|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
VitalSigns posted:It should not be deemphasized, we can do both, the platform has no maximum length. There are many many leftists who will go on and on about how idpol is bad and terrible and will say that white working class people are totally not racist and if we only stopped focusing on 'thing' we could get universal health care. These people are also not your ally.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
The argument against idpol is in fact an argument against a specific phenomenon where impossible demands are deliberately made of universally beneficial, but "controversial" policies to meet a popular quorum - unless all agents in the infinite fractal network of minority groups express an explicit endorsement of a policy, it is not legitimate, no matter what its effects would be. This is not done out of concern for minorities, but out of fear of losing one's own political ground by allowing reforms to take place. This should be apparent from the fact that it is crucially ALWAYS a strategy spearheaded by affluent whites who have the most to lose (in the short run) from progressive policies, while minority groups hardly ever endorse the same "principled" hardline stance. It needs to be distinguished from inviting minority political participation, which all progressives encourage. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:How are you defining idpol? I'm not super familiar and it seems to mean different things to different people. People who have been hosed over by neoliberalism feel the same way about trivializing econpol. Hillary gave people who were concerned about economic issues a lot to be concerned about. Especially given how she handled the primary. Trump was an obvious conman but the conman saying "I'll help you" is more attractive than the person saying "I don't need your vote, go gently caress yourself." At best, that makes people stay home. At worst, it makes people stop caring about economic issues and focusing purely on identity issues. Given how the electoral college works, identity politics is going to win you national elections. Especially if you are actively attacking people's economic interests (which, fairly or unfairly, Hillary was framed as doing). Anyone on the economic left worth listening to and everyone anywhere even close to the national stage has a strong commitment to identity politics. I'd argue they have a stronger commitment than the centrist "Now that gay marriage not only has an overwhelming majority in approval rating and has been tested by a sitting president, I am also for it and by the way I was also always secretly for it but never spoke out in favor of it and only spoke vociferously against it as part of an elaborate long-term scheme to fool the rubes" part of the party. Affluent homosexuals and affluent passing Hispanics create a nice wedge group that the "socially liberal, economically conservative" wing of the Democratic Party can use to win critical primaries and critical donors. As an LGBT person, your rights will be rolled back by Republican theocrats. Running to the right leads you to their arms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:When someone says they're against idpol does that mean they think that the focus on minority rights should be de-emphasized in favor of leftist economic policies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No, absolutely not. Probably the best response of the bunch. The whole question was 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
For the record: Homosexuals in Florida voted for Bush in high enough numbers to swing the election for W. They were a bigger spoiler than Nader. Bigger than Buchannon ballots. That speaks to how narrow the whole thing was. But fearing the left and embracing the right from an idpol perspective doesn't make any sense unless you are a white nationalist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
The death of the New Deal coalition was the product of hippie boomers, feeling ashamed that they had to associate with dirty plebs, and becoming more accommodating to capitalism as they ascended into middle management. Yet, they still carried the desire to 'change the world', but it's absent any rigorous framework of how to achieve that (as provided by, for example, marxism). So what you end up with is a series of ineffectual, weak and mostly symbolic reforms that fail to address the real problem, and further entrench the status quo. Eg - Hillary Clinton Owned Slaves, and provided cover (and received a lot of funding from) the private prison system - all the while pretending to give a poo poo about black people. Both Clintons didn't give a poo poo about LGBT until the public was already on-side on the issue - LGBT is a case of the public becoming more accepting of them well before the political class did. All Hillary did is follow the wind. Or take our thread example: Jefferson Clay has defended sweatshops because 'jobs'. That is the horizon of these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
But how can I trust my actual allies, despite some issues with intersectionality, as opposed to my fairweather allies that love me while I'm popular? It's a conundrum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:There are many many leftists who will go on and on about how idpol is bad and terrible and will say that white working class people are totally not racist and if we only stopped focusing on 'thing' we could get universal health care. Who? Could you give me a list of prominent anti-gay progressive Democrats so I and Deadly Muffin can vote against them in the primary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The death of the New Deal coalition was the product of hippie boomers, feeling ashamed that they had to associate with dirty plebs, and becoming more accommodating to capitalism as they ascended into middle management. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
OK everybody, calm down. I think we have the "Röhmans" back in our tent. Let's be gentle and not gloat. After 2020 we'll be able to send them off to conversion camps so they can be taught to make children for our paradise. But we need to be subtle and know when to back off. Heil Hitler, the only true leftist ever and also the person anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton most wants to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:There are many many leftists who will go on and on about how idpol is bad and terrible and will say that white working class people are totally not racist and if we only stopped focusing on 'thing' we could get universal health care. Minorities every bit as capable of racism, intolerance and not least of all "gently caress you, got mine".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:How are you defining idpol? I'm not super familiar and it seems to mean different things to different people. Fair question, since idpol is used pretty loosely quite often. :P Idpol is using demographic identities as a basis for politics over things like ideology or economic concerns. Idpol sees the Democrats as an alliance of minorities joining together with allies/woke majorities to advance their aligned interests. Kinda like the LGBT community but for more types of minorities. It's an alliance based on aligned self-interest rather than any underlying ideology. This is not actually by itself a problem but because of the 2 party system you're forced to have a big tent so you have these people who are in the tent mainly because of their demographics combined with people who are actually ideologically left (along with people who are both of course). Again, not a problem by itself as the goals of both groups should align, but it does afford a crack for unscrupulous people to shove a wedge into. Both leftists and minorities have to vote Democrat to vote in their interests pretty-much regardless, so theoretically you can just burn one side of this divide as long as your side is stronger in the primaries. The big problem I had with the Hillary and her supporters' approach is in vilifying Bernie and his supporters by painting them as not part of the idpol alliance. They didn't treat it as two members of a single party with different focuses. They didn't say Bernie was a little weak on social justice and Hillary would do better there. They set up sides and then went about demonising the other side, forcing a split in the party along the lines they laid out. I honestly think a lot of the current anti-idpol sentiment on the left exists because of Hillary's campaign and I've softened my hard view on it since realising it was my reacting so harshy to her campaign more than to idpol as a whole. Basically it's only bad when it's used as a tool to suppress the left, and unfortunately the corporatists have been using it like that. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The death of the New Deal coalition was the product of hippie boomers, feeling ashamed that they had to associate with dirty plebs, and becoming more accommodating to capitalism as they ascended into middle management. The New Left turned against New Deal liberalism because the primary proponents of New Deal liberalism were also the primary supporters of the Vietnam War. The larger public turned against it because of inflation and racial panic. quote:Yet, they still carried the desire to 'change the world', but it's absent any rigorous framework of how to achieve that (as provided by, for example, marxism). Honestly, old school liberalism had a pretty clear vision of how to ameliorate racism through government action but trying to pursue these policies while also fighting an insane open ended and basically genocidal conflict in Vietnam destroyed any chances of success and the inherent racism of a large part of the population didn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
First of all it's important to define what we mean wen we use a term like identity politics because it means completely different thing to different people. For right now, let's define identity politics as those which place the emphasis of organizing and political work on the basis of personal identities which individuals ascribe themselves too. When people talk about the failures of identity politics, on the left at least, we are not specifically saying that it is wrong to advocate for specific identity groups, but that in doing so we must work in solidarity. Solidarity meaning that we work together for the benefit of all oppressed peoples. We cannot for example end black oppression by selling out or oppressing the LGBTQ population for example. When people malign idpol, they are usually referring to the liberal conception of advocating for marginalized groups without that solidarity. A good example is with Chelsea Manning, where none of the major lgbtq rights orgs really tried to help her cause while Obama was in office specifically because they expected concessions from him on issues like gay marriage and didn't want to lose their seat at the table by advocating for a cause that might bring shame or negative attention on his administration. This is bad because my only were they willing to abandon someone who should be within the identity group itself, but also because it showed an unwillingness to stand with the anti-war movement and activists which did try to highlight the injustice Chelsea manning suffered. This is what people usually mean when arguing against idpol, the idea that we can advocate for specific identity groups to the exclusion or at the exclusion of others. This is why it's important to combine social and economic justice issues, because we cannot liberate all people without addressing and fighting for all forms of oppression in solidarity with one another. The democrats though usually sow dissension by selling out key constituents to gain power or presence for other constituencies. Many posters here have highlighted how the dems have sold out labor for decades to focus on issues of social justice which has alienated large swathes of oppressed individuals within the labor movement. At the same time, we see that their overtures for social justice are equally hollow as Clinton herself was very publicly against gay marriage when she was a senator and now it has come to light that she used slave labor while in the governors mansion. This is why idpol as I defined it is dangerous, because it breeds opportunism and undermines solidarity and intersectionality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:We should study Trump voters for why they vote the way they do, but why involve them in strategy discussions? Same, but Hillary voters. Like, if you pencil in the box for the slave owner should we really allow you on team social progress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Perhaps demonizing Hillary voters, of which there were more than Bernie voters, may not be the best way for the Bernie wing to achieve ascendancy
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Maybe demonizing voters is a stupid tack to take regardless of who they voted for, especially when both of their choices were complete dog poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Also don't blame Hillary voters, they just voted for her due to their economic anxiety
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Stealth Tiger posted:Is this the time to discuss yesterday's gubernatorial primary in New Jersey? Surprise! The Goldman Sachs guy who has negative charisma is getting my party 's nod! I feel like we all have learned a lot, lol. I hope he loses the general
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Many Hillary voters, I assume, are good people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
I voted Hillary because she was the flaming pile of dogshit we've already had rather than the larger, more volatile and exotic flaming pile that Trump is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Same, but Hillary voters. Like, if you pencil in the box for the slave owner should we really allow you on team social progress? twodot fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:In general, yes, obviously. There's a bunch of voters that completely reasonably thought Clinton was their least bad choice Not talking about the presidential vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Yes, you misunderstood what I posted. I'm sorry all...I gotta comment on this...I can't let it go. I'm sorry, but if you couldn't parse the long game implications of having a complete political neophyte con-man...who is backed...or rather, leveraged by the Republican party in the position of having to pick SCOTUS seats, then someone failed to instruct you on what's important here. Either that or you are so willfully dense that you didn't realize it. You're talking about the chance at public spending vs. the very legal right for organized labor to exist and have power. We could have elected a shoe for the Presidency...as long as it didn't have an R next to it's name because at worst....WORST...with a Clinton administration you're getting a mildly pro-labor, tepid centrist to replace Scalia (Hint: Merrick Garland) and at best you're getting another young person that's reliably lefty like Sotomayor or Kagan. Now, if Ginsburg happens to die or retire, labor is dead. As in, capital will have ultimately clawed back every last thing that progressives have extracted out of it for the last almost 120 years. As in, the death certificate has already been filled out as of today, it is just waiting to be signed. No union member and no skilled or unskilled worker can claim that Trump is better from a rational self-interest standpoint. If you do, you are stupid. Not misinformed...plain loving stupid...and there is no amount of wordsmithing or rationalizing going on in your head that changes that fact. There is no gamble here, if you honestly believed that, you are a loving moron when it comes to understanding these things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:I voted Hillary because she was the flaming pile of dogshit we've already had rather than the larger, more volatile and exotic flaming pile that Trump is. Me too but that's not what drives people to the polls. Hillary was great at depressing democratic turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Many Hillary voters, I assume, are good people. Absolutely not. Voting for Hillary was a vote in favor of slavery, as was a vote for Trump. You betrayed your country if you voted in the last election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Absolutely not. Voting for Hillary was a vote in favor of slavery, as was a vote for Trump. The only moral choice was writing in Jeremy Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:The only moral choice was writing in Jeremy Corbyn. The only moral choice was taking your own life with a sword and writing BERNIE on the ballot with your own blood. Also I keep forgetting this thread isn't in C-SPAM even though it deserves to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Not talking about the presidential vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Comey 2020
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Also don't blame Hillary voters, they just voted for her due to their economic anxiety 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Just a reminder that the equivalent to this moment in the watergate scandal happened nearly a full year after the story broke. Trump has been in office 139 days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:So, you're what? Talking about her Senate run? If you're going keep quoting to me can you at least explain why what you're saying is related to my point that we probably shouldn't invite literal Republican voters to discussions on reforming the Democratic party? The primary? Really I'm just trying to illustrate that because someone made a stupid vote doesn't make them not worth listening to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The primary? Really I'm just trying to illustrate that because someone made a stupid vote doesn't make them not worth listening to. edit: I'm certainly not trying to imply that primary Clinton voters are bad people, just that they aren't productive members in a conversation about how to steer the Democratic party away from politicians like Clinton. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Perhaps demonizing Hillary voters, of which there were more than Bernie voters, may not be the best way for the Bernie wing to achieve ascendancy I think there's a stark difference between people who supported Hillary in the primary and people who supported her and put significant effort into attacking Sanders/leftists. The latter I've found to generally be extremely insufferable and composed mostly of people who are, at the very least, quite financially secure themselves. I don't really mind the Hillary supporters who just thought "Sanders seems like a good guy, but I think Hillary would be better because X, Y, and Z", even if I disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
There are plenty of people who bought into the "electability" line. Likewise, some people (like my Mother) really admire Hillary's 3rd wave feminism and what she has accomplished. She is especially fond of her time as First Lady and the Clinton years in general. Plus she really wanted a female President instead of an old dude. Each of those can be worked with and she reliably votes D anyway and wants a big Dem tent. The "We don't need your vote" Hill-shills are the issue and they need to be expunged ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
I'm guilty as charged on the electability line even though Sanders basically hits all my happy buttons when it comes to labor. I just could not see the general electorate going for him in the moment during the primary. Now, a good year after the fact, I'm more convinced that he would have shown better in the rust belt, but I don't know what would have happened with dropoff in other areas. I had a disturbing number of union members that would say they really liked how he stumped for common people but then they'd immediately associate him with some crap that FN and other sources had injected into their heads about the evils of Socialism. I actually had people that wouldn't know Venezuela from a hole in the wall bringing up that as a talking point about how they wouldn't quite pull the lever for him. That' got me scared, honestly...and I defaulted to what I knew, being raised by boomers as a late member of GenX that was a kid in the 80's: Mainly that it would be impossible to overcome that Red-Scare, mid-century anti-communist programming that had basically saturated American life for decades. I just didn't think he could overcome it...and that's before trying to appeal to other out-groups that the D's and left usually appeal to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:She is especially fond of her time as First Lady and the Clinton years in general. Honestly, I think this was a huge factor. Most voters don't examine a candidate's policies and compare them or whatever. I think that, for a very large number of voters, they just thought "the 90's were good when Bill was president. Maybe Hillary will do whatever he did and make things as good as they were in the 90's."
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:I'm guilty as charged on the electability line even though Sanders basically hits all my happy buttons when it comes to labor. I just could not see the general electorate going for him in the moment during the primary. Now, a good year after the fact, I'm more convinced that he would have shown better in the rust belt, but I don't know what would have happened with dropoff in other areas. I had a disturbing number of union members that would say they really liked how he stumped for common people but then they'd immediately associate him with some crap that FN and other sources had injected into their heads about the evils of Socialism. I actually had people that wouldn't know Venezuela from a hole in the wall bringing up that as a talking point about how they wouldn't quite pull the lever for him. That's kinda why the Bernie woulda won meme exists. The electibility argument needs to be killed with fire. And also to vent/rub it in people's faces. But at least some of it is making the case that no it was not the right move to vote Hillary for electibility reasons unless you had literally seen the future (which of course was not applicable this time because then you'd have seen her lose).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 18:49
|
|