Clearly Craig didn’t get the memo that not putting identity politics first and foremost in your platform makes you a hateful bigot.
Get with the times, dude.
It’s probably easier to ignore identity politics when your identity is a white man.
I never once mentioned anything about perceived sexism of Sanders supporters, explicitly or otherwise. I did mention that:
-
White male voters as a general group tend to vote in a way that runs counter to the interests of core Democratic party constituencies, and
-
Bernie Sanders’s biggest policy appeal as a candidate and political leader is based around policy points that do a lot for whites in general. Which again, that’s terrific (because they do a lot for poorer constituents as a group as well)…but making those policies the sole pole star and compass of the platform risks leaking some core liberal/progressive constituencies.
I can’t disagree with that but it doesn’t mean I’m not going to rail about it on a message forum (just like I do about ignorant Trump supporters, etc). :) And since this probably wasn’t clear considering that I quoted you previously, I wasn’t railing against what you said per se. Just the ‘perception’ that you brought up.
I just find it infuriating when the impetus for healthcare reform is that costs (everywhere, but particularly in the US) are exploding, but when solutions to try to tackle that are brought up it’s countered with “we can’t afford it”. No, we can’t afford what we’re down now, and that’s why we need reform!
When it comes to healthcare, I am not really a good advocate for much of the conservative side, since I recognize the inherent failures of a market to efficiently deal with healthcare. I personally believe that a single payer system probably is in fact the best way to go at this point.
But at the same time, I recognize that this is not really a mainstream idea, when folks consider that it would need to be paid for by significant tax increases.
I think that what makes Bernie (or perhaps more correctly, some significant subset of his supporters) extreme is that they demonstrate the same need for ideological purity that you see with the tea party jackasses. The perfect is not the enemy of the good. The real world requires compromise.
The example of folks supporting Bernie and then not voting for Clinton, because of things like, “Clinton supported bad criminal justice stuff in the 90’s!” is totally absurd, given how the alternative with trump is essentially guaranteed to be worse.
Then there are the Bernie supporters who actually voted for Trump. Fuck knows what kind of messed up shit is in their heads.
C’mon, this
is textbook from the tropes used by some to paint Sanders supporters as sexist/ racist, and you can’t be naive enough to think otherwise. So while you specifically may not have leveled that charge, you know others have.
And, know what? You are absolutely right that White Males, as a cohort, have largely voted in such manner. But the Venn Diagram of white males, and Sanders supporters, has rather large sections with no overlap, in both directions. And if you want to make the argument that to draw in more white males into the Democratic caucus, you would by necesity need to draw from peoples that support racist or sexist policies? There may be truth to that. But it is equally plausible that there is people you can draw without supporting such things. Bernie draws a crowd with different emphasis. And focusing on the identity politics angle isn’t helpful there. Because there is absolutely room to emphasize policy from the economically Progressive wing, and do so in a manner that also benefits those core constituent groups of the DNC tent. To do them while also pushing for policies like criminal justice reform. We can, and should, do both!
But, clearly, when talking Omaha it’s hard to ignore the obvious, that Sanders is asking people to support a candidate that has some troublesome policies when it comes to reproductive rights. There is absolutely no denying that. So the question is, should this person be able to run on the Democratic ticket? And how far should the national party go to ensuring ideological purity at the local level like this? Because if you want to take Sanders to task for supporting a candidate that, if not fully anti choice, is certainly somewhat hostile, then that is fair! There is a discussion to be had there!
But equally the answer may come back that, nationally, you may have a platform that you expect national candidates to adhere to, but do not enforce as strictly at the local level. Supporting candidates for a mayors race or state house that you would never support nationally because policies X,Y,Z. Or perhaps you decide, no, you don’t want to do that. And perhaps some policies you hold such a purity test for, others not so much. Where to draw that line is subject for discussion. If you want to draw a hard line that ‘supporting choice is a requirement for DNC support at any level’, well, that’s your choice. I’m not even gonna say I disagree. But also recognize that it, nesicarially, will close you off to certain areas. Perhaps that’s what you need to do. Perhaps accepting a candidate in a solidly R area that espouses some views you find unacceptable is something you feel we can’t, or shouldn’t do. Perhaps others disagree.
But also recognize that such was the case before, so here we are. There is a dearth of local and state level talent because the DNC would not field competitive candidates in wide swaths of the country. Choosing the message, and the emphasis, is critical to rebuild the grassroots.
I won’t argue a word of this.
I don’t think that anyone would argue that he has any interest in coalition building. And it is sad to me that he seems to have no interest in reaching out to groups and is laser focused on economic issues while paying (what seems to me like) lip service on other things. I also personally think that his whole platform is wishful thinking because he has very few concrete plans and his funding mechanisms are pixie dust. His transaction tax stuff doesn’t come close to working.
But I think it’s over the top to claim that he’s courting social regressives specifically even if he gets some of them in mix like every candidate. His supporters always seemed to poll at least as socially progressive as any other candidate. I think you can make a good argument that he pays little attention to racial issues and voters but I don’t think you can say he actively courts the racists out there.
He’s a realist who understands what middle America wants.
Berniecrats are part of the Dem coalition for at least a generation, and while they won’t be the dominant part yet, any attempt to marginalize Bernie’s folks will result in a general election defeat just as much as marginalizing minorities will do the same.
You need someone who can appeal to Berniecrats, social justice Dems, and moderates.
@Lantz, personally- I think Bernie’s philosophy on social issues is this. You win the election first, then take the opportunity to work on social issues when you get the chance. You aren’t going to help move anything forward when a Republican is in office instead of you. It’s a lot easier to win the election when racial issues aren’t front and center.
That said, Clinton-era third way Dem policies are about as popular as crony capitalism Republican policies. They’re both electoral losers. There’s a reason Trump ran on white identity politics.
I will let it go because it’s long over and I am not an informed enough person to carry this much farther. Which is not a passive aggressive way to end this I welcome responses. But basically my comments are just the mirror of yours.
My problem is that I didn’t/don’t think that it is possible to get elected first and then care about the social issues. There’s a huge portion of the traditional and fringe Democratic voters who will not go along with that. They will not be enthused, they will not do the groundwork needed with the devotion needed.
I basically agree with all of his positions, obviously I would have voted for him in the general. But I think that he has the exact same flaw that many of his supporters attribute to the more central parts of the party. He wants everyone to come to him and doesn’t want to reach out to the coalition that he would need to win.
Hopefully someone can step forward and build those bridges between both sides and realized that what is really needed is trust building.
While that is probably true, one should be able to just point at the GOP and say “there is the alternative.”
Sadly voters are stupid and will let the alternative happen because they’re busy throwing a tantrum.
You seem to think that there is nothing worse out there than Trump. A person running around claiming to be progressive while trying to undermining the rights of women and minorities is worse. For ill or good, Trump is pretty clear about who he is and what he thinks. Bernie has a history of voting to tell us who he is, so I am not really referring to him, but make no mistake, there are racists and sexists in the Bernie camp. It is perfectly valid to remind the Democrats not to cater to that sentiment, even in the slightest.
It’s not social issues when you are black. It’s YOUR issues, YOUR life, not some sort of political science project.
I agree the trust building is needed- this is why I think the 2020 values need to be honest democracy and consumer rights. From that everyone can project what that means and compromise can be reached- both activist wings of the Democrats will need to compromise once power is gained anyways to get anything done.
I do think it’s a bit disingenuinous to claim that Berniecrats and/or Bernie are trying to undermine anyone’s rights. It may be a lower priority, but in a vacuum they would do the right thing every time.
It reminds me of the folks who slammed Roy Cooper last month.
Sure, but it’s a matter of someone who doesn’t frame it as a primary focus versus someone who does see it as a focus in the opposite direction. I mean maybe it isn’t high on Bernie’s list, but it’s pretty high on Jeff Sessions’ and Trump’s lists. Voting for openly racist fucks or not voting against them because the other guy isn’t anti-racist enough for you is silly.
And I know a black man who regularly votes for those racists, because ZOMG MY GUNZ. Then he gets upset when he sees rabidly racist shit from the GOP and their supporters. The disconnect is disturbing because he’s a pretty smart guy in every other respect.
A racist is a racist, whether they are open about it or not. The Democrats should not simply drop issues that are important women and important to minorities simply because closet racists wear a Democrat coat. These are not important issues simply because they are pet projects. They are important because there are large groups of people within the party that identify as women and minorities.
I don’t cease to be a minority woman just because Trump won. I am not going to stop being those things simply because groups within the Bernie crowd want me to be more concerned about free college than being killed for being a member of am minority group.
It’s fallacy to say we can’t care about both and must choose one or the other to discuss.
Here’s a fucked up thing.
So, every week, Trump is spending around $2.4 million dollars of tax payer dollars to go to Mar-a-lago and play golf. We will ignore the fact that much of this money is actually being paid to his own company, and he is directly siphoning money from taxes and putting it in his own wallet.
The average American pays around $8500 a year in federal income taxes.
Every week, Trump takes all of the taxes paid by around 2800 people for the whole year, and pays it to himself, to play golf in Florida.
Can you imagine the fucking meltdown if Bill, Hillary, or Obama did the same?
That’s different. She’s a woman.The other one is black and I really don’t know what the deal is with Bill except he got caught doing what so many of our evangelicals, politicians and rich old men do.
I’m sure Trump waited until the ink was dry on his divorce papers before even looking at other women.
That’s pretty much the leitmotif of this administration, I think.
Could pay for a not-insubstantial amount programs for the arts/poor/science he cut by itself, especially combined with the cost of Melania living in NYC.
It would be riots in the streets if Obama did that. Just imagine Michelle living in a Chicago Penthouse and the related costs, and Obama flying down to visit his own personal Nightclub or something where a membership costs 200k a year, and he goes every freaking weekend.