If John Judis is saying this
Submitted by chuckvw on Thu, 09/14/2017 - 10:45pm
the wheel is indeed turning.
I argued that demographics favored the Democrats. I was wrong.
https://newrepublic.com/article/144547/redoing-electoral-math-argued-dem...
This deserves a better essay, but I am fighting the flu.
Comments
Money Quote
How about a strong case for economic justice and ending all wars?
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
That is exactly what Bernie was/is doing.
Then along came the identity politics of BLM. Again, I'm not saying they don't have a huge problem, they do. The point many of us here made that is that it should have been about inequality of income and justice. Bankers go free, poor & poc get shot. United people of all colors against inequality.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
While we agree in the big picture, I think, . . .
. . . I do wish we'd claim our ground with a little more nuance.
I had no problem with BLM, as inconvenient as their protests might have been (and that's the point of protests, to be inconvenient). Blacks were demanding the sanctity of their lives. I don't even think of that as identity politics, jut survival.
What the Hillbots did with those protests, alleging that Bernie and his supporters had a "Black problem" (as if electoral advantage from the AA community is all that was important about that community) was reprehensible. That was the egregious element of identity politics in play, not the pleas of African Americans not to be shot by police just for existing.
Excellent point.
We can't lose sight of the validity of what BLM is saying. The right to not be shot goes way above politics, though we saw during the campaign supporters of Her tried to make it so.
Also worth mentioning that Her had her own BLM (and other groups) protests. Two big differences I remember: 1) Sanders actually turned the mic over to them and gave them a chance to speak. Her didn't. 2) Sanders supporters didn't try to weaponize that it happened to Her. Hillbots did exactly that.
Related, there was an article or two that I've lost speaking about Her alleged AA voting advantage. Basically, it came down to the Clintons had done a lot of time greasing palms among the AA leadership and the support was much more top heavy because of that. Once you got out of the higher social, economic and political circles, there was indifference for Her at best. It's not a coincidence that Obama had to go out there and try to shame POC into voting for Her.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
They rightly pushed back on "All Lives Matter"
when it was being pushed by the pigs. Specifically the "Blue Lives Matter" garbage... (IIRC that came before the "All lives Matter" kerfluffle, which I have a slightly different opinion on.
They should have NOT pushed back when the poor folk started saying it in solidarity against the pigs. There were a lot of opportunities for common ground and possible reform/justice there. Of course, that was not what the DNC and the MSM wanted, so they deliberately conflated the All lives matter and the Blue lives matter people... resulting in nothing being done about the pigs, and absolute hostility to BLM among the white poor people who hate the pigs just as much, if not more.
Of course, how else are they gonna ensure that the mercs aren't challenged, than by carefully exploiting all the fractures between the poors. Civil War is a good one, because by making it about slavery, INSTEAD of the rebellion aspect which is what appeals... you effectively shut down all discussion of coming together. Other good ones are Nazis, for obvious reasons, and Russia, although they seem to be oversaturating the market on that one in particular.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Wait, . . .
. . . Markos could be wrong? Like, beyond any chance of ever regaining a gram of credibility wrong?
Markos could be wrong? (+)
got to study that one.
ha.
I often find the Truth is a Set:
Which specifically excludes all data put forth by the DNC and their enablers.
It's unapologetically like the old Pravda. Read Pravda, and you know what ISN'T happening. You know what the least important topic of the day is, and where you shouldn't bother wasting any time whatsoever.
Sometimes I think the universe has an incredible sense of humor.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jus3BE9mdfI]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Identity politics
is the only thing the Democratic party has going for it. The Democrats will continue to dig in with identity politics because it allows them to avoid the policy issues that would go against their donors.
Even after the blood bath losses of 2010 and 2014, Hillary Clinton's throwing away the most winnable Presidential election in history, and the loss of over 1,000 seats nationwide, the Democratic party continues to "stay the course." Leadership in the Democratic party is based upon the person's ability to fund raise. Their addiction to donor dollars will be the final nail in the party's coffin once the donors decide they o longer need the Democrats.
Meanwhile, Markos emphatically stated that the Democrats do not need policy even after Clinton's defeat in 2016. The Democrats are tone deaf on purpose. Good economic policy is not just a white issue, it is a people issue.
https://www.dailykos.com/comments/1656130/66286842
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
@gulfgal98 I seem to recall the
I seem to recall the Democrats used to deride the Republicans for just saying "no" to all Obama iniatives. Remember? They had no ideas, just obstructionist votes? And that was bad for the country?
Well, it put the Republicans in solid majorities, so maybe the Democrats see it as a winning way forward.
I am being generous in my assessment of the Democrats.
They can't think beyond their next fundraiser.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
They only can say NO to progressives
After all, what was Her campaign but a great big NO to anything Sanders suggested with not much concrete to differentiate Her from the Republican platform? And so far, McResistance has only said NO to DeVoss (and I'd bet money if she'd come through without media scrutiny, they would have rubber stamped here ala Ben Carson.) Even though they use the language of resistance, they have to "keep their powder dry", at least when it comes to Republicans.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Judis does have the oversimplified rhetorical battle
outlined correctly in his first graph or two. It is a false dichotomy, however, but that's what cheapshot political rhetoric relies on.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Categorizing voters according to their ethnicity
is something both Parties do, but to me it seems a repugnant and unnecessary practice. Very possibly a counter-productive one too. One of the things I loved about the Sanders campaign was its refusal to engage in race-baiting rhetoric, in spite of considerable pressure to do so. Oddly enough, this very refusal was portrayed by Clinton loyalists as being evidence of racism. But Bernie always emphasized the commonality of interest among America's various racial constituencies, and never sought to divide them for the sake of political expediency.
native