My take On Bernie-

[ruffburr]

Bernie is trying to make America , America again, Many do not know how this country was economically in the 50's 60's 70's before Regan started his destruction, It was not perfect by any means but it was better by far for the middle class and poor, it was actually trying to take care of its people, Union jobs and even a bit of compassion for the disadvantaged, For these years an average guy/gal could have a reasonably decent life.Social security was sound, pensions were the norm, There was vietnam, racism, homophobia, but we as a people were working on it, As we still are, Most of all we wanted what was best for our neighbors , Not this blatant greed and avarice that is pushed by the right wing and corps nowadays, laws were in place to rein in Banks and speculation, It was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and will probably never be, But it was not the cesspool of personal gain, screw the people politics that is espoused by Republicans and 3rd way democrats today. In closing i say, Give "em" hell Bernie

[peacebird]

1. I agree

[HassleCat]

2. You're right

I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. We didn't have the excessive lifestyle we "enjoy" today, but the working class was on the rise, and the middle class was solid. Generally, people were moving up, not falling down. People became dispirited under Carter, even though we were not doing that poorly, and fell for the deregulation and "free enterprise" crap flung around by Reagan, easily our worst president ever.

[daybranch]

4. let us not forget, Congress

refused to work with Carter much like Republicans of today. This hurt the economy and set up Reagan.

[jwirr]

27. IMO people became dispirited under Carter not because things were not working but because

TV preachers were preaching prosperity gospel - greed is good and being rich is better - and the people fell for it.

And now we are in such a mess that we are beginning to look like a third world country. The things Bernie is suggesting are the only way to get back to the America we once knew.

[HooptieWagon]

3. The seventies weren't that good.

Soaring gas prices from OPEC and stagflation cut economic growth. But the 50s and 60s definitely were an economic boom, fueled by a large and economically strong middle class. the GI Bill made college education affordable for WW2 veterans, and housing loans and affordable cars made home ownership possible which led to the development of the suburbs. IOW, there were a lot of working poor who were able to climb the ladder to the middle class dream of a college education, good paying jobs, and home ownership.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Pining away for the segregated and punitive past in a way that denifes 'average guy' as white and

straight in order to claim things were better for the average, and you also say 'average gal' as if it was easy for women to prosper independently in those times when in fact they were kept in only a few sorts of jobs and hindered from gaining any sort of power.
You wave away the deaths of thousands, segregation, Jim Crow, jail for gay people and no rights for women by saying 'we were working on it'. You claim that you all just wanted the best for your neighbors, when in fact you were jailing your gay neighbors and you didn't have any black neighbors because of restrictive covenants and redlining.


This sort of shit, it has to be written by white straight people. Has to be. Because it's just so funny.

One of the first ballots I ever voted on back in the 70's asked if we should fire all the gay teachers. Yes, or no? You are trying to tell me that a culture that put that on the ballot was all about wanting the best for your neighbors?

[Scuba]

7. Reading comprehension problem? Look for this word in the very first sentence: "economically"

[ruffburr]

10. I thought i made it clear-

It was not perfect just a better outlook for the people, It amazes me how some folks around here can take a positive statement and turn it to a racist / homophobic/ anti feminist take on it.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. A better outlook for some of the people, not 'the people' and that's the entire point.

The language is off putting because you define 'the people' as those who were doing better and that was not minority people, not LGBT people, not women. Your verbiage, intentionally or not says 'the average guy' is white, straight and if you are not you do not count because 'we're working on that'.

I don't see the value in this sort of verbiage. And your need to leap to hyperbole and claim I called it homophobic and racist is indicative of your lack of intellectual honesty here. It's just casually dismissive of minority issues, it is not homophobic it is simply fully heterocentric, that 'average guy' is presumed to be straight and white.

The entire point of a campaign like Bernie's is to make progress to move to a better future, not to harken back to some tainted past that might have been peaches for you while being bullshit for other people.

[99th_Monkey]

26. If we ignore history, well .. maybe you're not saying that

but it sounds a bit like you feel is somehow "wrong" to remember
where we came from, how it was "back then", with strong unions
for example. Or having laws like Glass/Steegle in place to keep W
Wall St. in check, or the Ike-era 90% taxation of the very-rich.

What the hell's wrong with knowing about the past, and using that
knowledge constructively to move forward?

[jwirr]

29. So the civil rights movement did not give people of color a better outlook? And moving the

so called welfare programs out of state control and to the federal government did not help the poor? So voters rights had nothing to do with the status of the citizens? According to you nothing we worked for in that time changed anything for People of Color (not just AA) and women is very misleading. Almost all the changes except LGBT we made in that era.

As a divorced mother of three (one severely disabled) the fact that the feds took over the welfare programs helped me a great deal and the fact that the LBJ war on poverty helped me go to college the get a masters degree was a great help. I suspect both helped a lot of the people who you claim were not helped.

Yes, the LGBT were not helped in the 50s, 60s and 70s. And that was not good but to insist that this post is about whites only is not true.

[sabrina 1]

34. I love how some people totally dismiss the struggle for Civil Rights back then

if it didn't apply to THEM. The fact is that every time a battle is won, a small step taken in the right direction, it paves the way for the next step. But for some, they refuse to acknowledge the enormous amount of courage and determination and the sacrifices that have to be made to overcome the hurdles they face when Civil Rights have been denied for so long. Changing an entire culture isn't easy which makes those who tried and didn't give up, who went to jail, were beaten and even killed, all the more admirable.

It really bothers me to see people sitting in their comfortable homes decades later dismissing those who took part in that fight, dismissing them as if their sacrifices and efforts were not worthy of any kind of respect and appreciation.

Something new for forums like this I've noticed.

[jwirr]

35. Unfortunately today too many think change will happen just like that. It fook decades for all of the

changes made in that era to come. Especially in the issue of racism and women's issues it went back even further than the 50s. The fight against racism began even before the civil war with the underground railroad and other activists. And that is also true of the woman's rights issues.

Unfortunately when it came to LGBT the wish for rights was very old but the fight for it was often hidden because until they were willing to come out even their own families were often kept in the dark.

I am just happy that those steps were taken. Without them we would have little reason to hope today.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. A better outlook for all people?

Certainly not for blacks, gays and women.

The 1950's were great for straight white males.

[zeemike]

28. Well that is not completely true.

I was working in the 60s and 70s for a living.
And starting about 1968 I saw the integration of black people into the workforce of good paying jobs where I lived...in fact I helped train the first black person in the plant I worked in...and by the 70s women were also included.
Now you think it did not help them to get a good paying job?...well I can tell you it did.

And BTW in those times one 40 hour a week job could support a whole family...and now it takes two.

[sammythecat]

33. You can never, ever, no matter how you try, make it clear enough

for some people around here.

Your post was perfectly clear. You even specified that you were talking about the economic situation and duplicating that same situation today. Things were better, economically, in the 50's, 60's, and 70's than they are today. Socially, not at all, but anyone participating in a democratically oriented political discussion board such as this one would have to be aware that gays, transgendered, immigrants, Native-Americans, African-Americans, atheists, Buddhists, people with physical disabilities, people with mental disorders, addicts, men with long hair, women, older people,(god help me if I've left anyone out), communists, socialists, and people who liked soccer were excluded in some way or another, to one extent or another, from these economic "good times". It was good to be a healthy white male, no doubt, but take those economic policies and put them in place in today's much more inclusive climate and we'd all be better off.

I rarely make OP's, but after running into the same situation as this, I remember using the word "most" , typing it in bold, then in parentheses noting that I said "most", not "all". Then, at the end of the post I added a reminder that I chose my words carefully and said "most", I did not say "all". But despite all that, some numbwit still had to pipe up with something like "whad'ya mean everybody blah, blah, I know a guy who..." What can you do? Some people are just determined to fight and it doesn't matter if you're on the same side.

[Doctor_J]

40. They understand, they are just shit stirrers

The case for Hillary over Sanders simply doesn't hold water. On the issues Sanders should be annihilating Clinton. So she and her supporters lie, obfuscate, and deliberately misinterpret to avoid the obvious. It's as disgusting as her racist campaign 8 years ago.

[Trajan]

13. So all who thought the previous decades were better then now

Are racists?

C'mon .. Really?

Pitiful ... I live in Portland, and I had looked forward to meeting you ...

Now? .. You could not be farther away ...

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Of course that's not what I said, I suggested that over romantic veribage about the past is

very often a political indulgence of those who happened to be personally better off in the past and that if you say it was better for 'the average guy' during times when minorities were discriminated against and guys who were gay were thrown in jail then it does suggest that 'average guys' are not minority guys or gay guys.

Had I said what you so casually accuse me of saying you might have a point. But what I actually said is that this casual mitigation of very rotten times for so many into something rosy and to be longed for is a choice I do not understand.

I asked very specifically about ballot issues I voted on during those years, and I got no response. But again, a culture that just wants what's best for the neighbors does not in fact vote on firing all the gay teachers.
People who want to reward themselves for being golden when they were actually a mean and bigoted culture need to be called out on that.
The rhetoric in the OP is just the sort of rhetoric that will cost Bernie voters and I urge you to think about that.
I support Bernie to move forward to better times, not to long for the days of the closet. And the days the OP speaks of, those were the days of the closet.

[jwirr]

31. I for one did not vote on any anti-gay ballot issue and I suspect that is why we did not answer

your question. There were no such issues on our ballots. I think your describing the whole era as mean and bigoted may be more connected with where you lived.

In my experience much of the basis of the changes coming in the 60s and 70s were begun in the late 50s. For instance black music was one of the things that became very popular during the late 50s. It introduced many of us who were young back then to a black culture that we learned to love. Both sang and dance. Ali and Hank Aaron also influenced us and helped us reject the mean and bigoted culture. And when MLK came on the scene we were ready to help him.

I do not remember much political action on the LGBT issue in the 50s, 60s and 70s in Iowa but what was happening was that many were coming out. We found that both friends and family members were gay. And at least in my community they were finding acceptance among many of us. The issue of LGBT rights ran into a wall in the 70s because of the TV preachers. They have had a harder fight for their rights since then.

The issues women worked for in that era were the same ones they had fought for before. More of us were waking up to the need for the change. Birth control, control over our bodies. Many of us were able to finally get a divorce from a bad relationship because of the existence of welfare. We were able to go to college even if we were poor.

I do not see how you cannot see that it was better.

You say you want to move forward not go back - when we say we want some things from that era we are mostly talking about the things that the Rs and 3 Way Democrats have taken away from us - like Glass-steagell that protects us for risky investments and trade bills that allow multi-national corporations to have more power than they have ever had. I also would like to be able to see my grandchildren be able to go to college.

[Scootaloo]

39. You accused another poster of pining away for segregation

[LWolf]

14. How would Sanders have voted on that ballot?

I think his record shows that he was on the side of social justice 40+ years ago.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I support Sanders, I said nothing against Bernie, Bernie did not write this crap, Bernie does not

gas off like that. This sort of rhetoric in the OP is the exact sort of rhetoric we don't need. It is in fact off putting to people who were not in fact better off back in those days to say 'the average guy' had it better, that means 'blacks, gays and Latinos, you are not average guys'. It just does. And for what? What is gained from such an argument, that the 50's were better for 'average people'? I really don't know so I'm asking.

I support Bernie because I want to go forward, to a better future, not backward to some fantasy Main St that lives in the minds of a few.
When you type 'sure there was racism and homophobia but it was still better' you have said just that. As political rhetoric, I do not see the value in it. It is a mitigation of injustice, posing as a call for justice.
Any voter who was given the short end of the stick during those 'golden years' would not really find much appeal in that message. It is those voters Bernie most needs to reach. Thus to support Bernie, can this sort of bullshit.
That's my opinion.

[DCBob]

30. +1

well said.

[sabrina 1]

36. How about you write an OP rather than going into everyone else's and criticizing

them because they don't write what you want them to write. This way you can show us how it should be done.

I think the OP was very clear. Things that were HARD FOUGHT FOR have been taken away from the American people. Maybe none of that affects you personally, but it DOES affect millions of others. When progress is made, it should be built on not destroyed.

People want those things restored because they affect everyone who has to work for a living, especially Minorities and women, who tend to be the first victims of the massive corruption that we have witnessed over the past several decades.

Maybe try traveling across the country and visit some of the many, many homeless people, the tent cities, the children who are starving, the schools that are closing because there is no money due to the fact that it is being used to enrich the already obscenely wealthy, and then come back and tell us how great everything is today.

[LWolf]

37. I don't disagree;

we've NEVER had utopia. Some things were better. Many were worse. We continue to evolve. I don't want us to lose the positive we gained as we move forward; I want us to hold on to that, and to continue to evolve for the better for ALL.

We each, though, are in a different place in our own evolution.

[Scootaloo]

38. Show me where the poster pined away for Segregation, please

[Scuba]

6. The Republican War on Empathy won the early battles, but the tide is turning.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Yes and no. Things were better for whites, but still sucky for minorities.

We need to take the good parts for whites, and add to them to make things good for everyone else as well. Go forward, not back.

[Martin Eden]

9. Reagan started the pot boiling, with us in it.

The temperature has steadily increased, but slowly enough so that most frogs (people) accept it as normal.

Bernie is pointing out we're in a pot of boiling water and is telling us we have to jump out before it's too late!

[PatrickforO]

15. Awesome anology. Think we'll make it?

Or are we too complacent, too used to the hot water? Bernie gives me hope, but I wonder if we're too lazy and ignorant as a people to do anything but destroy ourselves.

[Martin Eden]

16. I always try to retain my optimism

Bernie does give me hope, though my experience is telling me it's too much to hope that he will actually win the presidency.

I don't think the American people will remain in the boiling water indefinitely; I just hope we escape it using ballots instead of pitchforks.

[PatrickforO]

18. Yeah, me too. At 56 I'm too old for pitchforks.

[Martin Eden]

19. At 57, I don't think violence will produce good results.

(by my hand or others)

[PatrickforO]

24. No, you're right. After those kind of revolutions, there's always a terror. Not good, and something

I certainly don't want to live through or participate in. We're MUCH better off doing it at the ballot box, and taking local measures to make peoples' lives better in our own communities.

[PatrickforO]

11. Yes, from about 1950 through about 1975, we had in this nation what is called by some

economists the 'great prosperity.' Strong unions, adequate taxation of the rich, corporations paying their fair share. People were generally able to get ahead economically, and could genuinely believe their children's lives would be a bit better than theirs. Business leaders cared about the communities in which they lived and did business, and understood there are more stakeholders than just the people who own the stock.

The downsides: Vietnam, Jim Crow, segregation, sexism.

It is interesting when you look at the popular revolt that began with the civil rights movement, which started to win, so of course you had to have a war (Vietnam) to throw water on that. But that backfired and the revolt grew. Then the feminists rose up and insisted on rights for women.

Then the right fought back with Reagan, who doddered into the White House like a plague bacillus in 1980 and began the neoliberal cancer. They got rid of the fairness doctrine first thing, and then set up propaganda organs. Union busting, 'free' trade, privatization, deregulation and war got us to where we are now. Now, we are continually squeezed while the world itself is destroyed day by day just so a few billionaires can 'turn a profit.'

If you don't like where we are now, then support Bernie Sanders. Alternatively, O'Malley is also great on policy and mirrors Bernie pretty much. The point is, though, if you are discontented, we're going to have to step up and have that political revolution Bernie is talking about. We are going to have to rethink how we do things, and Bernie's REAL DEAL is a great start.

[ruffburr]

12. Personaly

I'm going to the first local meeting of sonoma county for Bernie on the 29th

[Recursion]

21. It was a prosperity built on excluding women and minorities

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

And in the case of African Americans and Native Americans built on outright theft from them.

The people who pine for the 1950s really need to do some soul searching and digging and look at what an actually shared prosperity would look like, because it wasn't that.

[highprincipleswork]

25. Let America Be America Again

Let America Be America Again
Langston Hughes, 1902 - 1967

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Also, since unions were more common the races blended in the workplace a lot more....

One of the side effects of the fall of unions has been an increase in black unemployment.