How to fix the Democratic Party

[The Sisko]

On 5/16/2022 at 10:59 AM, philibusters said:

From a big picture perspective I think the biggest problem for the Democratic party is it lacks an identity.   In the 1970s for example,  the party at its core was a party for the working class.  After the party had a couple catastrophic elections in the 1980s they realized they needed to be able to raise more money and that meant making connections with corporate interests and educated professionals. At first I think it helped them raise more money, moved them to the middle, without really changing their identity.  But over time they slowly absorbed a lot of corporate viewpoints and now they are really neither the party of the working class, nor the party of the people.   They try to avoid class issues, but that makes them focus too much on identity politics.  I feel like a party of the people has to be somewhat balanced between class and identity issues, when it leans too much towards class, the party can start acting out prejudice policies, but when it becomes to identity politic focused, it risks focusing on mainly superficial issues and subtly becoming hostile to the working class.

The charges of identity politics is just more Republikkklan gaslighting. Don't fall for it. After all, I don't think identity politics gets much more extreme than that practiced by the Republikkklans.(see below) The whole idea that appealing to white male rage isn't identity politics is on it's face silly. However, on a more subtle level, it normalizes white men's  issues as just issues, while anything that affects any other group is so-called identity politics.

 

Later in the thread, you mentioned some of the books and/or articles that you've read. I'll have to check some of those out. I'd suggest you also read How the South Won the Civil War and There's Nothing For You Here for some really insightful takes.

 

On 5/16/2022 at 11:25 AM, Spaceman Spiff said:

The Democrats lack the awareness and the ability to stop having the Republicans hijack their messages.  

 

Sensible gun laws = "THEY'RE COMING FOR YER GUNS"

 

Pro choice = "MURDERING BABY KILLERS"

 

Gay marriage = "LETTING THE GAYS TAKE OVER OUR WAY OF LIFE"

 

Anything = "SOCIALISM"

 

I just think that they do a pathetic job of fighting back on all of their platforms and messaging.  They can't sell their ideas for ****, yet pretend to act like they're the smartest people around and you're a ****ing idiot if you can't grasp why our country would be a utopia if you'd only vote blue.  The problem is never "us, our party, and our messaging" it's always "you're ****ing stupid for not having the mental capacity to understand why we're the better option."

 

For the life of me, I'll never understand why Democrats/liberals think they can insult anyone who votes Republican and then wonder why people would be reluctant to come around to their point of view.  You don't have to look far on Twitter to see the very same people opining about how "Love wins, love triumphs," and "Buffalove" who are turning around and calling Republicans pieces of Fox News programmed pieces of ****.  

 

IMO, politics, like most things in life is sales.  If you can't sell your ideas, if you can't make people understand why you're clearly better than your opponent, that's your problem, not the people you're trying to win over.  

I agree with the first part of your post. When it comes to messaging and downright propaganda, the Grand Oligarch’s Party has been playing 3-D chess while the Dems are still mulling the opening move on their checkerboard. However, the whole understanding the (alt)right stuff is BS. It makes sense when the other side is genuinely willing to work with you in good faith to come up with equitable solutions. However, when their idea of an equitable solution is the "niggras" and "split tails" knowing their places in society, no amount of negotiating with and understanding them is going to work. For a window into what understanding them looks like and how it works out, just refer back to the aftermath of the Compromise of 1876.

 

On 5/16/2022 at 11:56 AM, Recovering_Spaz said:

 

The cynic in me believes the rich donors on the Democrat side pay them to stay away from the class issues that could impact the donor's bottom line in favor of identity politics (which are fine in moderation, but have come to define the party to most people that don't identify as Democrats.) 

 

Poor white voters are the key to returning to power in sufficient numbers to pass any meaningful agenda. To your point, the Democrats are simply not going to get those voters back without an identity change, and in the absence of a better option, class politics should be their play. 

I think rich donors have purchased both parties. When the Dems win, the oligarch's eat and when the Grand Oligarch’s Party wins, they feast. As for poor white voters, with the Dixiecrat migration from the Dems to the Grand Oligarch’s Party, poor whites put themselves in the unenviable position of prioritizing racial and culture war issues over policies that helped the poor. I hope that one day the Dems figure out that they're never going to get this constituency back. Therefore, the best strategy is to adopt the right's doctrine on income redistribution, i.e., rural assistance, and implement policies that will reduce these programs and by extension, the number of rural white voters. Some prime targets for severe budget cuts should be rural development assistance, crop insurance, rural broadband, and the critical access hospital program, among others. Let's see exactly how serious the Grand Oligarch’s Party is about cutting pork from the budget. Either rural whites will get the picture then, or they'll dwindle in number. I don't care which. In short, realpolitik is the only way the Dems can save democracy.

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by The Sisko

[Spaceman Spiff]

13 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

 

 

I agree with the first part of your post. When it comes to messaging and downright propaganda, the Grand Oligarch’s Party has been playing 3-D chess while the Dems are still mulling the opening move on their checkerboard. However, the whole understanding the (alt)right stuff is BS. It makes sense when the other side is genuinely willing to work with you in good faith to come up with equitable solutions. However, when their idea of an equitable solution is the "niggras" and "split tails" knowing their places in society, no amount of negotiating with and understanding them is going to work. For a window into what understanding them looks like and how it works out, just refer back to the aftermath of the Compromise of 1876.

 

 

 

Fair enough, but I think I did a poor job of describing the voter that they're trying to win over.  You're not going to win over the alt-right people.  Maybe a few, but not a lot of them.  

 

But my point remains that if the Democrats want to continually beat the Republicans, they have to get better with their messaging and how their ideas are packaged.  And, more importantly, fighting back against the Republicans when the Republicans hijack the messaging.  I just feel that no one on the Democrat side has any teeth.  

[Spaceman Spiff]

I meant to add on:  It's not the alt-right voter to win over.  It's the people who, (inexplicably, I might add) who didn't know whether or not to vote for Trump or Hillary.  Or Trump or Biden.  The ones that are on the fence, as annoying as they can be.  You want the Democrats to win them over in a way that they look back and can't believe they ever considered voting for a post McCain Republican.

[The Sisko]

7 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I'm still holding out hope that the Boomers are the last mostly conservative generation. 

You realize the Boomers are yesteryears’ Hippies, right?  Post Boomer generations’ long-term views might be shaped by the garbage heap of a country their MAGAT parents/grandparents leave them, but I wouldn’t bank on it. People tend to get conservative as they age. Part of preventing that is exploding conservative myths that people take for granted because they’ve heard them so much, e.g., tax cuts pay for themselves, being arbitrarily tough on crime reduces crime, everything liberal = socialism, etc. Unfortunately, as we’ve discussed, the Dems suck at messaging.

[philibusters]

I feel like each generations personality goes way beyond how conservative or liberal they are.   At this point Boomers may lean conservative in terms of politics, but the strongest personality traits which appear in both the liberals and conservatives are they are individualistic (they hate to be just a number), they are idealistic and tend to see the world in black and white, they are open to new experiences, they somewhat gritty and believe you have to make change happen, and they live for the moment (maybe not always saving as much money as they should or making the best personal decisions).  I think those traits are observeable in both liberal and conservative boomers.  Obviously there are lots of boomers that are the exact opposite, but as a whole that is kind of the personality traits I see them having.   For me, as an older millennial (1983), the trait that annoys me is that they see the world in black and white.  They see us younger generations as having a tendency to hedge and haw on moral issues, but I see them as being oblivious to nuance.   That said Generation Z, plus the youngest millennials have that same tenedency to see the world in black and white and try to view everything from a moral framework. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by philibusters

[NoCalMike]

I think part of the "people get more conservative as they get older" thing has less to do with actual politics and more to do with the mindf*** that is the reality that the world is passing you by, and you yearn for something that is never coming back.  I am going to be 42 this year and I sometimes suffer from this too, not so much with politics, but more when say something triggers a great memory from your 20's or teens or childhood, and then it sets in that time goes in the other direction and you have no say in it. 

 

All that is conflated into people getting more conservative, but in a way it's more that society is continuing to move forward. 

 

 

 

 

[Simmsy]

22 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

I think part of the "people get more conservative as they get older" thing has less to do with actual politics and more to do with the mindf*** that is the reality that the world is passing you by, and you yearn for something that is never coming back.  I am going to be 42 this year and I sometimes suffer from this too, not so much with politics, but more when say something triggers a great memory from your 20's or teens or childhood, and then it sets in that time goes in the other direction and you have no say in it. 

 

All that is conflated into people getting more conservative, but in a way it's more that society is continuing to move forward. 

 

 

 

 

Everytime I hear that, I have to disagree. I'm 38 and I have some mildly conservative views, but they haven't really changed over time. The spectrum of what is considered liberal or conservative has definitely been stretched much further than its ever been. Think of all of the dumb **** you have to say/believe to be considered a conservative today. Think about all of the "woke" stuff you have to say/believe to be considered liberal. Its widened quite a bit, especially in the last 5 years.

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Everytime I hear that, I have to disagree. I'm 38 and I have some mildly conservative views, but they haven't really changed over time. The spectrum of what is considered liberal or conservative has definitely been stretched much further than its ever been. Think of all of the dumb **** you have to say/believe to be considered a conservative today. Think about all of the "woke" stuff you have to say/believe to be considered liberal. Its widened quite a bit, especially in the last 5 years.

 

Political beliefs are relatively static but if people do shift they are more likely to become conservative than the other way around.

 

In addition, people tend to be more religious as they get older.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jssr.12183?casa_token=BNPkKGqvuusAAAAA:efSSu8jiCTdU2dG_zK2YAtfFB_2W9p4TcpB6LViSmKR9cTlxd6tHUked0UllKSKJDlzl-Bkx7E6pL2Fn

 

So what that means is that religious beliefs tend to dictate their votes more.

 

You can have somebody that would generally consider themselves a pro-life liberal (for environmental laws, for safety regulations of industry, against tax cuts for the rich, for healthcare reform but against most abortions) that when they are younger weigh those things about evenly and so often splits between Democrats or Republicans but as they get older the religious beliefs become more intense and so those things take priority and essentially always votes anti-abortion when they are older.

 

An older pro-life liberal is more likely to vote the pro-life part than the liberal part vs. their equivalent younger self.

 

(Though I do agree the idea what is liberal vs. conservative have shifted a lot recently so it will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.)

Edited May 19, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Simmsy said:

Think about all of the "woke" stuff you have to say/believe to be considered liberal

 

 

Things like "I think schools have the right to require children to be vaccinated"?  

 

"Racism exists in the US"?  

 

"The government should not discriminate against gays"?  

 

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Though I do agree the idea what is liberal vs. conservative have shifted a lot recently

 

[Simmsy]

5 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

Things like "I think schools have the right to require children to be vaccinated"?  

 

"Racism exists in the US"?  

 

"The government should not discriminate against gays"?  

 

 

No, that isn't "woke" thats just common sense. This board is pretty liberal, but if you run over to a couple threads about fat models on magazine covers or whether trans people should compete in sporting events with non trans people...we're not so "woke" anymore. I'm not going to get into those issues, but I think that is one of the far left issues that a lot of lefties don't identify with at all. At best, the answer is usually "I don't care" or "I at least don't want these hateful republicans deciding these laws".

 

Anyways, the examples you mentioned say more about what conservatives are willing to ignore than what it is to be a woke lefty.

[philibusters]

5 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

Things like "I think schools have the right to require children to be vaccinated"?  

 

"Racism exists in the US"?  

 

"The government should not discriminate against gays"?  

 

 

I don't think those positions would make you woke.

 

I think these positions are more what would make you woke:

1.   Ongoing structural racism is the cause of most racial inequality.

Analysis:  I think within the left the woke are separated from the non-woke by the belief ongoing structural racism is the cause of most racial inequality.  Most on the left believe racism is the cause of most racial inequality, but the non-woke see past racism as a bigger contributor than current racism.  This leads to differences in how to address racial inequality.  The woke want to root out structural racism in institutions and thus you see DEI initiatives in the workplace and changing school names and things like that.   The non-woke prefer more class based solutions focused on fighting poverty.

2.   Trans men or men and Trans women are women and should be treated and identified the same in all situations; young people can identify their gender and make decisions regarding their gender

 

Analysis:  Within the left and large part of the rights, there is widespread agreement we should not discriminate against gays.  That was the battle fought for half a century, but at this point its over and won.  About 70% of the population including slightly over half of Republicans support gay marriage for example.  Rather the woke vs. non-woke fight on the left is about trans issues.  The are two main issues, one that mainly deals with transwomen and one that mainly deals with transmen.  The issue that deals with transwomen is whether they should be treated as women in all respects like competing in sports and being allowed in places reserved for women.  Should a transwoman be housed at a male or female jail for example?   This has sub issues like if a transwoman is allowed to compete as a woman in sports or be in places reserved for women how far through the transition process most she be.  On hormones?  Surgery?  The woke position is transwomen should always be treated as women in the process even early in the transition process.    On the second issue that mainly involves transmen the issue is when should a person be allowed to get medical treatment to create a new trans identity.  When they are 12, 15, 18?   Over the past 10 years the amount of teenage trans people has risen a lot, but almost of the increase is teenage women who want to transition to men.  The woke position is that children and teenagers are in a position to decide if they want to start medical treatment to become trans whereas the non woke liberal position is more cautious.   A third issue is that just how non-woke liberals and woke liberals view gender.  Liberals and woke liberals both view gender behavior on a spectrum.  However, non-woke liberals distinguish between gender identity and gender behavior.  For example, liberals believe gender identity is basically a male and female binary even if gender behavior isn't.  For example a woman can exhibit some male behavior like enjoying sports, loving tattoos, having a sexual attraction to women, watching porn and see have 100% female gender identity despite displaying some male behaviors.  Whereas the woke tend to view gender behavior and identity as synonmous, so they would perhaps that the woman is unlikely to fall on the male female binary in terms of gender identity and that if she examined herself more closely she would likely find that she is trans.

 

The main issues of wokeism are:

1.  Race

2.  Sexism
3.  Trans issues

4.  Gay issues

5.  Post-colonialism
6.  Fat issues
7.  Disability issues

 

And you get weird twists.  For example you mentioned vaccines.  In theory the woke should be more wary of vaccines than the non-woke (this falls into that post-colonialism category which examines systems of knowledge).  The woke believe that the medical establishment and all systems of power usually have biases built in them that reflect the biases of the elite.  Thus they are wary of the western institutions like modern medicine bullying the natives into taking action they don't want to take.   Based on that, one would have expected the woke to be hesitant on vaccine mandates, but they weren't.

 

 I am definitely part of the left that thinks wokeism is real and that the left would be better to root it out.

[Burgold]

I disagree. I think "Wokism" is a conservative boogeyman. Twenty years ago, being woke was the horror of being "politically correct". These are just labels, conservatives apply to make things that sound reasonable sound icky.

 

Oh... you think we need election reform that expands access rather than shrinks it? You're so woke!!!

Oh... you think separating children from their mothers and slamming them in dog kennels while not keeping any papers to reunite them is awful... You're so woke!!!

Oh... You think that racial disparities leading to higher incarceration rates, worse educational opportunities, and lower salaries ought to be fixed?  Woke! Woke! Woke! Woke!

Oh! You think vaccinations are good and we should listen to scientists instead of Joe Rogan? WOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKEEEEE!

Oh! You think storming the US Capitol is an assault on democracy? How ****ing woke can you get!!!

[philibusters]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

I disagree. I think "Wokism" is a conservative boogeyman. Twenty years ago, being woke was the horror of being "politically correct". These are just labels, conservatives apply to make things that sound reasonable sound icky.

 

Oh... you think we need election reform that expands access rather than shrinks it? You're so woke!!!

Oh... you think separating children from their mothers and slamming them in dog kennels while not keeping any papers to reunite them is awful... You're so woke!!!

Oh... You think that racial disparities leading to higher incarceration rates, worse educational opportunities, and lower salaries ought to be fixed?  Woke! Woke! Woke! Woke!

Oh! You think vaccinations are good and we should listen to scientists instead of Joe Rogan? WOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKEEEEE!

Oh! You think storming the US Capitol is an assault on democracy? How ****ing woke can you get!!!

 

What I think of wokeism is not a conservative boogeyman and I don't think it is the same as being political incorrect twenty years ago.  However, certainly woke is a word that gathered negative connotations and as such the Republicans apply it all the time to behavior that doesn't fit the definition of woke as it existed in say 2016 or 2017 before the term became so common in the mainstream.   The term has existed for a long time, but it started to gain traction maybe 10 years ago to describe a certain segment on the left who focused on six identity politic issues (race, gender, sexual orientation, post colonialism, disability, and fat).  It quickly picked up negative connotations.  Now Republicans use it for things that all people left of center believe in because the negative connotations are a weapon, but my long post above describes how I think of the term woke as somebody on the left who doesn't consider myself woke.  Its a bit like how the those on the left started using racist more liberally to apply to things that previously would have been considered insensitive to take advantage of the negative connotations with the word racist.

 

But you may be right that conservatives are turning the word woke into something meaningless.

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

 

 

But you may be right that conservatives are turning the word woke into something meaningless.

It's that and it's more insidious. The idea of "woke" is implied hypocrisy or the idea of "you say these things because you think it's the right thing to say. You don't really believe it or if you do you're a brainwashed idiot."

 

You may be right that "woke" is a coopted term, but today it is commonly used it is a broad brush insult. In fact, I never hear the term "woke" except when used as an attack by the Right. That's why I look at as a boogeyman. That's why I look at it just like the accusations of being PC. PC was a bit narrower, but PCism  was also about race. It became an attack by people who wanted to say the "N" word or insult minorities, people with disabilities, etc. without repercussion. It was about people who wanted to be able to be racist without being looked down on for it. 

[philibusters]

I do agree that there is some overlap between PC and woke.   I tend to think of PC has involving two main components.  The Euphemism treadmill--- and stereotypes of things like racial and ethnic groups, genders, sexual orientation and the like.   

 

For example there is the euphemism treadmill where now you are not supposed to refer to people as retarded, you are supposed to say something like mentally disabled.  However, 35 years, mentally retarded was the polite word and some other term was the non-PC term.   And what happens is over the time, the polite term tends to pick up negative connotations--people start using it as an insult and what not and the term becomes more an insult than a neutral word and then a new word has to be used.   Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the term African American was relatively new and if you didn't use it, you were not PC.  Now the word  is not new and not even necessarily preferred by the members of the group.   But as somebody who was born in 1983, 30 years in the future in say 2052 I may use the term African American when its not common anymore just out of habit and people will look at me weird.  That is kind of what happened to Mitch McConnell when he used the term negro, which would have been common when he was a kid and young adult, and people commented on how weird that was.

In terms of stereotyping, groups are assigned both positive and negative stereotypes.  Within the group lots of time members do not fit those stereotypes.  Further a lot of group stereotypes are based on prejudice and not accurate of the group vs. the population as a whole.   Being PC meant not using stereotypes whether they were objectively true of the group or false because it took away the individuality of the group.   

 

I actually feel like the woke crowd is probably less stringent on stereotyping than the PC crowd was in the 1990s though they will get very upset if you use a negative stereotype of a traditional marginalized group.  But unlike the 1990's they are willing to use positive stereotypes of marginalized groups and use negative stereotypes of groups that have historically had a privileged position, so their position on stereotyping is less principled than the PC crowd in the 1990s, who disliked stereotyping in almost all situations.

[NoCalMike]

The whole "woke" thing is overblown nonsense.  You pretty much mostly hear the term from conservatives now because they are masters at conflating something, with an entirely different thing.  If you go back to when that term was even being used ala "stay woke" it was merely about being consciously aware of your surroundings related to racial issues.  The right-wing grabbed it and started associating it with every fringe, extreme example they could find.  It's exactly the same thing they did with CRT.  Right wing media is great at getting ahead of these culture war issues turning them into "if it isn't right-wing, it's woke"   Look at DeSantis in Florida, he has spent the last 6-8 months getting legislation passed merely on the premise that if you don't agree with him, it must be "that scary woke-ness"  

[China]

‘Outrageous’: Top Democrat Under Fire For Undermining Incumbent In His Own Party

 

The first duty of any politician chairing one of the Democratic or Republican parties’ myriad campaign committees is to protect their party’s incumbents, whether they be state legislators, governors or members of the House of Representatives.

 

This means occasionally passing up an opportunity to pick up a seat, and instead spending time and money to protect a vulnerable member. It means helping those members with messaging, hiring key staffers, and spending thousands, if not millions, of dollars on advertisements to help them win reelection.

 

It does not, generally speaking and for obvious reasons, mean directly challenging one of those members in a primary.

 

But that is exactly what New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a veteran House member who now chairs House Democrats’ campaign arm, apparently decided to do this week after a court released potential new congressional maps in his home state.

 

“While the process to draw these maps without the legislature is against the will of voters, if the newly-announced maps are finalized, I will run in New York’s 17th Congressional District,” Maloney wrote on Twitter on Monday. “NY-17 includes my home and many of the Hudson Valley communities I currently represent.”

 

The 17th District is currently represented by Rep. Mondaire Jones, a first-term progressive who is one of the first two openly gay Black men elected to Congress. It’s also slightly friendlier to Democrats than the 18th District: Joe Biden won the 17th District by 10 points in 2020, and the 18th District by 8 points.

 

Maloney’s decision to potentially challenge Jones ― whose only available alternative is to challenge a different incumbent member, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) ― has caused a substantial intraparty donnybrook, well chronicled by Politico.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[ClaytoAli]

Leave the party system 

Edited May 19, 2022 by ClaytoAli

[The Sisko]

On 5/18/2022 at 9:16 PM, PeterMP said:

 

Political beliefs are relatively static but if people do shift they are more likely to become conservative than the other way around.

 

In addition, people tend to be more religious as they get older.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jssr.12183?casa_token=BNPkKGqvuusAAAAA:efSSu8jiCTdU2dG_zK2YAtfFB_2W9p4TcpB6LViSmKR9cTlxd6tHUked0UllKSKJDlzl-Bkx7E6pL2Fn

 

So what that means is that religious beliefs tend to dictate their votes more.

 

You can have somebody that would generally consider themselves a pro-life liberal (for environmental laws, for safety regulations of industry, against tax cuts for the rich, for healthcare reform but against most abortions) that when they are younger weigh those things about evenly and so often splits between Democrats or Republicans but as they get older the religious beliefs become more intense and so those things take priority and essentially always votes anti-abortion when they are older.

 

An older pro-life liberal is more likely to vote the pro-life part than the liberal part vs. their equivalent younger self.

 

(Though I do agree the idea what is liberal vs. conservative have shifted a lot recently so it will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.)

Anecdotally, I'd say you're right that people do get a bit more religious as they get older. However, that doesn't mean that they're going to subscribe to the toxic BS that evangelicals spew and make religion the deciding factor in their voting patterns. In fact, I'd say that evangelicals have pretty much schtupped their brand and are likely to decline faster than religious belief in general. That doesn't bode well for the Anti Freedom party. Well, that's assuming elections and political choice is even a thing in another decade or so.

 

On 5/19/2022 at 6:49 AM, philibusters said:

 

I don't think those positions would make you woke.

 

I think these positions are more what would make you woke:

1.   Ongoing structural racism is the cause of most racial inequality.

Analysis:  I think within the left the woke are separated from the non-woke by the belief ongoing structural racism is the cause of most racial inequality.  Most on the left believe racism is the cause of most racial inequality, but the non-woke see past racism as a bigger contributor than current racism.  This leads to differences in how to address racial inequality.  The woke want to root out structural racism in institutions and thus you see DEI initiatives in the workplace and changing school names and things like that.  The non-woke prefer more class based solutions focused on fighting poverty.

So are you saying that housing discrimination doesn't exist? Police don't racially profile POC? Prosecutors don't use their prosecutorial discretion to the benefit of a certain group of people and to the detriment of others? So called school choice isn't an end run around desegregation policies? There are other examples but this is off topic so I won't go on. In short, there has to be some explanation for the differences we see in outcomes for different racial groups. So, either structural/institutional racism is in fact a thing, racial minorities are just dumber and less capable than white people, or there are an incredible number of racist white people in positions of power that out of sheer coincidence choose to do things that disadvantage racial minorities. Or are you one of those folks that believes that disparities aren't the result of racism unless it's overt and the intent is openly disclosed?

Bringing it back to the original topic, part of the reason Dems haven't been very effective is that they assumed that once civil rights legislation was passed, there wouldn't be an adjustment by the other side. This was pretty stupid because historically, when black folks get any kind of justice in this country, there's always a backlash to attempt to reverse it.  However, after deciding they could capitalize on disaffected Dixiecrats, the Republiklans began to undo civil rights gains under the guise of other, seemingly race neutral policies. This may be because the Dems weren't able to see what was happening or at least figure out how to counter it, and/or they knew which way the political winds really blow and they didn't want to do anything really effective because it would hurt their election chances. I, like a lot of black folks, have gotten pretty disillusioned by their lack of effectiveness and I'm awfully close to just shutting down and letting the chips fall where they may, likely in favor of the fascists. Things might get a bit worse for us, but everyone else's rights will suffer as well. If that happens, there's at least a chance at change.

[philibusters]

12 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

So are you saying that housing discrimination doesn't exist? Police don't racially profile POC? Prosecutors don't use their prosecutorial discretion to the benefit of a certain group of people and to the detriment of others? So called school choice isn't an end run around desegregation policies? There are other examples but this is off topic so I won't go on. In short, there has to be some explanation for the differences we see in outcomes for different racial groups. So, either structural/institutional racism is in fact a thing, racial minorities are just dumber and less capable than white people, or there are an incredible number of racist white people in positions of power that out of sheer coincidence choose to do things that disadvantage racial minorities

 

I didn't state a position on any of those things. 

 

You state that I most either believe that racial disparities are caused by institutional racism or that racial minorities are just less capable than white people.   The paragraph you quoted from, stated my basic position which was neither:  " but the non-woke see past racism as a bigger contributor than current racism."   In other words ongoing racism may be contributing a little bit to racial inequalities, but the bulk of the difference was caused by past racism.   Lets say by 1970 most formal racism has been rooted out.   White people as a group were in a different position than black people in 1970.  It wasn't an even starting line.  Thus even if societal institutions were more or less fair at that point, you are not going to get the same results.  Hence why I said "This leads to differences in how to address racial inequality.  The woke want to root out structural racism in institutions and thus you see DEI initiatives in the workplace and changing school names and things like that.  The non-woke prefer more class based solutions focused on fighting poverty."  If you believe past racism is the main cause of racial inequality, general programs directed at the poor are the best way to address it.  By contrast if you believe ongoing racism is the main cause of racial inequality, you believe that until racism is driven out of those institutions, racial inequalities won't get better.

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, philibusters said:

 

I didn't state a position on any of those things. 

 

You state that I most either believe that racial disparities are caused by institutional racism or that racial minorities are just less capable than white people.   The paragraph you quoted from, stated my basic position which was neither:  " but the non-woke see past racism as a bigger contributor than current racism."   In other words ongoing racism may be contributing a little bit to racial inequalities, but the bulk of the difference was caused by past racism.   Lets say by 1970 most formal racism has been rooted out.   White people as a group were in a different position than black people in 1970.  It wasn't an even starting line.  Thus even if societal institutions were more or less fair at that point, you are not going to get the same results.  Hence why I said "This leads to differences in how to address racial inequality.  The woke want to root out structural racism in institutions and thus you see DEI initiatives in the workplace and changing school names and things like that.  The non-woke prefer more class based solutions focused on fighting poverty."  If you believe past racism is the main cause of racial inequality, general programs directed at the poor are the best way to address it.  By contrast if you believe ongoing racism is the main cause of racial inequality, you believe that until racism is driven out of those institutions, racial inequalities won't get better.

 

Using the terms the way you designated them I will say that there is plenty of crossover between "woke" & "non-woke" solutions.  Classism being a big one. That being said, I think there are still some issues that are unique to minorities in America that need additional measures sometimes.   In fact, that is why the entire CRT alarmism comes off as ridiculous and disingenuous because all CRT really does is take the principles of CT (Critical theory) that looks at class, and says okay what if we try to identify those same issues as it pertains to race.  

Edited May 20, 2022 by NoCalMike

[The Sisko]

On 5/20/2022 at 5:16 PM, philibusters said:

 

I didn't state a position on any of those things. 

 

You state that I most either believe that racial disparities are caused by institutional racism or that racial minorities are just less capable than white people.   The paragraph you quoted from, stated my basic position which was neither:  " but the non-woke see past racism as a bigger contributor than current racism."   In other words ongoing racism may be contributing a little bit to racial inequalities, but the bulk of the difference was caused by past racism.   Lets say by 1970 most formal racism has been rooted out.   White people as a group were in a different position than black people in 1970.  It wasn't an even starting line.  Thus even if societal institutions were more or less fair at that point, you are not going to get the same results.  Hence why I said "This leads to differences in how to address racial inequality.  The woke want to root out structural racism in institutions and thus you see DEI initiatives in the workplace and changing school names and things like that.  The non-woke prefer more class based solutions focused on fighting poverty."  If you believe past racism is the main cause of racial inequality, general programs directed at the poor are the best way to address it.  By contrast if you believe ongoing racism is the main cause of racial inequality, you believe that until racism is driven out of those institutions, racial inequalities won't get better.

After re-reading your post, I'll agree that you didn't explicitly take a position. That said, I think your analysis is off. Your non-woker's that prefer class-based solutions seem to track pretty well with the Bernie wing which are probably the most liberal, so-called woke group in the party. Unlike with the political parties, especially the Republiklan Anti-Freedom party where ideological purity is a requirement, individuals support a range of different positions on different issues. So for example, I agree with pulling down all the confederacy garbage and changing names that honor traitors and war criminals, but given my previous comments, I obviously believe in institutional racism as well. According to you, that would make me both woke and non-woke.

The whole woke thing is just more Anti-Freedom party smearing of the other side with a broad, simplistic brush not unlike their constant bleating about all Dems being radical socialists and any policies they put forth as socialism. Ultimately, it's a fool's errand to try to make any sense of it. Simply put, these are people for whom a level paying field amounts to reverse racism so their credibility is zero IMO.

Edited May 23, 2022 by The Sisko

[Die Hard]

32 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

Simply put, these are people for whom a level paying field amounts to reverse racism so their credibility is zero IMO.

It’s a paradox. A self-loathing (inferiority complex, victim mindset) narcissist.

[philibusters]

2 hours ago, The Sisko said:

After re-reading your post, I'll agree that you didn't explicitly take a position. That said, I think your analysis is off. Your non-woker's that prefer class-based solutions seem to track pretty well with the Bernie wing which are probably the most liberal, so-called woke group in the party. Unlike with the political parties, especially the Republiklan Anti-Freedom party where ideological purity is a requirement, individuals support a range of different positions on different issues. So for example, I agree with pulling down all the confederacy garbage and changing names that honor traitors and war criminals, but given my previous comments, I obviously believe in institutional racism as well. According to you, that would make me both woke and non-woke.

The whole woke thing is just more Anti-Freedom party smearing of the other side with a broad, simplistic brush not unlike their constant bleating about all Dems being radical socialists and any policies they put forth as socialism. Ultimately, it's a fool's errand to try to make any sense of it. Simply put, these are people for whom a level paying field amounts to reverse racism so their credibility is zero IMO.

 

Yeah, I think we just disagree.

 

"Your non-woker's that prefer class-based solutions seem to track pretty well with the Bernie wing which are probably the most liberal, so-called woke group in the party."

 

I like Bernie Sanders.  He is further left than me on economic issues, but I think he really believes in what he advocates for.  However, I don't think the Bernie Sanders wing of the party is woke.   Woke only has to do with you positon on social justice issues (I listed the big six).   There are certainly some politicians like AOC that are woke and that are economically part of the Bernie Sanders wing, but a lot of woke people are not part of the Bernie Sanders wing and a lot of people in the Bernie Sanders wing are not woke.  The Bernie Sanders wing is focused on economic issues, the woke wing is focused on social justice issues.  I think of Bernie Sanders personally as being woke.

 

"So for example, I agree with pulling down all the confederacy garbage and changing names that honor traitors and war criminals, but given my previous comments, I obviously believe in institutional racism as well. According to you, that would make me both woke and non-woke."

 

I am not following how that would make you woke and non-woke according to me.  If you focused on economic programs for the poor as a way to fight racial inequality like Medicaid for all, $15 minimum wage, free community college and things like that that would be a non-woke approach to racial inequality.  Focusing on taking down confederacy statutes is an example of woke behavior.  Its founded on a belief that we are still a fundamentally racist society and we need to root that racism,  with the belief that once the racism is rooted out, racial equality will follow.  Non-woke people see racial inequality primarily in class terms and think you can root out all the confederate statutes in the world, but until you even the starting line, you won't achieve it.   There are some issues where perhaps both sides could agree, like reparations, but again the main difference between wokesters and non-wokesters in my opinion is the woke belief current racism is the primary cause of racial inequality and we need to find that racism and root it out, whereas non-wokesters on the left believe past discrimination cause massive economic inequality and that until that economic inequality is remedied there will be an uneven starting line and the inequality won't go away naturally. If you are non-woke you probably think our institutions are mostly fair when it comes to race(though not perfectly fair), but simply having race neutral institutions won't get rid of racial inequality if people come from different starting lines.  The woke are sometimes accused of being neo-liberals in the sense they implicitly seem to believe that if institutions are fair to all people regardless of race, racial inequality will somewhat quickly disappear, so the fact that racial inequality is persisting means that the institutions most not be racially fair (institutionally racism).   If you are non-woke, you can believe institutions are being fair to all people regardless of race, but that won't make racial inequality disappear given the different starting positions.    Thus the non-woke are going to be more focused on helping people living in poor minority neighborhoods rather than all people of that minority and are going to be more focused on helping all poor people in general.

Edited May 23, 2022 by philibusters

[Simmsy]

On 5/18/2022 at 9:16 PM, PeterMP said:

 

Political beliefs are relatively static but if people do shift they are more likely to become conservative than the other way around.

 

In addition, people tend to be more religious as they get older.

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jssr.12183?casa_token=BNPkKGqvuusAAAAA:efSSu8jiCTdU2dG_zK2YAtfFB_2W9p4TcpB6LViSmKR9cTlxd6tHUked0UllKSKJDlzl-Bkx7E6pL2Fn

 

So what that means is that religious beliefs tend to dictate their votes more.

 

You can have somebody that would generally consider themselves a pro-life liberal (for environmental laws, for safety regulations of industry, against tax cuts for the rich, for healthcare reform but against most abortions) that when they are younger weigh those things about evenly and so often splits between Democrats or Republicans but as they get older the religious beliefs become more intense and so those things take priority and essentially always votes anti-abortion when they are older.

 

An older pro-life liberal is more likely to vote the pro-life part than the liberal part vs. their equivalent younger self.

 

(Though I do agree the idea what is liberal vs. conservative have shifted a lot recently so it will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.)

 

I still wouldn't say that people become more religious as they get older, maybe...at best, more "spiritual". Of course, this is anecdotal and a one off, but I would like to share a brief story about a friend's parent:

 

I was visiting with a friend about 2.5 years ago when his mom started talking about her new "church". His mom was never really all that religious, so we both thought it was kinda weird, it sounded like a cult at face value. After asking some more questions, we found that was more like a social experiment. It was a group of people, from all walks of life, race, sex, age (the main focus was difference in financials) they specifically tried to look past what made them different on a superficial level (like the amount of money you had) and tried to connect to each other on a human level. We all have basic needs and wants as humans, lets see what they are and how they connect us.

 

Now, I'm sure I over simplified their message, but it was less about "Hey, lets pray to a God, that will connect us" and more "What DOES connect us as human beings". His mom is a liberal, but I don't know if this was just a liberal thing or they had conservatives in there or not. There was a lot of racial tension going on at this time, she was just trying to find a new way to understand something that she never really understood. Some people may turn to religion for answers, but I don't think tapping into your spirituality really counts as being religious.