Why have so many "liberals" embraced paternalism as social policy?

[Ken Burch]

When did our leaders decide that we have to be just as sanctimonious, judgmental and disdainful of the poor as Republicans and the "Religious" Right are?

People on our side of the spectrum know that the idea that the poor are poor due to their personal "immorality" is nothing but self-righteous hypocrisy. Why, then, have so many of "our" politicians surrendered to it?

The last thing liberalism needs is to indulge the myth that the wealthy are our "betters" and that financial success is proof of virtue while poverty is a punishment for sin. Victorianism didn't work the first time.

[glowing]

1. I would argue those people aren't really liberal.

[katandmoon]

2. Examples?

[Ken Burch]

3. Most of Bill's social policies, for one.

The fact that a lot of the "Beltway Dems" left the right-wing slurs against poor women go completely unchallenged was another.

The acceptance by a lot of the same "Beltway Dems" of the myth that "the poor have to be forced to work".

The way the poor have been talked about by both parties since the early 90's is not that different than how certain groups were spoken of in Germany in a certain era.

[isentropic]

4. Paternalism is what most DUers believe in. But it doesn't mean what your post

seems to suggest. :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

6. Paternalism means, as its root word "pater" suggests

Acting like a father(preferably a stern, emotionally withholding father)
treating the poor as if they are all disobedient children, rather than adults with dignity and rights, as failures rather than simply as people who have had a series of tough breaks and who don't need lectures and punishment.
It's antiegalitarian and antidemocratic, and
there is no way to link that to any progressive view of the world.
We're the ones who are supposed to defend the powerless and help them stop being powerless, not look down on them.

[isentropic]

7. There are plenty people here who think a major role of government is to protect every person

who feels offended by a person, a principle, a word, a book, a movie, or a nonapproved pet from being discommoded. If you've missed the thousands of threads demonstrating that, I can't really do much else.

[Ken Burch]

8. What your describing is very different from paternalism, though.

Paternalism is the revival of Victorian sanctimony towards the poor.

[isentropic]

10. Sorry, but that is just patent nonsense. I know you know better.

:wtf:

[Ken Burch]

11. Most Du'ers want a strong social welfare system and would back federal jobs programs

As well as a real campaign to wipe out redlining and provide compensation for its past effects.

Most Du'ers do not believe(despite RW propaganda to the contrary)that the state should be making decisions about people's private lives. And we damn sure don't think that the state should be passing judgment on the private lives of the poor in exchange for providing assistance in escaping poverty.

The answer is jobs and rebuilding the urban economy, not lectures on virtue.

[catnhatnh]

12. Hmmm, in 9 days you know ...

a poster of nearly 5 years better than to believe that which he wrote...my bet is you don't make 5 weeks...but enjoy your stay...

[Runcible Spoon]

17. I don't think there's anything inappropriate or against the rules about their debate.

you calling out someone for being a newbie is, however, both inappropriate and against the rules. :shrug:

[Berry Cool]

9. Ah, but a "paternalistic" employer is one of the old school, who treats his employees right.

In return for their hard work, he pays them a decent wage, gives them generous benefits including a good pension, makes their working environment pleasant, ensures they work reasonable hours and get enough breaks, and even may provide such things as recreational facilities for them to enjoy when they're not at work. He also ensures them of lifetime employment so long as they don't do anything illegal.

Today's conservatives sure don't believe in paternalistic employers anymore. It's more like, get the most you can out of your employees for the absolute least amount of money possible. Try not to pay too much in wages, skip bennies if you can, work 'em as hard as possible, don't worry about their pensions, give them the bare minimum of decent facilities, and downsize 'em to improve the bottom line at any time necessary.

[NashVegas]

5. Right About The Time

Hillary Clinton started trending well with less educated, lower-earning voters across Appalachia and the Rust Belt.

[Ken Burch]

14. Nice try, but you can't pass it off as an Obama thing.

n/t.

[mitchum]

13. Because when the Democratic party decided to ignore economic justice...

they had to replace it with something.

[Runcible Spoon]

15. ^^This. correlates nicely with the rise of the fucking DLC

:mad:

[Cleita]

16. It's always easier to beat up on and slander people who can't fight back.

The poor have always been easy targets to scapegoat.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I thought this was going to be a anti-"nanny state" post. But I totally

hear what your post actually said.

[EFerrari]

19. I think a lot of people mistake social control for social justice. n/t