Class is not the main driver of inequality in the United States, race is.
Re: Democrat 2020
Class is not the main driver of inequality in the United States, race is.
Last edited by Strike For The South; 01-29-2019 at 18:44.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Re: Democrat 2020
You mean race defines the class. You can end the race problem now either by replacing the race-based underclass with a whiter underclass, or by ending the problem of an underclass entirely. I find the second option preferable, it helps everyone and it includes the same attempts to end racism. You could argue that getting support for option two includes convincing people that their racism is wrong, otherwise they will not vote for option two in the first place.Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Ilhan Omar addresses homelessness: https://www.facebook.com/IlhanMN/pho...type=3&theater
You could make her president with my blessing (not that you need my blessing, but we're discussing here...), if it weren't for the 40 years of age minimum I guess.
It's not wrong to help people now, but applying a bandaid for 500+ years is not a great solution, or is it?
Last edited by Husar; 01-29-2019 at 22:33.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: Democrat 2020
35 years of age is the presidential minimum.
Whoever it is will get my vote, but the cynic in me says the Dems will screw this up somehow. Harris doesn't exude the right vibes for president, she talks like a lawyer and doesn't sound like she is relatable, I'll have to see her kissing a few babies and interacting with the common man before I think she can win. Warren's heart is in the right place, but she seems a bit naive for the job. Bernie is too old at this point, and probably too radical for the general election. Biden is also too old, but otherwise a solid choice. Don't know enough about Gillibrand to comment. I'm still waiting for Hillary to announce...
The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions
If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat
"Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur
Re: Democrat 2020
Thread Note: Harris, Warren, and Gillibrand now all support the Green New Deal, in addition to Medicare for All.
Doesn't really sound like you care about solving the problem, then. No help until utopia, apparently. Rising tide lifts all boats is neoliberal rhetoric. In 1990 you would have said: Nein aid für den Ostdeutschen! Universellus Sozialismus firstus, no special treatment for any Germans!
In rejecting any attempt to do something to ameliorate the problem in the short-to-medium term, you display callousness not just toward the homeless themselves but to all the non-homeless who have to deal with the externalities of an unmoderated homeless population. Perhaps then you'll be tempted to round them up in prisons to get them out of sight, or maybe even exurban camps...
This satire article is strawmannish, but you're veering dangerously close to a heap of straw.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...ic-inequality/
What bandaid? Having fewer billionaires or banks is not something that will automatically eliminate these disparities. There are frankly multiple etiologies associated with any social ill you care to name. There are no panaceas, and why the hell should anyone assign you credibility when you sound like Brezhnev telling the Soviet people that their discomforts are irrelevant because "really-existing socialism" will hopefully probably solve all of them for future generations if they just shut up and persevere? How about, identify all the different parts of the status quo we don't like, and start fixing them, because each fix contributes toward the greater project? It's not the other way around. Reform does not 'trickle down', and you have to grasp that. Otherwise, why do we need free college or national healthcare? Just wait till we get rid of all the oligarchs, then we can invest in handouts like those. Unless - you benefit directly from healthcare and education but not from women or queer people being more secure...In 2016, the median wealth for black and Hispanic families was $17,600 and $20,700, respectively, compared with white families’ median wealth of $171,000.
In all, you're wrong on the facts (what people want and need, what can be done, what is useful to the cause) and the ethics (refusing to address harms that don't directly harm you is a hallmark of individualistic conservatism.)
In the Omar link, she links to a homeless services organization called Youthlink. Is getting the homeless into shelters to keep them from freezing today a bandaid and a waste of "focus"? Why do they need shelters now when they could have flats in 10 years? Why do they need psych counseling and financial advice now when sometime in the future (TBD) everyone will have access to counseling and everyone will be financially secure? Right?
Since you like Ilhan Omar so much, here is her platform on criminal justice reform:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Do you think all of that is a waste of time?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Democrat 2020
No, didn't I already say that? You're also falling for a less-than-serious reply here. I don't always have the time to write very long answers and especially homelessness is complicated and can have different reasons in different countries.
In Europe, there are "homeless people", often even disabled ones, who get carted into town by the mafia and are basically beggar slaves. Giving them money is not fighting neoliberalism as it only encourages the mafia to get more slaves.
Obviously in the US one can much easier become homeless by just losing one's job, etc. I've heard varying stories about the possibility of that happening in Germany, but then you also have to enter drug abuse, unwillingness to get government aid, inability to fill out forms, etc. into the picture. Giving someone some change mostly makes you feel better about yourself, but if they spend it on booze, how exactly did you help them? By making them die faster of liver failure?
I'm getting the impression that you misunderstand me, though maybe I helped with that by explaining my position in a weird way. I wasn't saying socialism will cure everything or that the other agenda items don't matter at all. I was saying that starting with the "wrong" agenda items means you will make much slower progress or no progress at all. If you want social justice reform, but prison owners keep bribing a sufficient number of politicians and releasing a lot of fake news or biased news stories, it can happen that you won't get any meaningful reform in 50 years. See Obama care, which was some weird compromise that barely got through, still faces opposition trying to dismantle it again anddidn't really help everyone. Yes, it's better than before, better than nothing, but how long did it take you to get this half-arsed bandaid? When was the last major healthcare reform before it?What bandaid? Having fewer billionaires or banks is not something that will automatically eliminate these disparities. There are frankly multiple etiologies associated with any social ill you care to name. There are no panaceas, and why the hell should anyone assign you credibility when you sound like Brezhnev telling the Soviet people that their discomforts are irrelevant because "really-existing socialism" will hopefully probably solve all of them for future generations if they just shut up and persevere? How about, identify all the different parts of the status quo we don't like, and start fixing them, because each fix contributes toward the greater project? It's not the other way around. Reform does not 'trickle down', and you have to grasp that. Otherwise, why do we need free college or national healthcare? Just wait till we get rid of all the oligarchs, then we can invest in handouts like those. Unless - you benefit directly from healthcare and education but not from women or queer people being more secure...
Free college and national healthcare are core parts of "introducing socialism" or "fixing the base problem" though, as they directly benefit the lower classes and help upset the power structure. Or at least one would hope so. They're not what I meant with side issues, they're part of what the focus should be on.
As for Ilhan Omar, she does have these things in focus and again, having criminal justice reform on the agenda is a very good thing, the question is just how well that will work out if you begin there. Just today I heard that people don't overtake police cars in the US because reasons. And that it takes a lot of time and perhaps money to go to court if a police officer decides to fine you for no reason. Ah, well, there is so much to fix in your country, maybe I just don't know where to begin. I just see that progressives have been trying to fix it for 20 years or thereabouts now and what I mostly see is more gerrymandering and voter repression by the other side. Yes, you got gay marriage. And Trump. I guess that makes it progress.
Anyway, I guess reforming the justice system is close to the core issues, but why would it have to be spearheaded by black people, who also appear (from how they're described, I could be wrong) like single-issue activists? Sometimes people just sound like Harris is a better candidate than Sanders simply because she is black and because she is less focused on social justice ("Sanders is too extreme"). Well, if you think about it, prison reform is about social justice as well and I don't see how being extreme is a bad thing when Trump was voted in for being so extreme. He's extreme in the wrong way, but it's not like noone wants extreme changes.
Last edited by Husar; 01-30-2019 at 16:38.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: Democrat 2020
So Kamala Harris is on video bragging about how she threatened to jail a homeless mother of three for her kids' truancy. She seems like just another law-and-order broken windows policing type who thinks poor people are too stupid for their own good, not someone who's really sincere about progressive criminal justice reform.
Re: Democrat 2020
The clip is somewhat-dishonestly presented. She's not hailing the threat delivered - which would make her look like a Saturday-morning cartoon villain - she's expressing pride that the mother was found, so that she could be offered services and the children placed in school.
Stick with the good point that the immediate and only response in that case should have been the provision of services; the threat of criminal liability should (almost?) never play a role.
The "evil cop" narrative is silly. Her record is mixed (no innuendo intended), but from what I've seen she's certainly been one of the more liberal DAs in the country (not sure as compared to blue states). Not liberal enough for you, or you don't think she'll change to be liberal enough if promoted to President? Fine. But don't fall for mischaracterizations her past.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Democrat 2020
I have to concur with Monty here. Does she make the occasional law-and-order reference to not irritate the political middle all the time? Yes. Is she solidly in the Social-Democracy wing of the Dem party? Bet your bippie she is.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: Democrat 2020
I'm not falling for any mischaracterizations. In that same speech she talks about how she thinks truancy is a criminal issue and that she's going to solve it by using her "big stick" even though some of her aides thought it was a bad move. She was absolutely bragging about her idea to threaten parents with prosecution if their children missed too much school.
Yes Harris did help that women get access to services, but she also charged her with a crime which I can imagine compounded her stress and made her life even more of a living hell than it already was. My own mother is unemployed, mentally ill and trying to raise my 13 year old sister by herself so I have some insight into what that kind of life can be like. If my mom was charged with a crime because my sister missed too much school it would totally wreck her mentally and emotionally.
I found Harris' attitude to be incredibly paternalistic, hence why I wrote that she thinks "poor people are too stupid for their own good".
Re: Democrat 2020
Husar, don't you have anything to say about changing the culture of the German SPD or other left parties? Aren't they "neoliberalized" too? I think it's up to us to handle America; Germany and Europe are also deserving topics/spaces.
Let's say for argument's sake homelessness takes different forms in different places. But in abstract, the underlying principle is complementarity, as in the meeting the immediate needs of homeless people and the trying to reform the underlying economic and social forces contributing to homelessness is the object of interest.And with homelessness specifically, while you may feel that many of the principals are 'undeserving' or otherwise marginal, meeting them with blanket contempt and mistrust is not productive, nor does it suggest you have faith that the underlying problems can be impinged on by whatever transformative politics you favor. In other words, that you're covering for cynicism and disregard of a problem you don't rate highly in its own right. If this isn't the case, the same delegation to reformers you accept with respect to the details of the broadest challenges you should be able to accept with respect to the limited ones.
1. It is possible to talk about more than one thing at once, especially if these items are related to each other (just a somehow controversial e.g. American plutocrats buying politicians vs. Russian/Chinese plutocrats buying politicians - they're all plutocrats united by class interest)I was saying that starting with the "wrong" agenda items means you will make much slower progress or no progress at all.
2. There are many groups and organizations in civil society and government that can speak or act on specific or general issues. They can act in concert or independently. Many people doing many things, in other words.
You have a very videogame-like idea of focus. It's not just one centralized actor doing everything everywhere in top-down fashion. It's not a 4X game. Points are not doled out along a slider to achieve a discrete and fixed result. Saving 5 months on researching planetary shelters does not prolong the discovery of plasma cannons by a year. Life is also not like an anime. You don't accomplish anything just by wanting it very hard, or channeling your passion and energy into a physical manifestation.
For example, successful Democrats generally ran campaigns tailored to what their constituents cared about. If your constituents strongly want Trump impeached, promote impeaching Trump. If many of your constituents are uncomfortable about impeachment, just don't mention it. On the national level in 2018, the Democratic "establishment" promoted unified messaging on healthcare issues and the failure of the Republican tax law. Having people working on all levels toward common, related, or even parallel goals, without being obsessed over the perfect single message for everyone to repeat like a robot, is therefore both sensible in concept and empirically supported.
You seem to think Democrats in DC are all just standing around screaming about "transgender bathrooms" or the existence of racism without offering solutions. Each politician has their own areas of interest, but most of them merely agree that transgender rights deserve protection and that racism is indeed real. Thus they're part of the Democratic Party, or at least allied 3rd party/independent, and not a Republican. Activist groups and lobbyists will work with particular relevant politicians to develop relevant legislation, which (in theory) then gets input/voted on by the rest of the caucus. The same with issues of foreign policy, education, energy, finance, really anything. There's quite a lot going on at any given moment.
Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders have been pushing on the issue of US support of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and trying to get votes diminishing or withdrawing US support since 2017. They've constantly failed, but over time they've gained support and now a vote in the House is supposed to go ahead imminently that the Khanna is confident will pass in the House, and Sanders thinks could pass in the Senate. (Whether Trump will sign it is another question.) Would you say they have been wasting their time by "focusing" on the "wrong" things?
The only thing we really ought to have up for debate is what should receive the most emphasis on the national level, and crucially what premises should be advanced in that emphasis. For example, we might agree with Ocasio-Cortez that billionaires shouldn't really exist, and so we would want the national level to emphasize that vision of society as part of the party platform on economic policy. This doesn't take away space for other people to talk about other things, or even in a different way if necessary; the movement must be big-tent to be representative, popular and effective.
Ah, but Obamacare has set the stage, at least in popular consciousness, for Medicare for All. Obviously healthcare has been a major political issue for long before the ACA. The 1990s, in fact. Actually, the 1980s. Actually, the last gasp of the New Deal in the 1970s when there was some effort to, among other reforms, introduce universal healthcare. It's a long process. The historical moment as a whole matters a lot, but it's also clear that the fight over the passage and implementation of the ACA has furthered the conversation and made the idea of, in Kamala Harris' wordsSee Obama care, which was some weird compromise that barely got through, still faces opposition trying to dismantle it again anddidn't really help everyone. Yes, it's better than before, better than nothing, but how long did it take you to get this half-arsed bandaid? When was the last major healthcare reform before it?
much easier to swallow. Even to the point that most Republicans say they want something like universal health coverage. (Though if you check the link with the Harris quote, polling shows Americans don't want Medicare for All if it means eliminating private insurance, but setting that aside for now...).Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on.
Also, yes, the Obamacare has helped most of the US population somewhat, and many tens of millions a whole lot. It would have done even better if one of the most conservative Dems at the time, Joe Lieberman, vowed to withhold his vote (necessary for passage IIRC) unless the public insurance option was removed. That was just one dick. So it's strange of you to say it didn't help everyone, when the people who benefited most from extended adult child coverage on family plans, expanded Medicaid, and market subsidies were exactly the people who needed it most (low-income earners). And I'm pretty sure curtailing of discrimination on basis of pre-existing conditions benefitted almost everyone. This is where your desire for universalism runs aground, as I've been trying to relate. If it helps many people, whether or not it's a broad cross-section of society, that's a good thing. All or nothing is a child's idea of politics, especially if you personally don't get hurt either way.
Did you know that not all gay people are even interested in marriage? Just like fewer people in general are interested in marriage these days! But it was an important fight, and it had downstream effects of totally changing the culture on many related issues, including individual attitudes to queer people. Think about how much easier life is in most of the country (and in Europe and Australia btw, these movements took place there as well) for a young lesbian or non-conforming person. Totally unrelated to marriage, but still so valuable. A little over 10 years ago people were still calling each other gay in school, not as a way of labeling people but as a pure insult. Because "ghey" = lame, and no one wants to be thought of as ghey! The word flowed like water from the mouths of K-12 students. Now at least most kids know that (and hopefully why) this is bad behavior. It's not like only pre-existing liberals were affected, attitudes changed among all generations, races, and political leanings (though obviously less for pre-existing conservatives). And that was just one movement. Not such a waste of time now, huh?Yes, you got gay marriage.
To reiterate, you can't even be concerned that politicians were "distracted" because most of them, even Democrats, opposed it almost until the last minute. If anything, you should be praising the few who were at the vanguard in Congress (as well as the state politicians who acted early to pass laws) for their contributions to the national and international cause, a successful cause that continues to bring all kinds of positive externalities.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
They're not single issue activists, unless you think a socialist is a single-issue activist because they too want "justice".Anyway, I guess reforming the justice system is close to the core issues, but why would it have to be spearheaded by black people, who also appear (from how they're described, I could be wrong) like single-issue activists?
Since the justice system and political discourse has always had a special relationship to black people, such as in the Jim Crow South when the law was used to re-enslave many rural blacks (economic slavery + actual slavery through the 13th Amendment exemption for criminal penalties). It makes perfect sense for black people to play a prominent role, which is not at all to say that no other groups are stakeholders or participants. You could say it is precisely out of their unique experiences that the black community has produced the loudest voices for universal reform. Somewhat similarly, are you surprised that the industrial proletariat themselves played a role in agitating for labor rights, that it wasn't all just bourgeois intelligentsia writing about it? Or even more pertinently, that it wasn't just the industrial laborers protesting, it was agricultural workers too, and later on service workers. Factory workers weren't the only workers that mattered, you see.
Of course it can backfire, as with many black leaders in the Reagan-Clinton years agitating in response to the crime waves of the era in favor of the state and federal reforms that ultimately contributed most to mass incarceration and the War on Drugs, which as noted had an outsized effect on their demographic. Rest assured, however, that black leadership and activists as well as much of the rest of the country has moved considerably left on these issues as a result of experience and public outreach (a little like the queer rights movement!).
Indeed, if you read the Black Lives Matter manifesto it's pretty much interchangeable as a call for socialism. Though it was obviously prepared by academics who may represent themselves better than the common black person with their words. But anyway...
Sanders on "racial justice"Sometimes people just sound like Harris is a better candidate than Sanders simply because she is black and because she is less focused on social justice ("Sanders is too extreme"). Well, if you think about it, prison reform is about social justice as well and I don't see how being extreme is a bad thing when Trump was voted in for being so extreme. He's extreme in the wrong way, but it's not like noone wants extreme changes.
I don't see on Harris' site a full platform description, but from what I've read there's not really much daylight between Sanders' stance and hers (in reference to "Physical Violence" subsection). There's nothing particularly radical from either of them, compared to the BLM platform:
Until we achieve a world where cages are no longer used against our people we demand an immediate change in conditions and an end to all jails, detention centers, youth facilities and prisons as we know them.
Getting back on the subject of eliminating private insurance that Harris raised, and it's unpopularity (most people like their insurance and are scared of change), I would offer a perspective through my theory of "incremental revolution". Without hugely expanding my post, let's say for now it's exactly what it sounds like and is meant to develop a theoretical and instrumental response to the fact that very sudden and tumultuous revolutions have a 100% record of either descending into horrendous violence or being captured by powerful actors. In the latter scenario the outcome is usually dictatorship, and at best turns out as some kind of liberal democracy like in post-Soviet Europe. So revolution has to be incremental, but constant, to survive. So, we need a compromise over Medicare for All that meets these criteria. If we don't have political support to nullify all private insurance at a stroke and enroll the whole population in the national service (the insurance industry employs millions of people, by the way), then we need a shadow process to absorb everyone over time without overt action that freaks voters out. This is necessary because unless a sufficient cross-section of the public is incorporated the program doesn't have the chance to become a social monument like Social Security (or regular Medicare), an untouchable idol and to achieve true efficiencies of scale. I'm not the wonk to work out the details, but I see at least 5 components:
0. Start implementing the national service to include all pre-existing Medicare, Medicaid, and smaller programs plus the uninsured and early adopters (40-50% of the population). Where states or cities have already begun pursuing bespoke programs, try to incorporate them.
1. Repeal laws requiring employers offer insurance. Very popular with employers I'm sure, and indirectly ends most new private insurance plans on the group market because demand drops out.
2. Grandfather in existing insurance so as to not freak people out. Once people change jobs, they will lose that insurance, but will automatically be enrolled in the national service.
3. Desubsidize insurance companies/markets and take other measures to undercut them, perhaps such as by temporarily turbocharging the national service at a financial loss to government in order to outcompete ("crowd out") the individual market private insurers up front.
4. Federal jobs guarantee + Green New Deal to absorb the unemployed from the collapsed insurance industry.
I would try to calculate the timescale so that this all happens over ~10 years. Too fast, and there will be public outcry and the government will not be able to respond fast enough to the shocks to the economy, likely leading the left-wing government to lose momentum and elections, throwing the whole socialist project in disarray. Too slow, and the national service might be weakened by Republicans or plutocrat-funded propaganda may damage public commitment to the cause and identification as a national monument.
EDIT: It would be remiss of me to fail to note in all this, btw, that the Medicare for All bill (it's where I got some of my ideas) sponsored by Harris (and Warren, and Gillibrand, and even Booker) and Sanders has its primary mechanism for diminishing the role of private insurance the following:
Basically, most insurance companies will quickly have to shut down or diversify because they will only be allowed to sell the highest-tier benefits. My contribution is the sub rosa "nickel and dimeing" of the takeup by the population without requiring direct and disruptive timelines or transition periods. My outright cessation of employment coverage to new employees spurs a more organic transition.(a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date [after 4-year transition period]
24 described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—
1 (1) a private health insurer to sell health insur2 ance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided
3 under this Act; or
4 (2) an employer to provide benefits for an em5 ployee, former employee, or the dependents of an
6 employee or former employee that duplicate the ben7 efits provided under this Act.
Last edited by Montmorency; 01-31-2019 at 08:20.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Democrat 2020
Your entire post is too long for me to even read right now, maybe later.
But to what you wrote there: In Germany we don't jail people for smoking joints, in Germany we have much cheaper higher education, In Germany we have a better healthcare system, we have better unemployment benefits, we don't have any politicians calling for rebuilding the Westwall and we have people telling us we should be more like the US and people who already made some of our policies more like the US.
So even if we forget that this topic is about the next democrat candidate and not the next SPD candidate (they don't have any good ones anyway), shaping US politics is important, because Germany is copying the empire anyway, though usually with a considerable time lag depending on the topic. No taxation without representation.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: Democrat 2020
So, Euroweenies kick back while the Americans save the day? Will do.Your entire post is too long for me to even read right now, maybe later.
But to what you wrote there: In Germany we don't jail people for smoking joints, in Germany we have much cheaper higher education, In Germany we have a better healthcare system, we have better unemployment benefits, we don't have any politicians calling for rebuilding the Westwall and we have people telling us we should be more like the US and people who already made some of our policies more like the US.
So even if we forget that this topic is about the next democrat candidate and not the next SPD candidate (they don't have any good ones anyway), shaping US politics is important, because Germany is copying the empire anyway, though usually with a considerable time lag depending on the topic. No taxation without representation.
Lot of odd premises that could use expansion here.
Trump is not a joke. He is what the Republican voter wanted. Arrogance is believing that a party you aren't (I assume) part of should automatically share your values and proceed from them to rejecting Trump.
Clinton was the safe bet.
Last edited by Montmorency; 02-01-2019 at 03:26.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Democrat 2020
I disagree. Race is a corrolate, not causative.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks