US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Altherion]

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because minority and women's right advocates, and economic progressives are natural allies? They have a set of mutual interest to advance?

They are allied to each other at the level of the leadership, but their interests actually have very little in common and they tend to not vote that way. For example, in the 2016 election cycle, minorities and women were the reason the socialist Sanders lost to the neoliberal Clinton. In fact, Clinton had a brilliant quote attacking Sanders on this topic that can be rephrased to illustrate the independence of these causes:

Quote

"Not everything is about an economic theory, right?" Clinton rhetorically asked the crowd. "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, and I will, if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will. Will that end racism?"

This call-and-return continued, with Clinton growing more and more impassioned as the audience shouted "no" after every question.

"Will that end sexism? Will that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Will that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?" Clinton asked. "Would that solve our problem with voting rights and Republicans who are trying to strip them away from people of color, the elderly and the young?"

Note that she could have just as easily started with one of the other causes. For example, if some miracle ended racism overnight, would that do anything about sexism or the banks? These causes have very little in common; they're on the same side mainly because there are only two credible sides and the other one (which is also a hodge-podge of unrelated causes) is hostile to them.

[MerenthaClone]

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They are allied to each other at the level of the leadership, but their interests actually have very little in common and they tend to not vote that way. For example, in the 2016 election cycle, minorities and women were the reason the socialist Sanders lost to the neoliberal Clinton. In fact, Clinton had a brilliant quote attacking Sanders on this topic that can be rephrased to illustrate the independence of these causes:

Or maybe the minorities and women didn't vote for someone who says "lets help everyone out!" because they've heard it before, many times, and been abandoned.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

They are allied to each other at the level of the leadership, but their interests actually have very little in common and they tend to not vote that way. For example, in the 2016 election cycle, minorities and women were the reason the socialist Sanders lost to the neoliberal Clinton. In fact, Clinton had a brilliant quote attacking Sanders on this topic that can be rephrased to illustrate the independence of these causes:

Note that she could have just as easily started with one of the other causes. For example, if some miracle ended racism overnight, would that do anything about sexism or the banks? These causes have very little in common; they're on the same side mainly because there are only two credible sides and the other one (which is also a hodge-podge of unrelated causes) is hostile to them.

Your whole point here does not prove, one iota, that minority groups or women's groups would have not been receptive to a more progressive economic message by Clinton. What it does seemingly tend to prove is that those groups were more receptive to her because she was willing to address their specific issues. In fact, I'd say, it actually proves that you can't just forget about those groups and hope to win elections or at least win the primary.

And to a large extent Clinton was right: While breaking up banks or regulating them appropriately is important to everyone, the fact is that that issue doesn't address some of the specific issues faced by women or minorities. 

Also, while were on the topic of bank regulation, I'll just say Clinton was probably a lot more well versed on that issue than Sanders was. And I like Sanders.

Also another thing here: The topic of financial regulation, while extremely important, and I've ranted on it for a while,  is a bit of a dry topic. While people may know it's important, it's kind of hard for them to relate to on a day to day level. But that isn't true for things like discrimination or police brutality, which people do experience on a very personal level and can relate to it much easier.

[Samantha Stark]

4 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

McCain: Trump’s attacks on press are 'how dictators get started'
The Arizona senator said the nation needs a free and at times adversarial press.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/john-mccain-trump-press-235177

Another member of the GOPe that is salty Trump did what he could not.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Your whole point here does not prove, one iota, that minority groups or women's groups would have not been receptive to a more progressive economic message by Clinton. What it does seemingly tend to prove is that those groups were more receptive to her because she was willing to address their specific issues. In fact, I'd say, it actually proves that you can't just forget about those groups and hope to win elections or at least win the primary.

My point was not that those groups would not have been receptive, it was that identity politics is divisive. Your last sentence in this paragraph actually states part of it: it's not possible to win a primary without appealing to these groups. The second part is that by appealing to them, a candidate more or less disqualifies himself or herself from consideration by a large fraction of the electorate which would otherwise be receptive to an anti-1% economic message. The same thing happens on the right, but with a different set of identity-based issues. The result is that support for anti-1% economic reforms is always divided.

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Einheri said:

Discrimination is wrong and a serious problem, but I don't think we should blow it out of proportions either. it is individuals who are discrimination against other individuals, i.e not all members of group X are guilty of discriminating others, and not all members of minority group Y have experienced this kind of discrimination. So, to me it seems like a huge overreaction to then go ahead and implement a law which discriminates against everyone in group X because some members of their group are dipshits.

Uh, with all due respect I think you underestimate how commonplace discrimination is, either because i) you haven't witnessed it yourself or ii) it's far less common in your country than other countries.
I can tell you for certain that some members of "groups" are systematically discriminated against in some places, and that it's so blatantly obvious that it borders on the ridiculous. I think it's important to bear in mind that however extreme affirmative action may seem to you, it was always viewed as a reaction to extreme discrimination in the first place. I don't think the question can be about the legitimacy or necessity of affirmative action, because it was both legitimate and necessary when it was first implemented. The question may be whether today, things have evolved enough for us (or them) to consider alternative solutions or strategies. Which is really a huge debate that is not ours (your or mine) to really start or partake in, given our respective nationalities.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And to a large extent Clinton was right: While breaking up banks or regulating them appropriately is important to everyone, the fact is that that issue doesn't address some of the specific issues faced by women or minorities.

Maybe not banks. But a progressive income tax, cheaper (or ideally, free) education, and a socialized health care system (among other things) might.

I happen to share much of Altherion's viewpoint here. And it's not like it's an original position either, it's a pretty common perspective in Europe, and the dominant one in France, where "races" do not even officially exist (the very concept is deemed... racist).

So yeah, I also tend to believe that most issues faced by minorities are really about socio-economic conditions that can be effectively addressed by... socialism. Of course, there are anti-discrimination laws in France, but the dominant view is that because minorities suffer the most from inequality or unemployment it's best to address these issues as a whole, collectively.
There was never any affirmative action in France for the record, and the only party that seriously considered it was a right-wing party seeking to distract from the fact that it was making our progressive income tax less progressive. In other words, it was indeed a tactic to divide the most vulnerable members of society into sub-groups. It didn't work because such an approach was considered racist and offensive to minorities, while alienating the xenophobic portion of the right-wing electorate. Nevertheless, it was, and totally is, a political tactic to avoid addressing inequality as a whole in France.

Women's rights is a separate issue imho. In fact, it took me a long time to understand why in the US the issues faced by minorities and women are seen as similar/comparable. In American history books written in French, you very often have a sentence somewhere explaining to the readership why Americans believe them to be comparable, because it's completely counter-intuitive here. In fact, a couple of years ago, while discussing American politics with my students I accidentally talked of women as a "minority" group in US politics and then had to go into a lengthy and embarassing explanation as to why Americans view minorities' and women's issues as similar, which quite frankly did not appear to convince anybody in my 80% female public. Didn't do that again. Believe it or not, it's a way to potentially appear sexist and racist at the same time in a French university. Anyway, gender issues are not viewed as purely economic so it's generally believed they require some specific regulations or strategies to be dealth with.

So I have to ask... Hmmm... What specific issues of minorities would not be addressed by socialism? Assuming the existence of anti-discrimination laws, of course...

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The result is that support for anti-1% economic reforms is always divided.

Maybe its divided because people see through your conditional approval of help and assume that as soon as you feel people (ie you) have been adequately helped their support will be withdrawn. 

[mormont]

Here's the thing: if identity politics is inherently, hopelessly divisive, how come black voters and female voters and LGBTQ+ voters and Latinx voters and Muslim voters can all unite behind one candidate? Why aren't they divided? According to Altherion, if their interests don't align they should be divided.

Maybe because their interests do align? But then, if the interests of black voters and LGBTQ+ voters can align, why can't the interests of working class voters and minority voters also align?

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:

Quote

They would still benefit and some of their issues may be addressed incidentally in the process of solving the overall problem

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.

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.

[Mindwalker]

16 minutes ago, 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.

Yep. If I remember correctly, this goes back to the marxist/ maoist theory of Hauptwiderspruch vs Nebenwiderspruch (principal contradiction vs ... I don't know the proper English term).

ETA: Which was also a neat way to justify that male revolutionaries in the 60s did the thinking and rallying and cool fun things, while the female ones made them coffee or typed their speeches. Incidentally. And the modern women's lib movement (at least in Europe) came to be because women realized that that tiny little Nebenwiderspruch just didn't resolve itself.

[butterbumps!]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So I have to ask... Hmmm... What specific issues of minorities would not be addressed by socialism? Assuming the existence of anti-discrimination laws, of course...

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.   

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?  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)? 

[Seli]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Maybe not banks. But a progressive income tax, cheaper (or ideally, free) education, and a socialized health care system (among other things) might.

I happen to share much of Altherion's viewpoint here. And it's not like it's an original position either, it's a pretty common perspective in Europe, and the dominant one in France, where "races" do not even officially exist (the very concept is deemed... racist).

 

In Europe we also don't have the history of segregation and political oppression of people based on race that still wrecks the USA. We tended to keep that stuff to our colonies, not at home. 

And still here we see the results of treating the immigrants of the last 60 years as foreign, unequal. Being it in the banlieues of race- and religion-blind France or in religion- and politics-obsessed Netherlands.

[Mindwalker]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39018096

Before Air Force One landed, President Trump came to the back of the aeroplane. He shook our hands and told us we'd see "a fantastic crowd of people" at the rally. He was warm and friendly to us on the aeroplane but things changed at the rally.

Standing on stage, he said reporters "are part of the corrupt system". When he attacked the media, people in the audience screamed their support.

I sat with other journalists in an area that was surrounded by metal gates. At times the animosity towards the media felt personal: my colleague was taking photos, and one man held his hand in front of her lens.

As we left the hangar, another man said to us: "Goodbye, lying media."

[Einheri]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Uh, with all due respect I think you underestimate how commonplace discrimination is, either because i) you haven't witnessed it yourself or ii) it's far less common in your country than other countries.
I can tell you for certain that some members of "groups" are systematically discriminated against in some places, and that it's so blatantly obvious that it borders on the ridiculous.

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). Discrimination is still a problem due to the attitudes that still exists in the heads of too many individuals, but it’s still prohibited by law, and while we definitely have room for improvement, I don’t think things are THAT bad. For example, far right will often paint the image that immigrants are bunch of lazy welfare leeches, but this image is far from correct if you look into it as most non-western immigrants are in fact employed, and many actually do quite well for themselves. The numbers look even better for the second generation and onwards, and some groups do better than white Europeans.

[Savannah]

13 minutes 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). Discrimination is still a problem due to the attitudes that still exists in the heads of too many individuals, but it’s still prohibited by law, and while we definitely have room for improvement, I don’t think things are THAT bad. For example, far right will often paint the image that immigrants are bunch of lazy welfare leeches, but this image is far from correct if you look into it as most non-western immigrants are in fact employed, and many actually do quite well for themselves. The numbers look even better for the second generation and onwards, and some groups do better than white Europeans.

 

I would love to know the source of that claim. 

[Savannah]

19 minutes ago, Seli said:

In Europe we also don't have the history of segregation and political oppression of people based on race that still wrecks the USA. We tended to keep that stuff to our colonies, not at home. 

And still here we see the results of treating the immigrants of the last 60 years as foreign, unequal. Being it in the banlieues of race- and religion-blind France or in religion- and politics-obsessed Netherlands.

That's ludicrous considering that large portions of eastern europe were colonized by western europe and then by the most eastern europe.

[Einheri]

6 minutes ago, Savannah said:

I would love to know the source of that claim. 

Here you go: https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-unemployment.htm

[Mindwalker]

55 minutes ago, Seli said:

In Europe we also don't have the history of segregation and political oppression of people based on race

 

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.

[Relic]

6 hours ago, Samantha Stark said:

Another member of the GOPe that is salty Trump did what he could not.

Ever notice how the pro-Trump crowd seems to think everyone is as focused on winning, or having won, as they are? The reality is, grownups move on pretty quickly from such things, and POTUS should learn that winning the presidency means absolutely nothing now. It's all about actually governing, which he is shamefully and woefully incapable of. 

Instead of focusing on the truth behind McCain's (who i think is generally a shit btw) words, you guys deflect and ascribe simple motives such as "jealousy" or "saltiness" to invalidate what is actually a compelling and valid statement. Amything that doesn't fit your narrative is either "fake" and motivated by "hate". Fucking lame kindergarten behavior. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

My point was not that those groups would not have been receptive, it was that identity politics is divisive. 

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.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Your last sentence in this paragraph actually states part of it: it's not possible to win a primary without appealing to these groups. 

And why shouldn't these people have somebody willing to listen to their complaints and represent them.

 

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

 The second part is that by appealing to them, a candidate more or less disqualifies himself or herself from consideration by a large fraction of the electorate which would otherwise be receptive to an anti-1% economic message.

Don't know about that. Barack Obama got some things done for those folks. And the polling seems to indicate that if an election were held today, he'd defeat Donald Trump.