2020 Democratic presidential primary

All I'm pointing to is that this winds up becoming a bad faith argument sometimes in the hands of liberal and centrist politicians -- " "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism?"

If by "historic usage of liberal" you mean "19th century definition of liberal," then it's close to what I see from people further left.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:49 AM (twenty-four seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFvhhCulaw

Literally everything becomes a bad faith argument for someone; that doesn't make it an invalid argument or a concern unworthy of consideration.

Sure, but saying, in a presidential primary thread "The left ignores the economic concerns of black Americans just like back in the day" seems like a distortion if the (white) left does so no more than any other (white) part of the political spectrum

yeah what about the white republicans

A couple of the more savage anti-Clinton voters in fall '16 did cover themselves in spittle while yelling on my FB wall about Hil the Corporate Shill who's dying to sell off queer people. Not once did they show their concern during the primaries. Fuck'em.

I feel I have every right to be suspicious when someone yells "break up the big banks" and I say "I agree but let's make sure we don't adversely hurt minorities in comparison to white people when we do it" and the response I get is "why does everything have to be about race"

^^^ otm

given the classes that their ideology prioritizes, the left ignoring the economic concerns of black americans stings way more than my shallow expectations for neolibs and centrists

"working class Americans" never includes "black working class Americans"

And I also don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend time criticizing the obvious and well-documented failings of the modern right on race on a thread titled "2020 Democratic presidential primary"

If you're going to come at me with some "but Democrats aren't on the left" nonsense, we don't really have anything to discuss

Sure, but saying, in a presidential primary thread "The left ignores the economic concerns of black Americans just like back in the day" seems like a distortion if the (white) left does so no more than any other (white) part of the political spectrum

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 10:54 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Wouldn’t it be that people have expectations with the spectrum of the left when it comes to racial issues?

only when it's a media dipshit trying to explain Trump America does "working class" equal white. Leftists go out of their way to note that the actual working class isn't majority-white or majority-male.

"working class Americans" never includes "black working class Americans"

^I hear this all the time and it's true in many cases, but surely more people are conscious that it does and must, compared to 3-4 years ago?

xp

Yes, I've seen improvements in media coverage.

To me it also feels like ‘working class americans’ never includes immigrants.

I feel I have every right to be suspicious when someone yells "break up the big banks" and I say "I agree but let's make sure we don't adversely hurt minorities in comparison to white people when we do it" and the response I get is "why does everything have to be about race"

― brigadier pudding (DJP), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 9:56 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Is there an argument that breaking up the big banks would actually disproportionately hurt minorities? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question, but I don't think that was what Clinton meant and I've also never heard it before.

You do understand the historical context of how virtually every major American policy has been instituted at the expense of minorities, particularly black and native people, right?

No, I actually don't understand what you're talking about here, that's a highly vague and general statement that doesn't respond to what I asked, sorry.

i.e., yes in a general sense I understand that and no here I don't see what point you're making

To take one example (not related to banking): the New Deal's existence required a coalition comprised in part by Southern Dem racists who made sure black Americans saw little to nothing of the program's benefits.

IE DJP is saying "I agree but let's make sure we don't adversely hurt minorities in comparison to white people when we do it <s>as happens every fucking time</s>"

bah, teach me to keep out of US politics threads.

Would there not also be adverse effects to black and native communities by leaving things as-is or, as per usual, things are further deregulated?

New Deal carve-outs noted, but I’m not sure how that would work in 2019, particularly at the fed level and with Warren or Bernie in charge.

perhaps things that were implemented at the state or local level...?

the New Deal's existence required a coalition comprised in part by Southern Dem racists who made sure black Americans saw little to nothing of the program's benefits

and then abandoned the coalition by the mid-30s in part because they understood that the new structures of power the new deal was creating endangered southern white supremacy safeguards or no

Any changes in a banking system could lead to unintended consequences like even less home ownership for minorities. It could be a question of suddenly higher rates because fractured banks would be less willing to take risks, which would expand bias against minorities trying to take out loans. It could be many other things. Maybe nothing happens. The point here is about a holistic approach in which every point of view needs to be addressed, so it’s a bit odd that one would be defensive about race vs class when thinking about the policy when it’s still very abstract and upstream.

nah, the South loved that federal boodle! That's why they got so many Army bases. WWII was another federal program.

https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

I mean sure (and I'm aware of the new deal history), but again it's just a weird point to suddenly bring up whenever leftist policies are raised when the same is equally or more true of other policies. I mean, I don't hear pro-Syria-interventionist liberals discussing the fact that minorities disproportionately serve in the military.

Also, the New Deal wasn't leftist.

lol "suddenly"

Also, did you mean to undermine your "why are you only criticizing leftist policy" argument by pointing out that the New Deal, which we are criticizing, wasn't leftist?

it's just a weird point to suddenly bring up whenever leftist policies are raised when the same is equally or more true of other policies

"what about these other [x]"

no, it's not whataboutism to ask why race seems to get used as a cudgel against Bernie by people who support candidates whose policies are actually arguably worse for minorities

They aren't.

Maybe you should let the 51% of Bernie's supporters who are non-white know that

And I’m sure they are very happy that you are here to speak for them

Nobody thinks the policies of their fav candidate are worse than others for minorities. Everyone will use that cudgel, like you just did.

Bernie (and left policy in general) seems to understand the lesson of the New Deal and Great Society pretty well - universal programs are absolutely necessary to attempt to avoid the discrimination of the past. Means testing and targeting allow the "welfare queens with Cadillacs" bullshit to flourish and for programs to be dismantled because they only benefit/apply to the powerless.

^^^

milo otm

ok well we all agree on that at least

unless DJP was xp'ing. I mean whatever, this argument is always a sinkhole so I'm out of it. I have no argument with the claim that new deal era policies excluded minorities. Clinton-era policies also disproportionately harmed minorities. And I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be concerned that policies enacted today can disproportionately harm minorities, as is not uncommonly the case. I don't think that Bernie is any less conscious of that than other candidates, arguably moreso than at least some, so I just don't get why this keeps coming up as a charge against the left specifically, unless it's truly out of a sincere "we need to demand better of ourselves" kind of thing.

It's true that the history of the left in the US includes plenty of shameful incidences where communists or other leftists threw racial justice under the bus, and this is an especially remarkable failure in a country built on genocide, slavery, and settler colonialism. This blindness or even callous disregard is not an inbuilt, inevitable feature of american leftism though, and you can also find plenty of examples of leftist groups and movements that put racial justice at the forefront of their anti-capitalist actions (e.g. the Black Panthers in the mid-20th century and the Black Socialists of America today).

I tend to think that today's organized left in the US is largely NOT blind or callous on issues of race, and does hold racial justice as a key, non-negotiable part of their platform. Certainly the DSA does.

Bernie (and left policy in general) seems to understand the lesson of the New Deal and Great Society pretty well - universal programs are absolutely necessary to attempt to avoid the discrimination of the past. Means testing and targeting allow the "welfare queens with Cadillacs" bullshit to flourish and for programs to be dismantled because they only benefit/apply to the powerless.

The bigger point is that this isn't a position unique to Sanders and holding him up as if he is the only person who actually means it is, at best, disingenuous, particularly when three years ago Sanders spent a lot of time and money campaigning on a platform that rather expressly showed that he DIDN'T hold that position, or if he did it was through the prism of "black = poor, ergo helping the poor = helping black people"

And I will reiterate; he has improved dramatically on this issue. I don't have the same problems with him that I did in 2016. I can't speak for everyone who had those issues with him and I can't fault people who still don't trust him or his ability to deliver given the weight of this country's historical record.

I don’t know, some targeting programs like affirmative action seems absolutely necessary to me, so is some form of reparations. If one reduce the amount of aid minorities can receive in the hope of silencing bad faith arguments catering to racists, I think that’s pretty bad. And it’s not like the target of such bad faith arguments isn’t the whole of the universal program anyway.

xpost to milo

The bigger point is that this isn't a position unique to Sanders and holding him up as if he is the only person who actually means it is

It kind of is - universality is very much a dividing line between the policies Sanders proposes and anyone other than (to some extent) Warren. The Democratic Party leadership is still very much in love with means testing.

Dems still reeling from the Reagan years.