Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats and silos: What to fight for? Hint—everything (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that may be... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, AoT, boofdah, congenitalefty

    but we don't have rich benefactors backing that fight. You read about the marriage equality battle and draw your conclusions on how to fight for an issue you care about. Money, focus and of course timing all come into play.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:58:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, if marriage equality is the model (13+ / 0-)

      then income inequality is never going to succeed because it can never get the broad support of the upper class the way that gay rights has. Look at HRC naming Dimon to it's board. How is that not a slap in the face to workers? And the idea that HRC, which is the biggest organization in this fight, is going to support any other movements is absurd.

      But I've been ringing this bell for a while and no one really wants to hear it.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 12:24:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So it's not a model for other issues? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enemy of the people
        •  I don't think it is (12+ / 0-)

          It's a unique situation in many ways. I mean, we can't really have a national campaign of people coming out as being poor, or in a union, or whatever. That alone changes things. And the organizations involved in gay rights were rather often very much about their issue and their issue only. To the extent that HRC purposely excluded trans people from laws that protected gay people.

          Certainly, there are plenty of progressives who do have across the board support for these sort of things, but how many people that fought for marriage equality are just going to drop out now and not fight about voters rights? I know people who have fought this fight and refuse to talk about economic problems. The whole thing basically consisted in empowering organizations that were top down through activism and then those organizations getting the credit when the victory came.

          How many progressives fully supported HRC despite their horrible politics? I saw plenty of support for them here. And obviously there are plenty of other folks who are going to keep on fighting, but it's terribly convenient that the first in what is suppose to be a long line of victories came as a victory that helps white dudes.

          I'm just very skeptical about this whole "we'll totally help once we win our thing" plan. That has very much been the definition of focusing on one thing at a time.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 12:47:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then we need to keep thinking (4+ / 0-)

            about how to win on the other issues.

            •  Debt is one thing that is a commonality (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              congenitalefty, Mimikatz, mad cat

              and something that we are often "in the closet" about that is closely tied to class and also has a lot of shame around it.

              Maybe that's a starting point?

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Losing Single Payer (4+ / 0-)

                Really set us back.  Can anyone defend the 55+ Medicaid Clawback?

                And what's so reprehensible about ObamaCare is that they force you into Medicaid. No options if that's how the eligibility plays out; if you want to risk a piece-of-crap policy so you can pass on your house to your kids, you can't do that. Yet another path to downward mobility! Of course, this only applies to the poorest, ObamaCare being ObamaCare.

                NOTE Yet one more reason why single payer Medicare for All is the only fair solution.

                Read through the comments and discover the clawback is the legacy of Bill Clinton with VP Al Gore breaking a tie to pass it.  Health care is no longer discussed other than occasional fluffing with ignores the real problems such as above.
                •  it isn't lost yet (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  states are looking at it. The Oregon legislature just voted to study it.

                  ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                  by James Allen on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:12:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Expand the VA and use it as a model (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Ongoing conditions are a big part of the rising costs of healthcare and the VA mostly deal with that. When funded well and run well they have a good success rate. The southwest region is a one of the best and people there know it so it would go over well. I'd bet a lot of people in the south probably have a decent opinion of it too.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:16:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Women's Issues (10+ / 0-)

              Women are getting more and more pissed.  Pissed about having their basic right's invaded.  It's mostly about birth control and abortion, but it has to do with power, control, and punishment of people who can be scapegoated.  Same basic abuse and bullying that underlies income inequality, voter suppression and racism, workers rights.  Women come in all colors ages and income brackets and they are getting more and more pissed and they can band together for a more just society, bringing along their male relatives and friends.  That's where I think the synergy is right now.  I live in Ohio and you should have seen the unlikely alliances between people that resulted in the annihilation of SB5.  People were PISSED and they got out, got together and kicked Kasich's ass (and a lot of them were Republicans, including some of my relatives, I was stunned).  There's that same energy potential brewing in response to the Republican war on women I think.    

              •  exactly. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jbsoul, congenitalefty, AoT

                and it isn't all about Hillary as i think someone suggested above.  it's about "us" everyday women.  we are in year three of a coordinated attack via the states thanks to the teabaggers.  

                so yeah, speaking specifically and generally, women are 'in.'

                "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                by kj in missouri on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:28:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The win we need is to get the money out of (0+ / 0-)

              political campaigns. Having to count on wealthy benefactors that are sympathetic to an issue isn't going to do much for the issues in which the wealthy feel unaffected.

          •  The Middle Class are hurting too though (5+ / 0-)

            If we can 'radicalize' a decent percentage....

          •  Why not? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Armando, AoT, FarWestGirl, mightymouse
            [W]e can't really have a national campaign of people coming out as being poor, or in a union, or whatever.
            And isn't that was OWS was, in part, all about?

            Don't most of us know and love someone who is poor or who is a proud union member or who has been hauled into a not-always-just legal system or is a non-believer or muslim or disabled or female or has had an abortion or is transgendered or old, etc.? I could be a "knower" or a "knowee" in more than one of these categories.

            What I can't honestly be is untouched by any of these people because I am the 99%,  as are most progressives.

            Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

            by mikidee on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 01:22:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I had a thought about getting poverty declared a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              disability to move poor people into a protected class.

              Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
              ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

              by FarWestGirl on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:25:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Partially because being poor is something (0+ / 0-)

              that has some obvious class differences. Perhaps union people too. But it's very different than coming out as gay. In those cases it's a matter of people who are otherwise incredibly close to you learning something. Poverty is very visible already in this society.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:30:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  A whole bunch of white dudes? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Come on now.

        •  It probably isn't (12+ / 0-)

          Andrew Cuomo, for example, pushed through a gay marriage bill in NY while adopting an economic platform that's well to the right of his father's.  GS getting a Coporate Equality award from the HRC and Chevron being the premiere sponsor of SF's AIDS Walk aren't transferable to other causes.  I can't quite see Chevron sponsoring a 350.Org event.

          Except for affirmative action, last week's key SCOTUS  decisions were basically all 5-4 rulings that were decided by 1 man.  Kennedy stuck w/ the GOP party line on 5th Amendment takings and on the VRA.  He broke w/ party orthodoxy on DOMA and Prop 8.  By doing so, he was able to burnish his credentials as a moderate while gutting voting rights and land regulation.

          It's not complicated.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 12:53:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think there were special circumstances which (6+ / 0-)

          basically centered around the Republicans first promoting the idea of gay marriage as a threat - which caused people to initially reject the idea - but the because the GOP just couldn't stop talking about it and were so extreme about it - people started to to think it through and say "who the fuck cares?  why shouldn't they be able to marry?"  

          That evolution in thinking gave the gay marriage activists an opportunity that I just don't think they would have ever had without the GOP going to such extremes.

          It is possible that the outright affronts against minorities and women will start to build momentum not just within activist circles, but to spread amongst a broader coalition - I think that we've already seen that on both fronts to a degree.

          But I am not so sure that activists working on poverty, income equality, and social safety net issues will be able to take advantage of GOP (and Democratic) affronts in the same way.  Mostly because no one is using the lead hammer to try to do the wrong thing on those issues (most of the action is more subtle in peeling back the social safety net onion); partly because there are complicit Democrats; and partly because those issues are believed to be complex (not that they really are, but most people are now convinced that they are than used to be).  

          The stark "right and wrong" of government action with respect to those issues are no longer as clear in the average American's mind.  

          Also seemingly less structured and uniform are the beliefs about those traditionally Democratic issues within the ranks of the Democratic Party which is a problem that I think probably aligns with the authors's thesis in the article you cite.

          I still think that it is ironic that most people in this country would not have even thought about whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry prior to their rolling out that cynical political ploy to drive their devoted to the polls in 2004.  Now a majority do think that it should be a right and that's all because they were in a perverse way that only the GOP could deliver given the opportunity to think about the concept.  If you beat up an underdog too mercilessly in America, there is a high probability that that underdog will eventually be perceived as a hero worth helping.  I think that this irony is quite sweet and I am very happy that gay rights have been advanced.

          •  I think that the LGBT movement (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            inclusiveheart, shaharazade

            baited republicans into that fight. They clearly positioned themselves on the other side of the culture war years ago and have been baiting the right ever since. Most of that baiting actually consisted of just being themselves in public, but it was enough. Perhaps baited is a bit much, but when you look at the language the right used it was certainly how they saw it. How to repeat that in other cases I don't know.

            If you beat up an underdog too mercilessly in America, there is a high probability that that underdog will eventually be perceived as a hero worth helping.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:50:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think they baited anyone actually. (4+ / 0-)

              We know from accounts that came from within the Republican Party that the concept of gay marriage as a "threat" was created and initiated by Karl Rove in a cynical ploy to keep his Bible thumpers engaged and active in the Republican Party.

              I remember when it first started to hit the news that we were all going to be "protected from gay marriage" by the Republicans and I remember laughing out loud because of DOMA and because there was no place in this country where gay people could legally marry at that time.  It was more fictitious threat fodder from the GOP.

              That opened the door for gay folks to ask why not; and for most normal people to come to think "well that's silly."

              •  Don't forget how Republicans (0+ / 0-)

                allowed gay marriage to go forward in Massachusetts in 2004, when they had the power to stop it.  Preserving the sanctity of marriage was less important than using it as a club to beat John Kerry with.

                Thanks, Republicans.

                The Constitution is a suicide pact.

                by happymisanthropy on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:29:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I want to hear it!! (7+ / 0-)

        It's safety net and civil liberties for me.  The marriage equality folks ran an outstandingly successful non-partisan campaign in our state and I applaud their victory.  Had they not proved successful, the DFL would not have had the confidence to pass the legislation.  So the movement came before the party.  I think that's what we may need on the economic issues.  

        The Democratic Party will not lead on economic issues and Hillary will probably be on the wrong side of almost all of them.  So let the movement begin!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site