I merely presented before and after dates.

I did not indicate that there was a beginning and end date. And I stated that what is considered unrealistic is often a statement that political will is lacking to achieve the "unrealistic" goal. My ending statement.

[sheshe2]

46. Yet, slavery was not defeated in 1865 not even close.

This is a powerful read.

“Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II,” by Douglas A. Blackmon.

http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/

All that you mention in your OP took decades and we still are not close to having achieved those goals. Yes women finally got the right to vote, yet here we are in 2017 and we still are denied our equality or our right to chose.

All that you mentioned is going to take years of hard work and I beg to differ, we do need to make plans to achieve those goals. I have no problem with hard work to accomplish said goals.

[guillaumeb]

47. Slavery was merely renamed. Excellent point, she.

It became Jim Crow, and lynchings, and much more, Now it is segregation and voter suppression.

Thank you for the link.

[sheshe2]

48. Far worse...

The Age of Neo-Slavery
In this groundbreaking historical expose, Douglas A. Blackmon brings to light one of the most shameful chapters in American history—when a cynical new form of slavery was resurrected from the ashes of the Civil War and re-imposed on hundreds of thousands of African-Americans until the dawn of World War II.

Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations—including U.S. Steel Corp.—looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of "free" black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.


The neoslavery system exploited legal loopholes and federal policies which discouraged prosecution of whites for continuing to hold black workers against their wills. As it poured millions of dollars into southern government treasuries, the new slavery also became a key instrument in the terrorization of African Americans seeking full participation in the U.S. political system.

Based on a vast record of original documents and personal narratives, SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME unearths the lost stories of slaves and their descendants who journeyed into freedom after the Emancipation Proclamation and then back into the shadow of involuntary servitude. It also reveals the stories of those who fought unsuccessfully against the re-emergence of human labor trafficking, the modern companies that profited most from neoslavery, and the system’s final demise in the 1940s, partly due to fears of enemy propaganda about American racial abuse at the beginning of World War II.

http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/the-book/

[guillaumeb]

50. You really should make this a stand alone post.

It needs repeating over and over.

[sheshe2]

54. Thanks...tomorrow perhaps.

DU doesn't like that type of post. A denial of our past. I have others that I may post as well from the author.

I read that book. It was a painful read.

[guillaumeb]

55. How can anyone deny what we witnessed for 8 years of the Obama Presidency?

What continues to occur in Charlottesville, and Ferguson, and many other cities?

Another book that you have probably read but which bears rereading is The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

[JCanete]

42. We have the numbers on these things though. If we advocated for them, we could

make them even more popular. Besides that, these are natural steps in the progress we've already made...these have just taken far too long to scale. But they are hardly out of left field . The question is, is fighting to not take big steps part of why those things you listed took so long? Did they take forever in the service of pragmatism and the contemporary political realities, or would it have been impossible to try to shape those political realities with a concerted campaign? And these days, we can go right to the people.

One last thing. Advocates of ending slavery were not out there saying that we should just end it on weekends...they were promoting the end to slavery. They wee promoting the end goal.

[oasis]

32. (D) discretion. "The better part of valor".

I trust the present leadership of the Democratic Party to put forward viable programs and policies. They have the collective wisdom to move us along at a pace that will be most effective.

Every item on the list you provided took decades before final implementation.

[guillaumeb]

39. Is that pace best described as glacial?

Politicians do not lead the parade, they follow and run to the front when the cameras appear.

[oasis]

41. I prefer thoughtful politicians who take their time to work out

solutions to complicated issues.

Some prefer politicians who make "pie in the sky" promises with fingers crossed behind their backs.

[Expecting Rain]

44. This is my preference as well.

[moda253]

36. Some seriously ironic shit going on in the OP.

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

38. Very seriously.

[Hortensis]

49. Guillaumeb, how would you feel if SCOTUS declared compulsory taxation

to pay for social programs unconstitutional? If Congress was still in control of Republicans, who themselves were mostly under the control of people determined to wipe out progressivism? Who are determined to continue the transfer of wealth and power from the people to a governing wealthy class?

I'm just gob-smacked that people on THIS forum don't understand it's not all about infighting within the Democratic Party over which programs we're going to support.

The Democratic Party is fighting to save liberal progressivism that was written into the Constitution by the liberal progressive founders of our democratic republic --- against the intense opposition of the conservative opposition of those days. We won then, but we really could lose today.

Don't be used to destroy what you think you're fighting for. You should remember: The populist "Tea Party" was designed, funded, and directed by paid agents of the very people it was rebelling against. It was a Koch creation its start to its finish -- when it got out of control and refused orders to not shut down the government, but those TP fools were clueless from beginning to end and still don't know.

[guillaumeb]

51. Your response in no way contradicts my ending, which was:

People who talk of a living wage are called unrealistic. People who talk of single payer are called unrealistic. People who talk of expanding Social Security to provide better benefits are called unrealistic. But when talking of what is realistic, we must remember that the term "realistic" in all of these instances refers not to the literal ability of something being actually accomplished, but to the political will to accomplish something.

This is not about destruction, but having the political will to realize that we have history on our side.

[Expecting Rain]

52. The falsehood that mainstream Democrats are against the basic principles the party has...

fought for since the 1930s is anti-historic, insulting to our party, and wrong.

What is your purpose in spreading these false narratives against the DEMOCRATIC Party?

What's been (rightly) criticized are the lack of well-vetted plans.

Without real solutions, all you've got is sloganeering.

[guillaumeb]

53. Back to your intial attempt at framing I see.

Oh well.

[Expecting Rain]

56. You frame yourself when you cast the Democratic Party as defeatist.

You are wrong and don't be shocked when Democrats don't take kindly to the false accusations.