US Politics: Deep State Solution

[OldGimletEye]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

snip

I'm quite certain that a reason the New Deal coalition came flying apart in the 1960s was when some liberals dared to spread the "socialism" to others that were not white men.

I basically consider myself to be an FDR Democrat. But, I also know that the benefits of the New Deal did not get equally extended to everybody. In the 1950s women were basically still expected to be free domestic help and to be economically dependent on their husbands.

When Social Security was first passed, African Americans tended to get fucked out of it. Also, I'm a supporter of unions, but I also know in the past unions could very much be hotbeds of sexism and racism.

I'm quite certain that left wing politics can develop  a nasty little passive acceptance of racism and sexism.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, mormont said:

They can, and in fact they do. So not for the first time, he's talking out of his hat. The real agenda here is revealed by this comment:

Some of their issues may be addressed incidentally. They might get something but it'll be more or less by accident. There's a rallying cry.

 

Yeah, this bugs me. Saying to these people,"Let us work on our issues first and then we'll acknowledge your issues at some unspecified time in the future" seems really crappy to me.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, mormont said:

This kind of paternalistic nonsense has, unfortunately, had wide currency in the progressive movement in the past and it seems to be making a comeback now. Women and minorities are told they have to work for the cause, but at the same time, get in line and shut up. That's not acceptable.

 

I agree saying to these people, "Give us your votes and support and then shut the hell up" is not remotely acceptable. I'd also argue that it makes you vulnerable later to right wing attacks.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, butterbumps! said:

Well, for instance, BLM isn't really about economic injustice.   I'm not sure that issues like the disproportionate targeting (and killing) of black people by cops is something that socialism addresses. 

 

Well certainly "socialism for whites only" certainly won't address it. 

Although, it would seem that the over incarceration of African Americans has helped to hurt them economically. So there is an economic component here. But, it's one that can be easily dismissed by so called "socialist" who don't care to specifically acknowledge it and try to resolve it.

But, other than the economic issues, there is just the plain old issue of human dignity. And that certainly is important too.

Socialism for "whites only" or for "white men only" might be an easy sell. But it is also very dubious ethically and morally.

[Einheri]

36 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Socialism for "whites only" or for "white men only" might be an easy sell. But it is also very dubious ethically and morally.

‘Socialism but only for the right kind of people' is also a sentiment that is eerily similar to what the National Socialists preached back in the 30s. No, it’s better if we focus on helping all people (or the people as I like to think of us as), and in the US’s case I do think that the situation would be turn for the better if you implemented a welfare state similar to the ones we have over here (not to sound arrogant, but they’re pretty good even if there is room for improvement).

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Well, for instance, BLM isn't really about economic injustice.   I'm not sure that issues like the disproportionate targeting (and killing) of black people by cops is something that socialism addresses.  

True.
The disproportionate jailing of black men could be seen as a socio-economic problem though.

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

But isn't the assumption of the need for anti-discrimination laws already acknowledging that the solution can't simply be economic?  I'm not sure if you were thinking of AA as included in that assumption, but if not, would socialism correct for disproportionate favoritism of whites in hiring and salary? 

i) Indeed.
ii) No, that's why you also need a legal apparatus to fight discrimination.

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Beyond that, I'm not sure that the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is economic in that way; does socialism deter people from refusing service to this community (or deter the disproportionate violence committed against them)? 

Not socialism in itself, no. A secular state goes a long way toward that though.

I get your point. Some forms of discrimination are not linked to economic factors and that's where members of minorities, women and LGBTQ can find similar approaches to their issues.
The thing is, I see anti-discrimination measures as a given, at least intellectually. It's easy to say I guess, but from my point of view, it's almost incredible that the American right even manages to make these into a debate, and scores points by fighting anti-discrimination measures. It's like some people are perpetually stuck in the 1950s or something.
But I think that is my point though. The right is efficient at debating what shouldn't be debated, and thus at preventing further progress. It's a good reactionary strategy. And it can be divisive.

Quote

 

The 1964 Civll Rights Act was divisive. And some, perhaps, like yourself would call it "identity politics".

It was also the right thing to do. Even an uncouth and crass redneck like LBJ could figure that out.

 

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was part of a much larger strategy designed to fight inequality.

The right's strategy of fighting tooth and nails against one aspect of the Democrats' program has paid off, because today they find it much harder to advance welfare programs (Obama struggled for healthcare reform, which was only one aspect of LBJ's Great Society).

 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Einheri said:

Would you mind providing some examples? I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but when you use a word like systematic it comes across to me as if there is some kind plan in place to keep minorities down, and I don’t believe that this is the case in most WE countries (not sure about EE).

Well it's a well-known fact that you'll have trouble finding a job if you were born or live in a specific city/neighborhood. It's a way for some employers to eliminate entire portions of the population just by reading a resume. And it's also risk-free since such discrimination is not technically racially motivated.
Same is true depending on your family name. Or if you need to provide a photo with your application.
Such discrimination is hard to prove and has shown that anti-discrimination laws could and should be improved. After a number of studies/reports that showed systematic discrimination in some specific cases, officials of several countries recommended the blind/anonymous resume. And we're very much talking about Western Europe here, with the UK and France especially.
 

2 hours ago, Einheri said:

while we definitely have room for improvement, I don’t think things are THAT bad.

I'd say you underestimate the seriousness of the issue. For the people who are victims of such discrimination, the consequences can be truly devastating. But again it's possible things aren't that bad in Norway.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Einheri said:

‘Socialism but only for the right kind of people' is also a sentiment that is eerily similar to what the National Socialists preached back in the 30s. No, it’s better if we focus on helping all people (or the people as I like to think of us as), and in the US’s case I do think that the situation would be turn for the better if you implemented a welfare state similar to the ones we have over here (not to sound arrogant, but they’re pretty good even if there is room for improvement).

 

I usually don't like giving "my own personal experience" anecdotes to argue politics or policy, but, what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.

I'm basically a redneck, a liberal redneck, mind you, but it stands to reason I know a lot of conservative rednecks as most other rednecks tend to be conservative politically.

And some of the shit I hear from other rednecks is just face palm inducing. Like take the the stimulus Obama passed back in 2009. Now I've heard other misinformed rednecks say that was nothing but a handout to minorities. But, that wasn't the point of that whole thing. It was in fact the right thing to do and was designed to help out everybody.

The point here is that often economically beneficial programs get tripped up precisely because of racism or sexism.

Or take another example:

In many ways the problems that many people have in lets say Appalachia are similar to the problems that many folks have who live in the inner cities. There should be a lot of common ground there. But, what prevents both those groups seeing they have a lot of the same issues? I'd say racism.

The upshot here, I feel, is that racism and sexism serves as impediment to actually getting a Scandinavian welfare state.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think the issue is that Civil Rights and Identity Politics are not one and the same. The former focuses on removing institutional barriers - basically treating everyone the same. That's highly positive.

As I see it, Identity Politics is less about treating everyone the same, and more about making one's, well, identity, of paramount importance. It's no longer a case of shared experience vis-a-vis relationship to the means of production ("we're all in this together"), because advancing interests of subgroups takes precedence (as though it really matters how many CEOs are gay, black, or women - the issue isn't the identity of CEOs, it's their economic power and role). 

Where Identity Politics becomes counter-productive, I think, is that it it sets up fresh political dividing lines on educational and cultural grounds (if your narrative is that all problems in the world come from white straight men, you are basically forcing the Left to fight a war on two fronts - a war it isn't going to win). Telling a working class white guy who has just lost his job that he is privileged (especially when the one who is doing the telling is university-educated) isn't going to make him reach out to those who share his dire economic straits, it's going to send him into the arms of the Right. 

[Einheri]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well it's a well-known fact that you'll have trouble finding a job if you were born or live in a specific city/neighborhood. It's a way for some employers to eliminate entire portions of the population just by reading a resume. And it's also risk-free since such discrimination is not technically racially motivated.
Same is true depending on your family name. Or if you need to provide a photo with your application.
Such discrimination is hard to prove and has shown that anti-discrimination laws could and should be improved. After a number of studies/reports that showed systematic discrimination in some specific cases, officials of several countries recommended the blind/anonymous resume. And we're very much talking about Western Europe here, with the UK and France especially.

I'd say you underestimate the seriousness of the issue. For the people who are victims of such discrimination, the consequences can be truly devastating. But again it's possible things aren't that bad in Norway.

Appreciate the reply, and I now understand what you were talking about. Regarding the seriousness of this issue, I do take it seriously, but what I was saying is that we shouldn't blow it out of proportions either by insinuating that all minorities have been discriminated in this manner and that all white European employers are dipshits who discriminate based on skin color/family name. I'm also really liking the suggestion you list here, and I think it benefits everyone.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Telling a working class white guy who has just lost his job that he is privileged (especially when the one who is doing the telling is university-educated) isn't going to make him reach out to those who share his dire economic straits, it's going to send him into the arms of the Right. 

As somebody that comes from the white working class, I get this. But, what I want to tell these guys is that women and minorities aren't your abusers. So like would you stop believing that tax cuts for the rich are going to help you out?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I think the issue is that Civil Rights and Identity Politics are not one and the same. The former focuses on removing institutional barriers - basically treating everyone the same. That's highly positive.

I don't know about this as "identity politics" seems like a pretty fuzzy and malleable concept that the right uses to attack things they don't like without specifically saying what they don't like.

No conservative is going come out and say, "I don't like Civil Rights Bills" because they know it's a bullshit position and they would get called on it. So instead they use vague terms like "identity politics".

Fact is that the right often uses vague terms to attack things they don't like. Say for instance when they go around saying "big gubment" -  what they often mean is things like Social Security and Medicare.

[Einheri]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I usually don't like giving "my own personal experience" anecdotes to argue politics or policy, but, what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.

I'm basically a redneck, a liberal redneck, mind you, but it stands to reason I know a lot of conservative rednecks as most other rednecks tend to be conservative politically.

And some of the shit I hear from other rednecks is just face palm inducing. Like take the the stimulus Obama passed back in 2009. Now I've heard other misinformed rednecks say that was nothing but a handout to minorities. But, that wasn't the point of that whole thing. It was in fact the right thing to do and was designed to help out everybody.

The point here is that often economically beneficial programs get tripped up precisely because of racism or sexism.

Or take another example:

In many ways the problems that many people have in lets say Appalachia are similar to the problems that many folks have who live in the inner cities. There should be a lot of common ground there. But, what prevents both those groups seeing they have a lot of the same issues? I'd say racism.

The upshot here, I feel, is that racism and sexism serves as impediment to actually getting a Scandinavian welfare state.

Appreciate the reply, friend. From what you're writing here it seems your country has some major challenges to overcome.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I think the issue is that Civil Rights and Identity Politics are not one and the same. The former focuses on removing institutional barriers - basically treating everyone the same. That's highly positive.

As I see it, Identity Politics is less about treating everyone the same, and more about making one's, well, identity, of paramount importance. It's no longer a case of shared experience vis-a-vis relationship to the means of production ("we're all in this together"), because advancing interests of subgroups takes precedence (as though it really matters how many CEOs are gay, black, or women - the issue isn't the identity of CEOs, it's their economic power and role). 

Where Identity Politics becomes counter-productive, I think, is that it it sets up fresh political dividing lines on educational and cultural grounds (if your narrative is that all problems in the world come from white straight men, you are basically forcing the Left to fight a war on two fronts - a war it isn't going to win). Telling a working class white guy who has just lost his job that he is privileged (especially when the one who is doing the telling is university-educated) isn't going to make him reach out to those who share his dire economic straits, it's going to send him into the arms of the Right. 

But it really does matter that a certain number of CEO's (or doctors, or teachers, or.....) are gay, black, woman, Latinx, and so on.  Representation matters are great deal.  You can find all sorts of studies done on children that show girls don't view their gender as smart or good at math and science, blacks don't see themselves in white collar jobs. One reason for that is that they are extremely underrepresented in these sorts of careers.  It was a huge deal for little black kids that the president was black.  Eight year old black children have spent their lives seeing their identity represented in the highest of offices.

 If "we're all in this together," then advancing the interests of those whose interests have remained way behind should take precedence.  Being in something together means to take the hand of those disenfranchised and do whatever to pull them up to a place of equality.  It's important to keep in mind that our experiences aren't shared.  My America looks very different from Trump's America.  The opportunities immediately available to me growing up were very different from the opportunities available to, say, @Ser Scot A Ellison.  My partner's experience using public spaces, especially bathrooms, is extremely different from my own, especially these days.  I find it pretty important to recognize that people's experiences aren't shared. We don't live equal lives.  

The issue of white men running into the arms of the right has to do with their own racism and sexism and I definitely don't believe we need to tip toe around their fragility.  White men have been doing this for centuries so moving away from understanding privilege as a concept won't help.  The only way to calm white men like this is to stop pushing for equality and that's not something that is palatable.  

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As somebody that comes from the white working class, I get this. But, what I want to tell these guys is that women and minorities aren't your abusers. So like would you stop believing that tax cuts for the rich are going to help you out?

They don't believe in tax cuts for the rich. It's that when confronted with a choice between a Left that lectures them on how privileged they are, and a Right that tells them "hey, you can give all your darkest impulses free rein with us", they're not going to see things in terms of economics. This is what I meant about the problem of getting the Left to fight a multi-front war.

This isn't just a US thing, of course. This subject is pretty topical here at the moment too - there's a Liberal vs Left battle along these lines in the New Zealand Labour Party (the leadership is trying to nudge things in a more Left direction, and the Liberal wing is howling).

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

They don't believe in tax cuts for the rich. It's that when confronted with a choice between a Left that lectures them on how privileged they are, and a Right that tells them "hey, you can give all your darkest impulses free rein with us", they're not going to see things in terms of economics. This is what I meant about the problem of getting the Left to fight a multi-front war.

This isn't just a US thing, of course. This subject is pretty topical here at the moment too - there's a Liberal vs Left battle along these lines in the New Zealand Labour Party (the leadership is trying to nudge things in a more Left direction, and the Liberal wing is howling).

Well, certainly white working class men aren't "privileged". But the fact is that some or many of them do look down their noses, at say like, people in the inner city. I certainly have sympathy for them. But, the issue I have with many of them is that: They want help for their problems, but then think other people don't deserve help for their problems.

And some or many of them have bought into right wing economic bull, for whatever reason.

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

They don't believe in tax cuts for the rich. It's that when confronted with a choice between a Left that lectures them on how privileged they are, and a Right that tells them "hey, you can give all your darkest impulses free rein with us", they're not going to see things in terms of economics. This is what I meant about the problem of getting the Left to fight a multi-front war.

This isn't just a US thing, of course. This subject is pretty topical here at the moment too - there's a Liberal vs Left battle along these lines in the New Zealand Labour Party (the leadership is trying to nudge things in a more Left direction, and the Liberal wing is howling).

The left started losing the propaganda/PR battle in many countries when it started abandoning its fight against concentration of wealth.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, socialism and Marxism were discredited to such an extent that the left decided to abandon anything which looked too much like class war. Except, as Buffett said, the class war continued. But attacking the rich is now viewed as... unpalatable. Most politicians are not ready to go that far anymore.

So we now find ourselves with a left which kind of wants/purports to reduce inequality, but doesn't know how to do it without appearing too "socialist." And when true leftist leaders emerge here or there (like Sanders or Corbyn) they actually do have to fall back on socialist discourse.
Because, in actuality, the collapse of Soviet Union was never a failure of socialism. Most people here on this thread know that. Most Western voters somehow don't.

At some point the left will have no choice but to reframe/rephrase its fight against inequality in slightly different terms. Or manage to mount an effective campaign against bullshit economic ideas such as the trickle-down theory.

Talking of which, there's an idea which I've been struggling with recently. Many right-wing "experts" say that it's pointless to attack the rich because their wealth/success doesn't mean others are/get poorer. I think that's bullshit, because contrary to what they say the pie is only so big and doesn't magically expand when someone makes it big. But I haven't found any simple economic theory to explain that (well, I'm no specialist, so I probably looked in the wrong places). Anyone knows how to express this idea in simple terms with decent sources/research?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

snip

A few things here:

1. I'd agree that the liberals or the left ceded to much ground to neo-liberalism. And it needs to roll some of that back.

2.Here in the US, talking about "class" is an affront to "conservative political correctness". Conservatives have always tried to shut down any talk about it. But, we do have class here in the US. There are several studies that have come out recently that social mobility isn't what we think it is here in the US.

3. I'd agree the left needs to roll back the excesses of neo-liberalism. But, the point I want to make is: Don't do it and throw the concerns of women and minorities under the bus. Do both.

[Dr. Pepper]

28 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

They don't believe in tax cuts for the rich. It's that when confronted with a choice between a Left that lectures them on how privileged they are, and a Right that tells them "hey, you can give all your darkest impulses free rein with us", they're not going to see things in terms of economics. This is what I meant about the problem of getting the Left to fight a multi-front war.

The language has changed, but white men generally flee the party that embraces equality.  It doesn't matter if we start pretending that white men lack privilege and that they are discriminated against on the basis of their race or gender.  White men will still, as a majority, not want to associate with the side that says they ought to share the pie with everyone else.  Look at the poster above who claimed that asking white men to share the pie was actually punishing white men.  Think about that -allowing women, racial minorities or LGBTQ folks a piece of the pie is treated as a punishment for white men.  That's outrageous. 

The issue, imo, isn't the language that's used to discuss how people are discriminated against or how they might be privileged* in some ways.  It's that we're still teaching white men that they deserve more than everyone else.

*Yes, working class and poor white men do have privilege.  They aren't poor or working class because they are white or male.  

[Seli]

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

You have got to be kidding. Even if we ignore the big 12-year-sized elephant in the 20th ecntury room, while Europe does not have this tradition of recent slavery and the segregation laws that came afterwards, there is a long history of segregating/ persecuting/ even killing jews. Not to mention the very long tradition of discrimination/ segregation of women.

Granted.

I might have cut a few too many corners in trying to get someone to understand why Affirmative Action is a good idea in the US context. Even if it is more difficult to see from a privileged European perspective, especially since it would be a good idea at times here as well. Because there is still much discrimination going on.