The So-Called “Liberal Elite”

[Time for change]

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “liberal”? …. If by liberal they mean someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil liberties…. If that is what they mean by a liberal, then I’m proud to say I’m a liberal. John F. Kennedy, accepting the nomination for President from the New York Liberal Party, less than two months before he was elected our 35th President.


Have you wondered why conservative members of Congress today proudly boast about their conservatism, whereas most all politicians do everything they can to avoid being called “liberal”? This fact was in evidence during the final Presidential debate of 2004, when George Bush cited evidence that John Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate, as if that was some kind of insult. In response to such accusations John Kerry would simply say that he doesn’t believe in labels. Can you imagine John McCain saying something like that after being called a conservative?

The reason for this is that conservatives have managed to paint liberals as the bad guys. They claim that conservatism is the ideology of “personal responsibility”, yet employment has been far higher under Democratic than Republican presidents; they claim that liberals are “soft on defense” or “soft on terror” while they have a sitting president who allowed the worst attack on American soil since 1812 by ignoring multiple warnings of those attacks and failing to respond to them when they occurred; they refer to liberals as “tax and spend”, while two of their most recent presidents (Reagan and Bush II) have run up by far the largest federal budget deficits (See annual change in debt 1941-2009) in our history; and they claim to be the ideology of “law and order” in the midst of the most lawless presidential administration in our history.

Worst of all they have put into common usage the term “liberal elite”, thus pinning all their elitist ideologies on one of the least elite philosophies in existence today. How do they get away with all that spin, claiming that up is down and down is up? Well, they have learned to stay “on message”, and they have received tremendous amounts of help from our corporate news media, which they largely own.

One way liberals have dealt with this issue – perhaps the most benign way of doing it without admitting that they’re liberals – is to simply switch labels. Today it is much more fashionable to call ourselves “progressives” than liberals. The DU does this. One of the most progressive … I mean liberal, magazines in our country, The Nation, does this. “Progressive Democrats for America” have done it. Hell, I’ve done it myself – When writing about liberals I often simply say “liberal/progressive”, as if they’re two different words. But they’re not different words – notwithstanding the many explanations of their differences that have been offered. “Progressive” is simply the word that liberals use to avoid being branded as “liberal elites”.

So let’s look at where so-called “liberal elites” stand on some of the most important issues of our day, compared to conservatives:


Comparisons of liberals vs. conservatives on four of today’s most important issues

War and peace

Liberals:
Conservatives often accuse liberals of being “soft on defense”. Liberals are not soft on defense. When it comes to the defense of our nation they are every bit as vigilant as the most hard line conservative. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, probably the most liberal President we’ve ever had, led our country successfully through World War II, the largest war ever fought.

Liberals are repelled by war, and therefore believe that it should be used only when necessary. They recognize and are very concerned about the ubiquitous death, carnage and destruction that result from war.

They therefore believe in international law as an important means of preventing war. The United Nations Charter contains the basic principles on this issue. With regard to the use of force, the UN Charter takes as its starting point Article 2(4), which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

Liberals also believe that we must seek to limit the influence of the military industrial complex, as former President and Supreme Allied Commanding General in World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, warned us. What President Eisenhower meant to tell us is that there is a very influential group of elites in our country who profit from war and therefore who seek to embroil our country in war, even when it serves no interests but their own. Seeking to limit their influence does not mean that one is “soft on defense”.

Conservatives:
Conservatives are much more prone to seek to embroil our country in war. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their Neocon enablers are the perfect example of this. These people led us to war against Iraq, telling us that that country had weapons of mass destruction and close ties to al Qaeda. Those were lies.

Do conservatives care about the great damage that we’ve done to the Iraqi people as a result of our invasion and occupation of their country? Do they care about the million dead civilians or the four million refugees? Who can tell? They never mention them.


Civil liberties

Liberals:
Civil liberties are part and parcel of the rule of law in our country. They are written into our Constitution for very good reason. They include those proclaimed in our Bill of Rights, including freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a fair trial, and freedom from cruel or unusual punishment inflicted by government, among others. Without them we risk submitting to tyranny. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, which is why they put the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments, into our Constitution shortly after it was ratified. Liberals recognize this, which is why they struggle to defend our civil liberties against infringement by conservatives.

The Civil liberties that liberals believe in also comprise those included in the post-Civil War Amendments, which formally ended slavery, prohibited discrimination in law, and gave all Americans the right to vote.

Conservatives:
Conservatives support George Bush’s wholesale violation of our civil liberties as part of his War on Terror. It is ok with them if George Bush orders warrantless wiretapping against American citizens, in violation of our 4th amendment; it is ok with them if George Bush violates our 5th amendment right to a fair trial by unilaterally declaring our citizens to be “enemy combatants” and therefore devoid of all rights; it is ok with them if George Bush approves torture, in violation of our 8th amendment; it is ok with them if George Bush threatens reporters with prison and denies them access to White House spokespersons for exercising their 1st amendment guarantee of freedom of the press; and it is ok with them if they preempt our freedom of speech by limiting protest against our government to so-called “First Amendment Zones”.

Conservatives also fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.


Domestic economic policies

Liberals:
Liberals believe in the part of our Declaration of Independence that says that everyone is entitled to “the pursuit of happiness”. Another way of saying this is that they believe that all Americans should have the opportunity for a fulfilling life. That means the right to health care, a decent education, a safe and healthy workplace, a healthful environment, a secure environment, and a place to live, among other things.

In pursuit of all those things, liberals believe that government has an important role to play. Such a role can involve many things, including: the direct provision of jobs; subsidies for health care, education, and housing; laws that protect the right of labor to organize; placing limits on the rights of corporations to pollute our environment, form monopolies, subject workers to dangerous or unhealthy working conditions, or engage in loan sharking; social security laws to ensure a reasonably comfortable retirement; and financial help (in the form of a social safety net) to those who are unable to work.

All of these things are akin to FDR’s New Deal, which pulled our country out of the Great Depression, brought our country an unprecedented level of prosperity, and created a large middle class.

Yes, this all requires taxes. Conservatives call that “big government”. What it really is is responsible government – government responsive to the needs of the people who elect their government to serve them. If you want to call that “big government” then go ahead and call it that.

Conservatives:
Conservatives claim that they care about people just as much as or more than liberals do. Yet, in their view government has no role in providing opportunities for people. That is the job of the private sector, as far as conservatives are concerned. They claim that it is far preferable for the private sector to provide whatever opportunities people have because the private sector can do it better.

But what if the private sector is not successful in providing those opportunities to people? Suppose that the private sector does a great job of making money for itself, and yet: 47 million Americans have no medical insurance; 36 million Americans are in poverty; 3 million Americans are homeless; union membership stands at a paltry less than 20 percent of the workforce due to the dismantling of laws that used to protect the right to join unions; the cost of a decent education is beyond the means of millions of Americans; and corporations pollute our environment with impunity.

These are issues that conservatives largely ignore because their ideology says that the private sector should take care of all these problems. They believe that government regulation of corporations infringes upon the rights of corporations to make profits. End of story.


The rule of law

Liberals:
Liberals believe in the rule of law. They understand that our Constitution forms the foundation for our legal system, and accordingly they believe it must be protected and fought for.

Conservatives:
Especially under the presidency of George W. Bush, conservatives have shown very little respect for the rule of law. Most important, George Bush has claimed the right to violate or ignore over a thousand laws or portions of laws passed by Congress.

Our Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to enact our laws. It requires the president to enforce those laws, and accordingly, the president is required to take an oath upon ascending to the presidency to enforce them. George Bush has violated that oath by appending over a thousand signing statements to laws, claiming that he has the right to “interpret” them as he chooses. Conservatives see nothing wrong with that.

Conservatives essentially believe that the president should be able to do anything he pleases, as long as he claims that he does it to protect the security of our country. He doesn’t have to show evidence to support his claim. The claim speaks for itself. It is called the “unitary executive” theory, and it has no basis in Constitutional law. Kings have held less power than American conservatives’ conception of the “unitary executive.”

George Bush politicized his Justice Department by firing Republican federal attorneys who refused to prosecute Democrats for bogus charges of “voter fraud” with sufficient vigor. Conservatives had no problem with that.

Five conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ended the vote counting in the 2000 presidential election and proclaimed George W. Bush president. There was no Constitutional basis for their decision. They so much as said so themselves, by making the unprecedented statement that their decision should not serve as a precedent for any future decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Bush administration outed a CIA agent for the purpose of taking vengeance against her husband, for exposing one of the many lies that they used to justify an illegal war. When a member of the Bush administration was sentenced to jail for perjury and obstructing the investigation into that illegal act, George Bush simply commuted his sentence.

To protect the telecom companies against any crimes that they may have committed, George Bush insists that that they should have full immunity from prosecution for those crimes. So insistent is he on protecting them from prosecution that he refuses to sign the FISA bill that he claims is so important to the safety of the American people unless immunity for the telecom companies is included in the bill. And conservatives in Congress do everything they can to assist him in this effort.

And there were several conservative Republicans convicted of bribery or similar corruption charges relating to activities of the 109th Congress.


Respect for the truth

Liberals:
Liberals brought us the Freedom of Information Act and the Presidential Records Act, which allows American citizens to obtain information on what their government is doing or has done in their name.

Liberals have a great deal of respect for science as a tool that allows the human race to obtain the truth.

Conservatives:
The Bush administration has done whatever it can keep its actions secret from the American public. They have taken aggressive actions to weaken the Freedom of Information Act and to violate the Presidential Records Act. Dick Cheney met with the giants of the energy industry, and he steadfastly refused to make minutes of his meeting public. The Bush administration ordered White House staff or former staff to refuse to cooperate with Congressional attempts to investigate serious crimes. And all of this is supported by the vast majority of conservatives in Congress.

Conservatives have much less respect for science than do liberals. They ignore and dispute scientific findings that demonstrate how powerful corporations are contributing to the dangerous warming of our planet, so that they have an excuse for failing to regulate those corporations. They dispute scientific findings that show how condoms protect against the spread of dangerous sexually transmitted diseases because the use of condoms conflicts with their ideology. And they refuse to allow the publishing of scientific articles that demonstrate the dangers of medical products produced by their corporate donors – for obvious reasons.


Why conservatives call us “liberal elites”

To summarize why conservatives refer to us as “liberal elites”:

We believe that our country should resort to war only when necessary, and that we should never allow it to be used for profiteering; we believe in international law as a means of limiting war.

We believe in the civil liberties proclaimed in our Constitution. We believe that they are worth fighting for and that a government that attempts to withhold them from us poses grave threats to our democracy.

We believe that the purpose of government is to meet the needs of its citizens. Those basic human needs that cannot be met by the private sector should be provided by government, even if that means increasing the size of government and paying for the necessary services.

We believe that the laws of our nation apply to everyone, even to those – especially to those – who hold high elective office. Our President is elected to serve our needs. He is not a King, and it is not our responsibility to serve him.

We believe in a transparent government, not a secret government. Secret government has no place in a democracy. Voting machines that count our votes in secret have no place in a democracy. The use of money to influence our elected representatives has no role in a democracy. And we believe in science as a means to ascertaining the truths we need to know about.

None of these are “elitist” views. Quite the contrary. Conservatives – at least those who rule our country and those who support them – believe in none of these things. Yet they can’t argue against any of them on their face. Instead, conservatives must confuse American citizens in order to win elections. They claim that we are “elitist” and otherwise misrepresent our views because they know that they cannot win elections unless they make the American people believe that down is up and up is down.

We must not let them do this. We must call them on their lies and spin. We must remove from office those who abuse their powers and threaten our democracy. We must insist that our government be transparent and that our elections be transparent. It does not matter that our corporate news media will call us “liberal elites” or irresponsible or “conspiracy theorists” or “unpatriotic” for doing these things. Let them call us all of those things. We must respond to them with the most potent weapon at our disposal – TRUTH.

If conservatives and their corporate news media allies give us liberals a bad name by calling us names and misrepresenting our views, it serves no purpose to say, “Oh, but I’m not a liberal, I’m a ….” That obscures the truth by letting them define us and confirming their views that liberals are something to be shunned. I am a liberal, and I’m proud to be a liberal. So should we all be.

[LWolf]

1. You mean "our opponents" like this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4609629&mesg_id=4612377

[Time for change]

2. I don't understand what you're trying to say

[LWolf]

3. I'm asking who you mean by "opponents."

Do you mean the obvious republican/right-wing opponents,

or do you mean the Democrats that are willing to use right-wing propaganda like "liberal elite" and "trite" to attack other Democrats?

[Time for change]

5. I didn't use the word "opponent" in this OP

My OP primarily discussed conservatives who use the phrase "liberal elite" to attack liberals.

I think that it's a terribly misleading phrase, whether used by Republicans or Democrats.

Actually, I don't recall ever hearing a Democrat using the term to attack other Democrats, so that's not what I had in mind. But to the extent that Democrats would use right wing talking points to attack other Democrats, I think that's a very cheap thing to do.

[LWolf]

14. No, but it's there in the first line you .

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “liberal”?

I sent you the link because that's exactly what's happening; a Democrat using the words "liberal elite" and "trite" to attack Democrats who oppose his or her candidate.

[stillcool]

4. thanks...

that was a great post!

[bobbolink]

6. Try being desperately poor for a while, and you will come to recognize the "liberal elite"

or latte liberals

or limosine liberals.

It's not fiction.

[Time for change]

7. What kind of "liberals" are you talking about?

[bobbolink]

8. Many. Just as an example, one that came up last week...

"liberals" who want to punish poor folk with an added 10 cents per bag for groceries, which won't affect those who are muddleclass and use a lot of plastic, but will definitely affect poor people who are scrounging for every nickel they can find to buy food.

that's just one example.

Here at DU, you can look around and see for yourself just how important poverty and homelessness is.

Posts about that sink like rocks...

Yes, liberals are just as elite as the RW.

[Time for change]

9. Those who want to punish poor folk aren't liberal in my view.

So, you would just as well like to see a conservative Republican win the presidency as a liberal?

I can't believe you mean that. You're an Edwards supporter, just like me. Edwards is a liberal. Do you think that if he won the Democratic nomination conservatives wouldn't use the term "liberal elite" to marginalize him? Of course they would.

When we go along with their use that term we play right into their hands. Of course there are some people who call themselves liberal who don't really adhere to liberal principles. All groups have people like that. But that doesn't mean that we should use terms that help to denigrate liberals as a group.

[bobbolink]

10. You say something supportive, then you turn around and slap me.

LIve in my shoes for a while, and see how it feels.

"So, you would just as well like to see a conservative Republican win the presidency as a liberal?"

That is so stoooooooooooopid it doesn't even deserve a reply.

Typical DU slam against somebody who is trying to raise awareness.

Fuck it.

[Time for change]

12. It wasn't a slam, it was just a question -- trying to understand your point of view

You said that liberals are just as elite as the RW. That made me wonder if you saw much of a difference between the two. Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you -- just trying to understand what you think about this and establish a basis for communication.

[bobbolink]

15. Oh, come on! That question isn't genuine, and you know it.

At least be honest..it's like a push-poll.

:crazy:

[Time for change]

16. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it was an honest question

You confused me by your statement that liberals are just as elite as the RW. I honestly don't understand that concept.

[bobbolink]

18. No, because Dems want to believe they are so above it all.

Look, it's really simple... people are the same, and the same characteristics found in Rw can be found in the Dems.

If we'd just stop thinking we're so much better, and look at our own issues, and try to improve our own selves, including the haughty way we talk to each other (like right here on DU!), we'd be able to actually become peaceful people.

Thinking we're so different, and so much better has (rightfully) earned us scorn in some independents, who see the hypocrisy.

Yanno, back in my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, protesting Vietnam, we DID look at ourselves, and DID think we needed to deal with our own issues, instead of putting it all "out there".

We were better for it.

And not so damned self-righteous.

Oh, and people cared more for each other then, too.

[Time for change]

20. I agree that we need to take a look at ourselves and think about how to improve ourselves

Probably everyone needs to do that, and you're right to point that out.

But I don't agree that "people are the same". I mean, sure there are some similarities between all people. But I think that there is a vast difference between liberals -- real liberals -- and Neocons, for example. There is a vast difference between someone who tries to stop war and the war profiteers who rule our country today.

If that makes me seem self-righteous then so be it, but that's the way I feel.

[Two Americas]

24. give this some thought

I am not judging you, I am speaking from my own experience on this. I am swimming against the current here, and trying to not burn any bridges, but I feel compelled to speak about this. I know I am not getting any "hearts" by expressing this opinion, but some things are more important than popularity.

You said we need to think about how to improve ourselves.

I think that we need to stop obsessing over ourselves.

There is nothing wrong with you in my opinion - I think you are brilliant and great the way you are. I don't want you to improve yourself. We are all improved enough. But could there not be something seriously wrong with some basic assumptions that we are all making? Could it not be that these asumptions would be easy and relatively painless to give up - a little brusing of the ego - and that in exchnage for that there are untold benefits of solidarity and political action, and an end to the frustrations, confusion, divisions, and heart break?

Is it possible that we are wrong; wrong in some fundamental and pervasive way? It cannot merely be an accident that we have failed so badly, can it? That we are still so confused and divided? What if a relatively minor change could change everything? Wouldn't that be worth considering? Think of what is at stake.

[Time for change]

25. Is it possible that we're wrong in some fundamental and pervasive way?

I'm assuming that you're talking about liberals when you ask that question, right?

Yes, I think it's possible. That's part of what I mean when I say that we need to think about how to improve ourselves. If we were absolutely certain that we were never wrong, then we wouldn't need to think much about anything. But I think it's important that we have enough humility to consider the possibility that we're wrong, because by doing so we're more likely to find out the answers to the problems that we need to solve.

I get the impression though that you have something more specific in mind. That you have some specific idea of some wrong assumptions that we liberals have made. Is that right?

[Two Americas]

26. yes

"I get the impression though that you have something more specific in mind. That you have some specific idea of some wrong assumptions that we liberals have made. Is that right?'

Yes. I think that all liberalism is now based on self-actualization, and personal choices and preferences, and I think that this is entirely incompatible with political progress. It has become more of a spiritual or lifestyle movement than a political movement. It shares all of the premises and assumptions of right wing politics, which go unexamined, and it can never be in serious opposition to the right wing.

[Time for change]

27. My opinion of what liberalism is is what I wrote about it in the OP

I think that's very different than what you say here.

I think of liberalism as a political philosophy, not an individual self-actualizaton movement. But it's been very difficult for liberals to mobilize into a well coordinated political movement, as there have been so many barriers -- such as a corporate news media that lambasts them at every turn, the corrupting role of money in politics, and voting machines that run on secret software.

Where did you get the idea of liberalism as a self-actualization, spiritual lifestyle movement?

[Two Americas]

28. understood

I would like to define it differently, too. In fact, making up our own personal definitions for liberalism is a good example of what I am talking about. There is no agrement as to what it means. Everyone has their own idea, and we can't get everyone on the same page because they won't give up their own personal definition.

If it means whatever each individual wants it to mean, it doesn't mean much of anything. The one definition everyone agrees on is "not Republican."

The only barrier to us mobilizing into a well-coordinated political movement is the will to do so. Corporate media, the corrupting role of money, the voting machines - all of those are the effects of the collapse of the left, not causes.

[Time for change]

31. I don't think I defined it simply as I want to define it

I've read several books on the subject, and I believe that the way I describe it here is pretty much in line with them. Some of those books include:

The Conscience of a Liberal -- by Paul Wellstone
The Conscience of a Liberal -- by Paul Krugman
Losing our Democracy -- by Mark Green
Hostile Takeover -- by David Sirota
Proud to Be Liberal -- Edited by Elizabeth Clementson
Don't Think Like an Elephant -- by George Lakoff
Who Will Tell the People -- by William Greider
Spin this! -- by Bill Press
Wake up You're Liberal -- by Ted Rall
Thieves in High Places -- by Jim Hightower
What Liberal Media? -- by Eric Alterman
Static -- by Amy Goodman
Conservatives without Conscience -- by John Dean
Our Endangered Values -- by Jimmy Carter
Time Present, Time Past -- by Bill Bradley

I believe it's fair to say that all of those books and many more have a good deal in common with respect to what it is to be a liberal (though it's possible that one or more of them used a different word, like "progressive", for example).

[Two Americas]

36. another good example

There was a time when it was understood that the Republican party represented the super-wealthy fat cats, the interests of the people with entrenched wealth and power, and the Democratic party represented the rest of us and defended us from the ravages and predations of the upper class. Short and sweet. And powerful and effective, I might add, and easily understood by all.

Today we need 800 gazillion books just to define what "liberal" means and it takes 3 or 4 advanced degrees to make sense out of any of it.

[Time for change]

45. Let's not confuse political parties with political philosophies

Political philosophies, like liberalism, have meanings that don't necessarily change much over time. Just because several hundred or thousand books have been written that deal with the political philosophy of liberalism, that doesn't mean that that many books are needed to define it or that advanced degrees are needed to make sense out of it. I do believe that there is a substantial consistency to how liberalism is defined, and any of the books that I cited in my above post would be reasonably sufficient to explain it.

Political parties, on the other hand, vary much more over time. In the days of Lincoln, for example, the Republican Party was much more liberal than the Democratic Party. Advocation for slavery was a very conservative principle. Republicans were the ones who successfully ended slavery, and they were therefore the liberal party of those days.

FDR was perhaps our 2nd most liberal president (next to Lincoln), and he set the Democratic Party on a liberal course. But even in those days the Democratic Party had lots of conservative southerners who disagreed passionately with the need for civil and voting rights of African-Americans in our country. Future Dem presidents continued FDR's traditions, and we got integration of the armed services, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, among others. The conservative Dems consequently left the party and joined the GOP, so that there was a much greater philosophical split between the 2 parties.

Today I believe the Dem Party has become more conservative in recent years, with the role of money in politics and the corporate news media backing the Republicans. It is a very worrisome trend, and we have many Dem Congresspersons that most of us DUers would not classify as liberal by any means.

I don't agree that those things are the result of liberal failings. I believe that they are much more the cause than the result. It's extremely difficult for liberals to operate in such an atmosphere. But they must find a way if our country is going to survive IMO.

[hfojvt]

32. it's defined that way historically

although I am not sure you can find those things in the last four Presidential campaigns nor in your average Congressional race.

The Corporate media though, I would see as more of a cause. It's hard to communicate and co-ordinate when the opposition controls the media.

[balantz]

35. I think Two Americas is saying it is up to us liberals to get our priorities in line

so we can be a more cohesive unit and take on the media and the corporations.

When we think about it we might say it is quite ridiculous after these years of neocon horror that we don't have an extreme left wing agenda and candidate leading our concerted effort to take this country back. I am not satisfied in the least with what we are facing. I don't think we have our shit together at all. And we really should have it together by now! We "liberals" have the majority of Americans to back us if we would just get our priorities straight.

Goddamnit! We need to stop this war, stop oil imperialism, focus on education, focus on economy, address poverty and homelessness and health-care, etc.

Are these two candidates really the right ones to lead us?

What the hell are we doing?

edit: this response wasn't solely for your post hfojvt

[hfojvt]

39. Edwards is a good example of this though

1) the media disappeared him as they covered the Obama-Clinton horse race.
2) the media disappeared his platform as the debates became all about a) the campaign itself, and b) foreign policy

[balantz]

40. That's absolutely true.

And we liberals should have forseen that and begun taking a more concerted action after the last elections in 2004 when the media last skewered our best candidates.

We are at least somewhat to blame for not addressing this criminal activity.

We once again complacently voted for change in 2006 and lazily assumed our Representatives would take care of everything.

And like you said, it happened to Edwards.

Now what? Why are we allowing the media push us in a direction again?

[Time for change]

46. I would put the blame more on the Democratic Party and its leaders per se than on liberals

Not all of the Democratic Party are liberals. There is a substantial block of Democrats in Congress who want be much more aggressive about this. A substantial block of them want to proceed full speed with impeachment. That block is much more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole.

[personman]

110. One can be a liberal-democrat

and have no problem with most of the most horrible things our political system does. John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy, we speak so highly of here, are largely responsible for the terrorism of Cuba that exists to this day. Kennedy's own speech writer, Arthur Schlesinger, has been quoted as saying it was the intent of the Kennedy administration to bring "the terrors of the Earth" to Cuba, and that JFK put his brother Robert on it and made it top priority.

Some believe this led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought us one word away from nuclear war. Noam Chomsky says he considers JFK to be probably one of the most dangerous presidents we've ever had because of that...That's one example, but there is plenty of dirt to be found on presidents across the spectrum.

Under Clinton, sanctions that killed 1,000,000 Iraqis, over 500,000 of them children, Madeline Albright assured us that it was worth it though...and was then promoted to secretary of state...NAFTA and media deregulation (I mean, you gotta take care of your buddy Murdoch right?)

Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, Republican, neither more quick then another to attack anything that might threaten the current state of affairs, they are institutions of the elite, I'd wager all the heavy hitters in all 4 groups don't deviate far from the top %1 economicly...

Right-wingers are at least ignorant and arrogant bullies that most of us know we can expect little from, the left-wing are really indoctrinated elitists, whose capacity to distort their role, probably even to themselves (and to transfer these ideas to the people) seems virtually limitless...

[Time for change]

47. I would put the blame more on the Democratic Party and its leaders per se than on liberals

Not all of the Democratic Party are liberals. There is a substantial block of Democrats in Congress who want be much more aggressive about this. A substantial block of them want to proceed full speed with impeachment. That block is much more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole.

[Two Americas]

111. yes

There is much truth to that, I think. All of the leadership of liberalism and the party has been doing us a disservice, in my view, with organizations like Code Pink and the Green Party, as well as the environmental movement being prime examples. But we roll over, we admire and emulate and meekly obey the leadership, so we have a responsibility as well.

I think it is an issue of status and hierarchy and aristocracy. Liberalism is dominated by a new aristocracy.

[bobbolink]

63. A lot of our "barriers" are internal. We just can't conceive of ourselves as

being other than "broadminded" and "accepting".

Yet, even a cursory glance at DU shows otherwise.

And it shows up ESPECIALLY in discussions about poverty.

Have you seen ANY of the names I've been called?

Have you noticed ANY of the prejudice?

That's not the fault of ANY media... it's our own internal barriers to empathy.

[Andrea]

56. I think you are being too general here

You said, "Yes. I think that all liberalism is now based on self-actualization, and personal choices and preferences, and I think that this is entirely incompatible with political progress."

How can you make such a claim about all liberalism?

I think you are confusing terms here, as well. Self-Actualization, as defined by Maslow, is not about "personal choices and preferences". In fact, it is about morality, problem-solving and lack of prejudice, among other things. Wikipedia has a good summary of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

The Hierarchy of Needs states that all humans share the same needs and follow a progression in filling those needs. The more basic needs must be met first, and upon the foundation of each level of needs being met an individual can seek to fulfill the next level. The first level involves basic physiological needs and Self-Actualization is the last level.

Putting that aside and looking at personal choices and preferences, I can see that some people have merely made personal choices that they feel are sufficient and do not seek to move beyond those small efforts. But, I do no think that applies to "all liberalism" or even nearly so. Many people are devoting their entire lives to solving significant problems. The movement for election integrity comes to mind. There are people that devote nearly every waking hour to that cause, for no compensation.

[Time for change]

58. Well said

Every movement has some who devote much more time and energy to it than others. To criticize a movement or a philosophy just because some of its members aren't entirely devoted to it is not appropriate or useful IMO.

[OneGrassRoot]

75. Well said, both of you. :) n/t

[Two Americas]

104. here is how

"How can you make such a claim about all liberalism?"

Power and economics control politics. When those with the power and the money are steering and defining liberalism, and there is a reluctance on the part of rank and file liberals to buck that or even question it, we can then make the generalization that "all liberalism" has become a personal preferences style of politics. It is pervasive, there are very few exceptions, and when exceptions arise they are brutally beaten back.

This is as valid a generalization as saying "farms produce crops." Modern liberalism produces personal preference politics - almost exclusively.

[Andrea]

106. Hmm...okay

Then, if I am following you correctly, you are saying that there is no liberalism or even no politics that isn't driven by power and money. So, does that mean that you don't believe that there is any grass roots activity? Or does it mean that you think all grass roots activity is still somehow driven by power and money?

I don't agree. I believe that I can and do act independently of what those with power and money are steering me to do. I believe many others do as well.

[Time for change]

169. I couldn't say it any better than that.

[bobbolink]

61. That's it.... that's the connection between "liberals" and RW--

All this stuff about "personal choice"... that's a muddleclass concept, and across the board the same with both "progressives" and the RW, however conservative.

It's a ruse to make people who've "made it" feel good about themselves.. they made the "right choices" and those who are beneath them didn't.

*EVERYONE* can "succeed" if they only make the "right choices".

Like the Iraqis had so much choice about whether their country would have the shit bombed out of it.

That's for starters.

As a person on the bottom rung, I see very little difference in what is said to me by a "progressive" or by a "conservative". BOTH are demeaning, belittling, and blaming.

It hurts more coming from a "progressive", because I *used* to think I belonged.

I've been disabused of that notion.

[personman]

113. I see liberalism (the elite capitalist version) as an obstacle to self-actualization

and self-actualization as essential to most of the good, beautiful things in life, like art, music, and cultivating knowledge, awareness, understanding, compassion, and tolerance.

It's hard to actualize (which to me, means nothing more than to reach one's potential) when you are too busy spending your time as a cog in an imperial machine for fear of starvation and homelessness.

Edit:

Humboldt's vision of a society in which social fetters are replaced by social bonds and labor is freely undertaken suggests the early Marx., with his discussion of the "alienation of labor when work is external to the worker...not part of his nature... he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself... physically exhausted and mentally debased," alienated labor that "casts some of the workers back into a barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines," thus depriving man of his "species character" of "free conscious activity" and "productive life." Similarly, Marx conceives of "a new type of human being who needs his fellow men.... the real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human relations."13 It is true that classical libertarian thought is opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty, diversity, and free association. On the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production, wage labor, competitiveness, the ideology of "possessive individualism" -- all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman. Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment.

From Noam Chomsky's http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970----.htm">Notes on Anarchism

[Two Americas]

121. I see your point

You know, we are seeing how poorly defined any of these terms are, and how little agreement we have as to their meanings, aren't we though?

There was a time when people measured reaching their potential by what they were contributing to the well being of others. Some of the least self-improved people that ever existed have made the most important and powerful contributions to the well being of others.

[personman]

126. Yes, it is confusing.

I'm curious what you mean by self-improved, are we talking the elite-capitalist, bootstrap-yanking notion of self-improved? or a rational, humanistic variant? hehe

Was listening to a recent Chomsky speech where he, referencing Orwell, mentioned that every word used in political discourse, has by now, at least two meanings: its original meaning, and its opposite.

I think there is something of a dichotomy here. The idea that we must be either a recklessly individualistic, heartless, competition based society, or a collectivist tyranny where there is no individual. There is a healthy middle ground, and I think it would be mutually beneficial to explore for the individual as well as the community. When we all advance as people, the society advances, and vice-versa.

"The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to solve, is how to be one's self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one's own characteristic qualities."

- Emma Goldman

[Two Americas]

133. a paradox, don't you think?

Humans have been solving this paradox succesfully since the beginning of time, but we seem to have lost the ability somehow. I think that Western Civilization is defined by certain broad social themes over the last 500 years, and one of those themes has been the drama of the individual versus society. (Credit historian Jacques Barzun for that insight.) This battle, the tension, may have run its course. The battle is artificial - the paradox is that the more we emphasize individuality, the more homogenized and regimented society becomes. They are not true opposites. Individuality weakens us, alienates us and atomizes us, and makes us easier prey for the exact opposite - regimentation and tyranny. Strange, eh?

A person's individual identity is created by their role in the community. That is what it means to be human. This war between individualism and society is a recent western European thing. It is a puzzle without an answer, just lots of misery and murder and cruelty. I think the game has run its course.

We are not capable of self-definition. The person totally free from society is an illusion. We define ourselves, and find true freedom through each other.

[dajoki]

197. I have been reading this thread intently...

and many of you make good points. However, I do not believe it is as complicated as some seem to make it. I don't need books, sociologists and professors to tell me about liberalism. Granted, I may not be as "educated" as some of you, but I do know what is in my heart. And although the Democratic party and true liberalism may have parted ways years ago, It does not take the current party for me to identify myself.

When I was a child growing up in the '50s and '60s I had a firsthand view of what it means to be a liberal. My beloved Grandfather had just retired from the coal mines and he and my Grandmother decided to go into business for themselves, so my Grandfather bought a small "stepvan" and started a bakery route. My Grandmother and him would do the baking and at about 4AM he would start his route, I had a little seat in the corner of the truck on non school days and the summer. I "worked with him from about five years old until about 14, when he got sick with lung cancer (black lung) from the coal mines.

My point is that they never made much in the way of a profit, I think they just enjoyed it. I can remember him giving away more than he ever sold. I used to ask him, "Pap, how come nobody pays you?"
And he would tell me that they couldn't afford it or "they need it more than I do". That was the kind of man he was. He would make special trips at certain times to give away his products to poor people and organizations, never at his own convenience.

Although I could never match my Grandfather, I think I have learned what a true, heartfelt belief in helping your fellow human being is. To me this is true liberalism at its simplest form, giving and helping because it is in your heart. Even though you are just making it, enjoying the pleasure that comes with helping someone, not because you can afford it, but because you want to. So I don't need to learn what being a liberal is from a book, I learned it from a man with a sixth grade education, who had to go into the mines to help his parents with his twelve brothers and sisters, and continued to help strangers for his entire life.

[Two Americas]

23. "so above it all"

I think you nailed it with that comment.

This is the inevitable outcome of 30 years of politics based on personal choice and preference, personal stances and values, and all of the self-actualization that goes along with it. The goal is to perfect oneself, in lieu of forming a strong political movement. The idea is that by improving oneself, then society will be improved. It has now evolved into the belief that the ONLY way to change society is by changing oneself. "Improving oneself" is now the definition of being a "liberal" or being a "progressive." The goal is the progressed individual. This completely drives out any ideas of mass political action. We are all busy fixing ourselves and making ourselves into the perfect liberal ideal of hat the right kind of person would be.

Naturally enough, when people focus on themselves they become self-centered and oblivious to others without realizing it. Since focusing on oneself is supposed to improve society according to the dogma of modern liberalism, selfishness is actually confused with altruism. Being a helping sort of person - superior to others and more caring - supersedes actually helping or actually caring about others.

This is why people get so offended - "how dare you suggest that I am not a caring liberal compassionate person?" And they then resent the object of their charity does not repsond as the recipient of their charity - or even just their sympathy or "hug" smilies - should respond.

This is also why your message cannot be heard. People assume that you must be self-actualizing too, just not as good at it as they are, and failing at it. They assume that you are speaking for yourself, so they then criticize the WAY you are delivering the message as not at all in keeping with the proper etiquette and propriety we have come to demand. You are not doing a good job of "selling" the message, apparently, as though your message is something that would need to be sold to anyone.

And of course there is a double standard here that people are blind to. You as a self-confessed poor nobody - a "loser" in the modern view - are not permitted to scold the good people. The scolding goes on all of the time the other way around, though. Enlightened progressed liberals have the right to scold you, but you do not have the right to scold them. You get scolded a hundred times for every time you get scolded, yet people deny that is happening.

And who is scolding whom over what? You are being scolded for your bad manners. You are scolding us - much more mildly and patiently - for something much more serious: our craven hypocrisy and arrogance and self-centeredness. I was initially resistant to that. I thought "who is SHE to be scolding ME??" Then I thought, what the fuck am I saying? What have I become? I was thinking of you as second class without realizing that I was - mit was automatic. And it has nothing to do with anyone's current material circumstances - you know mine - it has to do with attitudes, with assumptions and prejudices.

You have my apology for my own callous indifference and pig-headed stubbornness and unwillingness to look at my own prejudice and for the way I was willing - to my shame - to dismiss you for the sake of my own ego - and you have my eternal gratitude for opening my eyes about this.

[hfojvt]

30. I don't think it is all personal

Part of it is the domination of social issues, identity politics. Thus 'liberals' are people who are pro-choice, pro-GLBT, pro-African American. As such, we tend to look down on people who are 'not liberal enough'. They are homophobes, religious bigots or lunatics, and/or racists. We are superior to them, and revel in this supposed superiority.

Even to the point where we spend much of this primary campaign accusing other liberals of "sexism" or "racism" or "homophobia". Not only that, but we are also, for some reason (M$M) trapped in a Republican frame where foreign policy, Iraq, Pakistan, and terror are the main issues of the Democratic Primary. In a typical three hour debate, the issue of the economy or poverty rarely comes up. A candidate like Edwards, who tries to make it the main issue, is never given a chance to talk about it on the national media, and fails to gain very much traction against better funded rivals.

[bobbolink]

62. And what are people who are looking down their nose at those of us on the bottom rung?

You see, that never gets said... it's only racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. BUT.. the elephant in the room is poverty.

Neither liberals nor conservatives give a shit.

But there's no name for that.

How.... interesting....

[Time for change]

77. Yes there is a name for it

It's called classism

[bobbolink]

98. True. Good term. And it exists right here on DU.

The same as racism and sexism.

The only difference is that it's more widespread because it's not taken seriously, and it isn't protected like the other isms.

[noiretextatique]

237. some of the people you are talking about are on the bottom rung too

there are poor women
there are poor black people
there are poor gay people

and i agree with you...their issues have less to do with gay marriage, abortion, and affirmative action and more to do with jobs, healthcare and housing.

[superduperfarleft]

34. I rarely do K&R posts....

But K&R. The bit about self-actualization is spot on, despite my (very recent) issues with the poster to which you're responding.

[bobbolink]

80. Yes, you... you sneered at me... "IT's all about YOU!!"

Reread the post you replied to.

You may learn something.

[superduperfarleft]

92. There's a 1,000 nasty things I could say back.

But since it'll just get this post deleted, use your imagination.

Sneeeeeeerrrrrr......

[bobbolink]

102. Prime example of why the term "Liberal Elite" You live up to it marvelously..

I couldn't have asked for a better example.

Thank you.

[superduperfarleft]

118. Prime example of the term "narcissist" or "self-absorbed."

You've managed to shit all over this latest thread, making it all about you (not the poor, not the homeless, but YOU), whether it's your demanding that people speak to you exactly how you want them to, or continuing your ridiculously whiny drama with the Edwards people. The fact that these people still try to talk to you shows an admirable amount of patience on their part, and you respond by flipping out on anyone who makes the mistake of attempting to interact with you. And then you complain that no one responds. Newsflash: if you act like an abusive lunatic to anyone who tries to talk to you, people generally will stop responding.

There's no point to any of this anymore. You're irrational and verbally abusive, and don't seem the least bit interested in talking civilly with anyone. I'm done. Have a nice life, or don't for all I care.

[Two Americas]

124. the opposite I think

I think that the example here of a person being willing to be open and reveal their own circumstances and feelings, in the hope of waking others up for the benefit of countless millions of suffering people, is the exact opposite of being a "narcissist" or "self-absorbed."

It is the message that demands our attention, not the messenger. I think we "read" anyone trying to break through our own narcissistic fog and intruding on our comfort as narcissism because we have come to assume, without even fully realizing it, that the right wingers and libertarians and Ayn Rand are right - that it is all about self-interest all the time for everyone.

We heard Edwards accused of "grand standing" and craven self-interest when he advocated for the poor and suffering. We assume that everyone is in it for themselves, and can't even recognize it when someone is not. We are suspicious of true altruism and self-sacrifice, and admire clever self-interest. This is the tragedy of our times, and it has infected all of us in many insidious ways. It is the reason that greed and cruelty and bullying are ascendant, and it is the reason that we cannot "herd the cats" and form an effusive opposition movement.

[balantz]

125. Perhaps there is a bit of both going on.

The "narcissist" AND the "waking others"?

Some can share such things with maybe a little less self-absortion?

I take none of the exchange personally.

[bobbolink]

180. Walk in my shoes, and see what the bullies do to you, both spiritually and emotionally.

As long as you make me a "them", you'll continue to dismiss me.

[Andrea]

129. No, TA, I don't see it that way.

Perhaps the act of being open and revealing personal circumstances in the hope of waking others IS the exact opposite of being a narcissist or self-absorbed.

But the continual abuse of anyone and everyone who interacts with her does nothing for the message. It puts the messenger in front of and over the message and completely obscures the message. It prevents any rational discussion of the message.

The continual refusal to enunciate one's wishes, clarify one's message or in any way meet the other half-way in the interest of communication shows that the messenger's priority is to be abusive, not to serve the message in any way. And that is narcissism.

[Two Americas]

135. the message

The message does not need help. "The house is on fire" does not need to be sold, for example, you need to get people's attention.

This only puts the messenger in front of the message so long as we focus on the messenger. Now, if we got the message - "the house is on fire!" - and responded to that, and the messenger was still hollering at us, then what you are saying would be true. But that is not the case.

[Andrea]

136. OK, I like your analogy

But here is how I see it playing out:

Person 1: The house is on fire!

Person 2: Which way out?

Person 1: Fuck you!

Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

[Two Americas]

139. yeah I know

I know that is how it seems.

Person 1: The house is on fire!

Person 2: Oh you poor dear. I am so sorry for you. How can I help you?

Person 1: You don't understand, the house is on fire!

Person 2: You are getting a little shrill and obnoxious. Are you trying to suggest that I am not opposed to fire? Why are you attacking me? I understand that you have problems, and I am trying to help you.

Person 1: You are taking an elitist position, and are not sincere when you say you care about fire.

Person 2: You are just attacking and trying to hurt people, and that is no way to behave if you want people to help you.

Person 1: The house is on fire, and you don't care.

Person 2: OK I have about had it with you and the way you are acting. Let me spell it out clearly so you can understand. What is it you expect us to do?

Person 1: Care about this.

Person 2: We do care. You aren't being specific about what we can do to help you. You are just screaming at us. Look, if you want to persuade people to your cause - about the housefires - you are not going about it the right way and no one is going to be convinced of your argument, nor support your cause, nor want to help you. You are bringing this all on yourself by the way you are acting.

Person 1: You are looking down your nose and being condescending to me, and are not hearing the message.

Person 2: There you go with your personal attacks and accusations again. You are not going to win any friends or influence people this way, nor are you helping your cause. We all care about you and are trying to treat you kindly, but you are spitting in our face.

Now we can argue back and forth as to which version is "right" and which person is good and which person is bad. But there is a terrible miscommunication going on - that is certain.

[OneGrassRoot]

156. There really is a terrible miscommunication of some sort....

In your long scenario above, I can see why that would be frustrating to the person shouting, "The house is on fire!"

But in response to the initial shouting of person 1, when person 2 says, "Which way? Let me help put it out!" - I don't get why it goes off track there. And it's gone WAYYYYYYYYYY off track there.



:shrug:

[Two Americas]

159. off track

It goes off track, I think - and it is surprising to me and I am not sure I fully understand it - because there is an immediate assumption that the message is a personal cry for help. Then we can't break out of the helper-helped dichotomy and mindset. I think that people don't see the implicit and inherent paternalism and condescension in that, so they don't understand why we feel abused and mistreated and misunderstood. Then we are off on the "what could be psychologically wrong with a person who would feel abused when we are trying to help them?" tangent, which of course is rubbing salt in the wound.

[OneGrassRoot]

160. Okay, thanks for that....

and perhaps it was those who responded with an assumption that it was a personal cry for help that led to the animosity on bobbolink and others' part. Part of that broad stroke stuff that is so pervasive all the way around at boards like this.

For those of us who immediately wanted to know how to address the message - not the MESSENGER (unless it was specifically requested) - that's where the responses by Person 1 shouting about the fire went off track for us.

The fire analogy is really good and may be the best way to continue this discussion.

If Person 1 shouting about the fire would say, "There's a fire - it's all over the place - and I have no idea what you can do but I want to make you aware that the fire is HUGE! So, don't come to me looking for ways to put the fire out - just find it and do it!!!" THAT is something that could have gotten us somewhere.

Instead, actions to address the fire would be posted - though they were often ways many couldn't do anything about because we don't represent a national organization, for example - which indicates that Person 1 DID/DOES have suggestions as to how the approach these fires.

Yet when we would ask WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO - looking to this person who raised the issue and seems to have in-depth knowledge about the issue on MANY levels - that's when it would go off track. I won't get further into that as it's been spelled out here repeatedly.

When the fire is NATIONWIDE/GLOBAL, a little guidance is needed as to the most effective way to start putting it out. Otherwise, we're all standing there spinning in circles, often fanning the flames unintentionally. Some of us aren't leaders...we're asking for direction from those who seem to know of what they speak as far as addressing fire fighting.

[bobbolink]

182. Bingo. Target hit.

"If Person 1 shouting about the fire would say, "There's a fire - it's all over the place - and I have no idea what you can do but I want to make you aware that the fire is HUGE! So, don't come to me looking for ways to put the fire out - just find it and do it!!!" THAT is something that could have gotten us somewhere."

[bobbolink]

181. As usual, you NAILED that exactly!

The idea that I somehow enjoy being on the DU cross is like saying gays choose to be gay because they really enjoy the stigma.

:crazy:

At one point, when I actually thought the DU Edwardians were listening and caring, I started to breathe, because I thought I'd be able to pull back and actually let others do some of the "messaging".

HAH!

:(

[Oak2004]

164. As a poor person I'm not hearing all this shitting over me

I'm hearing someone speaking the truth, over and over again, and getting ignored or subjected to personal attacks, such as the personal attack on Bobbolink that I'm replying to.

The problem is that the relatively well-off have absolutely no clue what it means to be poor. Such people usually think of poor people as lesser people who need to be (at best) "helped" to become "better people". The "help" offered almost inevitably focuses on improving the character of the poor person. Housekeeping inspections for people who receive housing assistance is one of those little acts of "character improvement" I'll be dealing with in a week or so. Oddly I never hear of housekeeping inspections for people who hold VA or similar mortgages, or of clean car checks for people who register automobiles with the state. It's the poor, it seems, who are presumed dirty until proven otherwise. Even when practical help is offered it comes wrapped up in a big heaping helping of such moralism.

Or (at worst) the poor are to be avoided, abandoned, imprisoned, etc. See Nancy Pelosi's comments, about how if it were homeless people camping out in front of her house she could have them arrested, for one example. Or think of the many times politicians serving "liberal" communities have spoken of "having to make hard choices" that take "courage" as they cut some program that serves the poor, and condemn an uncounted number of people to death, while not even considering cuts to middle and upper class programs (hint to politicians: it's not hard for you to cut the means of survival for persons whose existence is considered an inconvenience and who don't have that ability to adversely impact your chances of reelection. It's the people you condemn who have it hard). While some may protest that it's the leadership, not the rank and file, at fault here, I want to know why this occurs almost like clockwork at budget time, and the offenders hear nary a peep about it (let alone find their reelection chances jeopardized).

This lethal (literally) combination of personal ignorance and personal disdain pervades non-working poor working class, middle class, and upper class liberalism. But rather than face it, deal with it, and get rid of it, many such liberals justify it or attack the messenger or propose yet more self-help and charity to fix poor people's bad character.

Poverty is not about being of poor character. Poverty isn't addressed by sending a donation to the local food bank and writing it off on your taxes. The people who survive on food bank handouts still need the donation, but if you want to get serious about addressing poverty what you really need to do is:

Recognize that poverty is a systemic issue. It is the direct consequence of economic and political policy decisions made at all levels of power. It is not the personal problem of this or that poor person. If any particular poor person were to find their way out of poverty (rare and growing rarer) through their own good luck or effort, another person would become poor in their place. The system is designed to maintain X number of persons in poverty so that resources they might otherwise use can be allocated to others who have much more than they need.

Recognize that nearly everyone has internalized the rationalization for the policy of creating and maintaining poverty, namely, that the poor are poor because they did something to deserve it, and are therefore a class of lesser humans -- that we are less disciplined, or less educated, or less intelligent, or less principled, or etc. And, like all forms of The Other, virtually everyone has learned to fear us.


Then, upon recognizing these things:

1) Examine oneself for the internalized justifications for poverty, and rip them out of yourself. Don't flinch, or hide behind the excuse that you're a good person who gave to the poor/voted for candidates who support social programs/volunteered at a soup kitchen/ran an anti-poverty program. This step is not about whether one has good character, good intentions, or what one does/has done/will do. It's about expelling what got implanted inside one's head that can cause one to unthinkingly support and maintain the poverty system regardless of one's intentions.

The above step is an ongoing process that can never be finished, at least not as long as we are exposed to a propaganda machine which persists in implanting these ideas about poverty. Propaganda machine? Watch TV tonight for a few hours and watch carefully for what is implied about those who do not consume.

2) Be alert to when one is treating a poor person as a lesser person or as a dangerous person, and stop it, ASAP. Be equally alert to when charitable and governmental programs for the poor do the same, and speak out. If a middle class person in an analogous situation would not be depicted or treated that way, then it's wrong.

3) Do your part to fight poverty as a systemic problem which demands an equitable redistribution of wealth and opportunity, not as a collection of personal problems. Poor people still desperately need immediate help to survive, and, I suppose, even existing charity is marginally a kind of income redistribution. But blame policymakers, not the poor, for poverty, and hold them accountable at every opportunity. Don't just speak out yourself -- when possible help remove barriers which prevent poor people themselves from speaking out. Frankly I've had enough of social workers traveling to some hearing to speak for us while we ourselves can't afford the transportation to get to the hearing. I'd rather see social workers employ their skills to arrange transportation for us to speak for ourselves.

4) Don't be oblivious. Living always half hungry (or worse) always battling the cold, genuinely struggling for survival, is a very different life than living on SSI in a housing project, which is a very different life than worrying about making the car payment, which is a very different life than worrying about being able to afford to send your child to private school. A lot of "little" things can have a very adverse effect on someone struggling with survival. When making policy or advocating for policy, ask poor people if you don't know what the effect will be on the very poor. the worst you'll get from us Dangerous Others is astonishment that someone actually cares what we think. P.S. -- We don't all think alike, so you'll need to ask more than one of us to get a fair sampling of views.

[Two Americas]

165. bravo

Excellent post.

People have complained that they don't understand. You have spelled it out for them.

People have complained that we aren't telling them exactly what we want them to do. You have answered that clearly, as well.

People have complained of feeling abused or critcized by the opinions expressed here. You have demonstrated that it is happening the other way around, and you describe how that is happening quite clearly and understandably.

I don't know how many more ways we can explain this and still be rejected. The way Bobbolink explained it was attacked as wrong. Then the way that I explained it was seen as wrong, or not understandable. Dajoki has tried and been ignored. Undergroundpanther tried. Then Tech 9 tried, but his method was wrong and was rejected.

[OneGrassRoot]

167. Thank you for your post

You wrote: "Do your part to fight poverty as a systemic problem which demands an equitable redistribution of wealth and opportunity, not as a collection of personal problems. Poor people still desperately need immediate help to survive, and, I suppose, even existing charity is marginally a kind of income redistribution. But blame policymakers, not the poor, for poverty, and hold them accountable at every opportunity. Don't just speak out yourself -- when possible help remove barriers which prevent poor people themselves from speaking out. Frankly I've had enough of social workers traveling to some hearing to speak for us while we ourselves can't afford the transportation to get to the hearing. I'd rather see social workers employ their skills to arrange transportation for us to speak for ourselves."

I have always seen it as a systemic problem and have been asking those here, such as Two Americas who replied to your post - people who are actively engaged in fighting this issue - to please educate us further by telling us what we can do to be much more effective in fighting this.

I'm not asking it in a manner of, "What more can we do - we're doing all we can." NO, NO, NO. I'm asking - and I have asked this repeatedly, very clearly - to please give us concrete actions that you, as someone who is knowledgeable about the systemic failures, encourage people to take to fight this.

Why is that question ridiculed?

I don't blame any person about this issue. It is a systemic issue. I've asked for guidance as to how to combat it.

And I've been ridiculed for asking for this guidance. If you have concrete suggestions which attack this problem at a systemic level, I'd be very grateful to hear them.

Edit: PS - About removing the barriers to give people a voice, can you offer specific suggestions here? I am very interested in your thoughts here.

[Two Americas]

179. no ridicule timeforarevolution

Not ridicule is intended at all, timeforarevolution, at least not by me.

I have asked this repeatedly, very clearly - to please give us concrete actions that you, as someone who is knowledgeable about the systemic failures, encourage people to take to fight this.

Why is that question ridiculed?

Almost always that question is asked rhetorically - as a debate tactic to shut people up - so you are unusual and some of things said here don't apply to you.

Give me a call, or I will private message you, or we can meet for coffee and talk all day long and into the night about specifics. This is dynamic, complex, risky, ongoing. We need to be having daily in-depth discussions about specific tactics.

I believe that everything we do and say every day all day long is inevitably and inescapably either contributing to the problem or is resisting and fighting the system and the attitudes that hold it in place. Responding effectively to the growing crisis is not something that can be separated from our lives and put on a "to do" list and worked into our busy schedules - thinking about activism that way is a key component of the problem.

I have thousands of ideas as to what people can specifically do. First and foremost is to examine ourselves and root out all of the ways in which we are reinforcing and supporting the ongoing cruelty and oppression. We can't fight poverty until we first stop promoting it. Going out and doing this or that officially approved and agreed upon anti-poverty action does not negate the thousands of everyday things we think, do, and say that keep poverty in place.

[OneGrassRoot]

201. TA and bobbolink -

Thank you for the reply here.

My questions were never rhetorical and never with the intention of shutting up any person/poster nor any uncomfortable subject matter. My questions were based own my own ignorance about activism coupled with a genuine desire to do better and encourage others to do the same.

There are a lot of assumptions that go around - online and offline. When someone chimes in as I have repeatedly, asking the same question, I respectfully ask (which is what you're asking of people as well) that you please not make assumptions as to my intentions. I could have learned, which was my goal; instead it became an "us" versus "them" scenario with a major wall because of widespread assumptions. I don't think it serves any of us well.

While I understand what is being asked from those of you trying to shake people into "seeing," I also ask that you keep your mind open to the possibility that some of the people you're interacting with are sincere in wanting to DO something and be further educated.

Thanks for reading.

[bobbolink]

184. "Why is that question ridiculed?"

First, I wouldn't use the term "ridiculed". That's a bit over the top.

Second, do you want me to reply to that?

Cuz, if you're genuinely wanting to know, and genuinely wanting to hear, I'll give it a go.

[Andrea]

170. Thanks

I wish something this straightforward had been posted much earlier in this discussion. I have already been on board with these items.

[bobbolink]

183. Thank you so much, Oak2004, for painfully sharing your truth.

I know how very much it isn't easy to step out and do that.

I would guess that you want, as much as I do, to "fit in"... but that class gap just gets too big, and at some point, "sumpin's gotta give".

"We don't all think alike, so you'll need to ask more than one of us to get a fair sampling of views."

Exactly! Which is why I'm so distressed at the class divide on DU, and with the Edwardians specifially... we ALL need to be heard, and the more I"m attacked, the less others feel safe in coming out of hiding. I'd gotten PMs from people that have really torn my heart out...

Thank you again... yes, we are different people, but we NEED each other, and we NEED to stand up to the crap!

:applause: for your spine!

[bobbolink]

171. Elite Drama Queen.

You take the crown, dearie.

~~bows~~

[bobbolink]

66. Do you seriously mean that?

Are you saying you now understand how you shoved me aside?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

105. yes

I have been trying to apologize and to thank you. I didn't want to face some uncomfortable things about myself.

[Andrea]

78. Some of this I don't understand, some I do not agree with

You said, "The goal is to perfect oneself, in lieu of forming a strong political movement. The idea is that by improving oneself, then society will be improved. It has now evolved into the belief that the ONLY way to change society is by changing oneself. "Improving oneself" is now the definition of being a "liberal" or being a "progressive." The goal is the progressed individual."

Could you give some examples of where this is manifested? It might help me understand why you are saying that this is the entirety of liberalism.

I'm not clear on this, either. You said, "They assume that you are speaking for yourself...". It seems a reasonable assumption to me. Most often when people speak, they are speaking for themselves. It would be silly to assume otherwise. If we assume they are not speaking for themselves, then who should we assume they are speaking for? I think if people do not explicitly say, "I am speaking for X and Y" then the only reasonable assumption is they are speaking for themselves.

Later, you said, "And of course there is a double standard here that people are blind to. You as a self-confessed poor nobody - a "loser" in the modern view - are not permitted to scold the good people. The scolding goes on all of the time the other way around, though. Enlightened progressed liberals have the right to scold you, but you do not have the right to scold them. You get scolded a hundred times for every time you get scolded, yet people deny that is happening." What exactly do you mean by scolding? I don't think any of us should be scolding anyone else. I certainly try not to. I do know that I have been attacked by the particular poster you are referring to here, many times. I do not view the poster as a "poor nobody" or "loser" as you state and I do not claim the title "Enlightened progressed liberal" for myself.

And then you state this: "And who is scolding whom over what? You are being scolded for your bad manners. You are scolding us - much more mildly and patiently - for something much more serious: our craven hypocrisy and arrogance and self-centeredness."

Again, I don't feel I have been scolding the poster you are referring to. I don't term the abuse I have received from that poster as "mild and patient scolding." Nor do I accept any characterization of myself as exhibiting "craven hypocrisy and arrogance and self-centeredness". My experience has been that I have been abused for not approaching an issue we agree on, poverty, in the exact way this poster wishes to dictate and for not achieving instant results with regard to that issue.

While not scolding, I would observe that attacking those with whom you are initially in agreement is not an effective way to further one's goal. I believe that is an empirical fact that is self-evident, so I'm not going to take the time to locate studies backing up my assertion.

[balantz]

84. Well put Andrea.

Good observations and questions.

I think perhaps there is some lumping together that has occured. Surely there are many, many liberals who don't pay enough attention to poverty and homelessness, or demand it as a priority for the government to address. But not all of us liberals should be stereotyped so. And approaching others with undue anger is usually not productive. People don't respond well to that. If some "don't get it" anger may only shut them down and turn them away. Patience and kindness, or firm pointing, or many other approaches might be more effective.

[Two Americas]

119. ok

Then none of those things I said may apply to you.

I think that there is maybe 10% of liberals who are genuinely biased to the upper class and in opposition to the left. They are the dominant ones and sweep the rest of us along, I think. Those agonizing over this, such as I was and I think maybe you are, are just confused, and are not bad people. The ones who lose no sleep over this and are cool as cucumbers are a different story, I think.

I don't know about this business of effectively furthering one's goal. As I said in other posts, I don't think it is about selling or promoting or persuading people, nor do I see Bobbolink as having a personal goal she is trying to promote or persuade us about. I can't imagine being reached myself by any other approach, and find no fault with the approach. The message is so important, and people are so resistant to it, that it is hard to imagine how to get it communicated perfectly. There is so much to be gained in seeing this, and so little to lose, that almost any method of getting it across would be acceptable, I think.

[Andrea]

130. I don't understand this

To say that it isn't about "selling or promoting or persuading people" and then to say "the message is so important" seems directly contradictory to me. Either she is trying to communicate something or she isn't.

If she is not trying to communicate anything, then I think it would make sense for her to quit posting. Her posts are abusive. If she is not trying to communicate anything, then it is abuse simply for amusement.

If she is trying to communicate something, if her "message is so important", then it would make sense to post in a respectful manner that will lead to dialog and increase the chances of her message getting across.

[Two Americas]

134. like water to the fish

Think tent revival and snake oil salesman. We are so steeped in commercialism and evangelism of various kinds in Aermican society that we can't see it easily. It is very American, and is not that way at other times and in other places. The assumption that everyone is trying to sell us something, or trying to convert us to new beliefs, is the foundation for the success of the right wing. It is only over the last 30 years that the left has also embraced those same assumptions. Sure, we are selling people different and presumably better things, and we are converting them to better beliefs than the right wingers are, but still we have become tent revival preachers and snake oil salesmen. The right wingers will always beat us at those games. The ideas we need to express don't lend themselves to either approach.

Most human communication throughout history has had little or nothing to do with selling people or converting people. That is very modern, and very American. Challenge that and the right wing comes tumbling down. Emulate that and we will never form a strong opposition to the right wing.

I think sales jobs and preaching work against communicating a message.In both cases, those communication styles serve best for reinforcing what the other person already thinks or wants - that is how you make a sale or get a convert, by pandering and catering to what the person already thinks. Challenging what the other person thinks can not be done by those methods.

Polite communication of the idea is very difficult and not very effective. I am working my ass off to be clear and yet be completely polite and respectful, and people are still getting hurt and pissed. I am probably not doing a very good job of explaining this idea, but it is very difficult to do.

Challenging another person's ideas is not the same thing as abusing the person. We need to separate those out. The value of the message and the presumed value of the messenger and their style or manners also need to be separated out.

If someone were trying to warn me that the building is on fire, I wouldn't critique their sales technique. If they repeatedly warned me, and I ignored them, then I would not be surprised if they screamed at me "listen you dumb m-f-er, WTF is the matter with you?" to get my attention. I wouldn't think they were being abusive. I wouldn't say "if you want to persuade me to your cause of getting me out of the burning building, I think you need to be polite and respectful, or no one is going to be persuaded to your cause."

[Andrea]

137. I'm still not with you

I've abandoned all thought that she is trying to sell anything or convert anyone. I still come back to this: she is either trying to communicate something or she isn't. If she is not trying to communicate anything, then there is no point in all this abuse. If she is trying to communicate something, she is going about it completely wrong. She hasn't said anything that seems like a warning. It all sounds like this:

Bobbie: Request for action.

Any respondent: any response

Bobbie: Fuck you!

This makes me much less inclined to listen to anything else from her and completely disinclined to respond, and I dare say I'm not the only one.

I get the impression that you think this is some kind of carefully calculated campaign on her part designed to bring about real change (despite the denials that she has any message - I say no message? No reason to talk). Clearly it isn't working. The intended recipients are completely alienated. Time for a new plan.

[Two Americas]

141. well...

My approach is different, and it isn't working either.

Is there even the slightest possibility that some of the fault could be with the receiver, no matter how the message is transmitted? That was true with me. I did not want to hear it.

Seems to me that sugar-coating the message makes it harder for us to hear it, not easier, because the sugar-coating lulls us back into our comfort zone - complacency and denial.

When people were being led to the guillotine in France, the victims were all going to their death quietly with stoicism, poise and reserve, and the crowds were just passively observing the spectacle. Oh, sure, many were "against" it, but it was not until one person had to be dragged kicking and cursing and screaming while viciously insulting the crowd that people suddenly snapped out of their complacency, woke up and thought "shit! Oh my God! Real people are being killed here! This is inhumane!" They were then upset and outraged and disturbed, and the guillotine's days were numbered.

Was that one person's behavior and language out of line, not appropriate, too abusive?

[Andrea]

145. It still leaves me in the same place

I don't know what she wants to communicate, although I have tried hard to figure it out. You seem to feel you are trying to communicate the same thing as her, but by different means. I don't know what that is either.

Why is neither of you willing to say, "I want you to do x and y", so that at least we know what it is? If you say what you want, probably some will agree, some will disagree, and some will ask for more information. Isn't that better than what is going on now?

As this goes on, what you have are some people still trying to get more information and more and more giving up everyday.

Sure, some responsibility is on the receiver. But by listening actively and asking questions to try to understand, isn't the listener fulfilling that responsibility?

I'm not asking for it to be sugarcoated, I'm asking for it to be explicated.

Look, in a nutshell, my experience with Bobbie was that we discussed the issue of poverty and homelessness, along with some other people. We discussed some things to do to raise awareness. I presented ideas which she did not respond to. I assumed she was busy. People don't have the time to constantly respond to my posts. I went on trying to develop a plan for raising awareness. She PMed me. Because I was busy with my job and with the project I was working on, which for me was a continuation of what I had discussed with her, I did not respond to her as quickly as she wanted, although I did check in to let her know I was busy and would get back to her. Less than 24 hours later, she went ballistic and began slandering me. I made a few more attempts to get in touch with her and find out what was going on, and she responded with increased abuse and more slander. Is it any wonder that I don't understand what she wants?

I know my experience with her is quite similar to other's experiences with her.

If I responded that way to every person that didn't answer my emails as quickly as I would like, I wouldn't have a friend left on this earth. It's just a fact of life that other people have their own obligations and activities and they don't revolve around my timetable.

Maybe we are all really, really dumb. If that's the case, you just have to deal with us as we are. Screaming at us or being vague and refusing to explain will not make us any smarter. If you want us to understand, I think you need to do something different.

I think it would make sense to answer the questions. Say, "The exit is to your left, go next door and call the fire department," or whatever the heck it is you are trying to tell us. Just say it. The socratic method isn't working in this case. The abusive parent model isn't working either.

If you would just say what it is, you might get some people on board.

[Two Americas]

207. getting people on board

But we are getting people on board. It is a miracle. People are being reached for the first time, are looking in the mirror, are snapping out of their complacency. A tiny beach head has finally been established, at great effort and sacrifice on Bobbolink's part.

We can criticize Bobbolink's style, but it is the only approach that has worked, and many other approaches have been tried, and we desperately need that - we desperately need to reach people, to engage their compassion and humanitarianism.

Bobbolink's voice is the most important voice on DU. Not because she is poor, and should become an object of our pity, nor because our guilty consciences demand that we pay lip service to the less fortunate if we ar going to call ourselves "liberals." She is the brightest, the most honest, the most committed, and the most powerful voice on DU. If we are not supporting her, what are we doing? And we can argue back and forth about who returned whose email, who has more right to be offended, but it is crystal clear to me that there was a consistent pattern of dismissing and marginalizing Bobbolink and obfuscating and obscuring her message in a fog of manufactured confusion and faux outrage and ego-driven defensiveness - and I say that as one of the people who contributed to shoving her aside. I was ready to jump on the "what is wrong with Bobbolink and why we are justified in ignoring her" bandwagon. Shame on me.

Dismissing and marginalizing the person - the human being taking great risks and making great sacrifices here - is one and the same with dismissing and marginalizing the message.

But it is not merely about Bobbolink. We would shove aside millions exactly the same way, and Bobbolink is speaking for millions and sacrificing herself when shes uses her own situation as a real and very powerful specific example of what millions of people are enduring.

What Bobbolink is saying is so powerful, so important, that it requires us to adjust everything we are thinking and doing to that message, not try to shoe horn her message into the same old liberal activist paradigm - "yes poverty is one of my issues. I am willing to match my credentials on poverty with anyone's. But could you please get back in line now and wait your turn and stop being so rude?"

[Andrea]

210. I would agree it's a miracle

How are those people going about getting on board? What has enabled them to find out what being "on board" means? How did they manage to find an acceptable way to interact? You desparately need to engage people's compassion, and yet you have said that to be caring is condescending.

I was supporting her until she attacked me. That's the bottom line. If there was a pattern of obscuring her message, I wasn't privy to it, let alone part of it. She didn't attack me as part of some grand scheme to "wake me up". I was awake. She knew it. She attacked me because I didn't respond exactly the way she wanted, on her time table.

I've been characterized unfairly and lumped in with a group to which I don't belong.

Dismissing and marginalizing the person is not the same as dismissing and marginalizing the message (previously you were quite adamant that there was no message - what happened to that?).

I will continue to work on these issues as I always have, but I will not interact with people that abuse me. Nor does it make sense for me to try to communicate with anyone who is trying to confuse me rather than communicate with me.

[Two Americas]

213. un-lump yourself

I am not trying to pass judgment on you or lump you in with anyone. It is under your control and within your power to feel personally offended or insulted or not.

If Elizabeth Edwards came here and posted the exact same ideas that Bobbolink is posting, people would be falling all over themselves to praise and support her. If Elizabeth Edwards said that we needed to examine ourselves and our own consciences, and that we were working against the goals we said we supported without realizing that, and that we were being hypocritical, we would listen intently.

Now, someone could say "oh Elizabeth Edwards would never be so rude, she is quite the elegant and gentrified lady who knows how to be nice to people and persuade them to her cause the right way."

Elizabeth Edwards does not need to go to the same lengths or work as hard as Bobbolink to get people's attention and to be heard because she has status - she is already perceived as being a "somebody."

Bobbolink has been treated as a nobody, has been held to a different and higher standard, has been forced to meet unreasonable expectations, all because of her perceived status - which we wouldn't even be aware of had she not had the phenomenal courage to put her ass on the line with us and for us and to risk trusting us. That is wrong. That wrong supersedes people feeling offended or insulted.

[Andrea]

215. Thank you.

I'm in agreement with everything you said here, except for one thing.

If Bobbolink has been treated as a nobody, she is justified in getting her voice heard. The only thing is, I didn't treat her as a nobody. I was hearing her voice. I was treating her the same as I treat anybody. She just flew off the handle and attacked me anyway. And continues to attack me. And the only thing I did was not answer an email quick enough to suit her. And other people have had similar experiences with her.

But, speaking for myself only, I treated her the way I would like to be treated and she did not show me the same courtesy. I could understand that under the difficult circumstances she has to deal with, she might grow angry too quickly. People do that. But to refuse to discuss the situation and then to continue to attack and slander me way beyond the point of any initial anger is something that I won't tolerate in those that wish to interact with me.

[Two Americas]

218. I don't know

I am not trying to judge you. It sounds like you are in the same box I found myself in - maybe not, that is up to you to decide - and I am relating how I experienced it and how I responded.

It could well be that you were treating her the way you would treat anyone. I could have said that about myself as well. It was not about Bobbie, it was about the way I treat people.

I was oblivious to what I was doing, and there is no doubt in my mind that Bobbie was unfairly and even cruelly and brutally treated, and that I contributed to that. That happened long before she struck back, and her return salvos were mild by comparison to what was done to her. I am also certain that this is the tip of the iceberg, that this is a symptom of a much larger problem of putting our own egos ahead of the desperate needs of others. starting wioth the need to be heard and acknowledged, and that this is hypocritical and morally unjustifiable, and that this is crippling and sabotaging the left and preventing us from reaching any goals.

I would suggest - and this is just a suggestion, and if you don't feel it fits you, then ignore it - that you not take this so personally and be so quick to get your hackles up. I say that because it would have been good advice to me, not to say that you need that advice.

You said "I won't tolerate in those that wish to interact with me" something that you think others are doing to you. You are free to not listen to anyone you choose for reasons of your choosing; that is your personal decision. No one is stopping you from doing that. Are others free to disagree with you, and to make their own decisions and take the approach they choose to take?

We all have to tolerate a lot from other people. No one has tolerated more abuse on these threads than Bobbolink - by far. The fact that this is invisible to people is the problem we are trying to discuss. I hope that I can keep the door open to people, and to see it as a privilege that others interact with me, not something that they must pass a test for first if they wish to interact with me. I hope that I can always look first at the log in my own eye, and that I am slow to judge others for the mote in theirs.

If it is unpleasant for you to interact with someone, then don't interact with them. Bobbolink cut off communication with me. So be it. I don't blame her. I am not going to demand that she talk to me - Hell I wouldn't talk to someone like me with the arrogant and self-righteous way I was being - or demand that she agree with me or take my feelings into account, nor would I try to attack or invalidate her, or stop supporting her just because my feelings got hurt. What is right is right, and that is more important than my transient feelings, especially feelings of being offended or insulted or otherwise puffing myself up as more important than I am.

[bobbolink]

185. BWAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not going away, dearie, so get used to it.

:P

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. I found what Two Americas said quite profound.

Could you give some examples of where this is manifested?

Here are a couple of examples:
1) illegal immigration. The accepted liberal dogma is that the honest, hardworking oppressed latinos are driven here by the brutal, repressive conditions created at home by craven corporate profit interests here in the US. Their only desire is noble; to seek a better life for their children. Unexamined in this dogma is the reality that a lot of poor americans are hard working and have the noble goal of providing a better life for their families too. Yet, when someone points this out, the easy response is that it is obvious that anyone who could say such a thing simply hates "brown people". This is inherently the view of someone who values self-improvement and nurturing their most egalitarian nature over promoting the interests of their fellow americans.

2) womens issues. In this country, a woman is running for the presidency of the united states. Her daughter is 50% more likely to go to college and will live a 10% longer life than her male peers. By the time boys reach Jr high school, they are a year and a half behind their female peers. A man is 50% more likely to be a victim of violent crime. In less than 10% of divorces in which custody is contested is the father given custody. If anyone uses these observations to argue that inequality is yet to be achieved, or that *gasp* perhaps the state of oppression of american women is overstated, they will be placed on a dozen ignore lists.
The entire culture of DU will then come down on the (presumably) white male oppressors who apparently lack the wits to have noticed that there are no white men for whom to vote. Equality in the context of gender doesn't mean equality in the dictionary sense. It is a zen state of consciousness to which each individual should strive for whilst throwing rocks at the stupid, icky, icky boys.

I'm not speaking to you, necessarily, but I've found that there's one place in which many DU'ers could improve themselves: math.

Since 78% of americans don't have college educations, and 83% consider themselves christians, and 80% are white and almost 50% are male, it seems prudent to try to recruit them to our cause instead of using them as the benchmark against which to measure our own smug self-actualization.

Whew.

[Andrea]

202. Thanks for responding to what I asked

With regards to illegal immigration, it is a complex issue which I have reached no conclusion about thus far.

With regards to women's issues, we disagree. The statistics you give are probably accurate, but they are selective. Men are more than 50% more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, but they are also responsible for 86% of violent crime. Gender differences in life expectancy are complex, with many causes. And men still control the corporations that are the seat of power in this country. Between 2000 and 2007, the number of women CEOs in the Fortune 500 companies fluctuated between six and thirteen, in other words, 2.6% or less.

While there may be no white men to vote for remaining in the Democratic primary this year (except Mike Gravel), there were five when the season began. And in previous elections, there were only white males to vote for in most cases, with any minority or female candidates being pushed out before the voting began. Furthermore, look at the gender and race make-up of the Senate, the House, the Federal Judiciary, and state-wide offices in every state. One could hardly claim that white males are under-represented.

Many DUers, just like many people in general, are deficient in even the relatively lower levels of math and arithmetic. I agree with you on that. Some are not deficient, but use statistics selectively to promote their own view.

It's funny that you should mention the need for inclusivity with regard to people of all backgrounds, including Christians and those who are not college educated. I have been working on a project which has as a major focus the need to bring all people into the fold, regardless of these characteristics. You didn't know that, but some of these posters do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. Thank you for the opportunity to purge.

I find that I rarely have the opportunity to speak candidly about these issues without the topic having been framed in such a way as to be forced into a role of supporting the patriarchy (I don't) or opposing immigration on racial grounds (I don't) or being unsupportive of workers (I certainly am not).

When I do have the opportunity, It may appear like a form of detox. To some degree, it may be. At any rate, thanks. And thank you for your help in bringing others "into the fold".

Those who have excommunicated themselves from our party over choice and equal protection can be brought back. It is an aberration that they've become republicans, anyone who believes that they have a more noble purpose to their lives than imperialism, belligerence and greed should be able to find a home here.

My comment about math... it was snark. Sorry. I can't help myself when I'm in rant mode. My point is that there is a vast group out there that should be talked to, not at, or worse, used as nothing more than a cautionary tale.

And yes, the statistics are selective. I'm content to agree that the patriarchy cuts both ways.

[personman]

114. Perhaps you are confusing self-actualization and individualism?

Or we just have radically different ideas of what self-actualization constitutes.

Edit: I should say, when I speak of self-actualization, I'm speaking of the importance of creating a society that allows people to reach their potential...not some sort of "I got mine, screw everyone else" foolishness.

[Two Americas]

120. two sides to the same coin

We have collapsing communities on an unprecedented scale, and the traditional ethic of self-sacrifice and duty and honor is seen as obsolete. Alienation and isolation are everywhere. All considerations are seen as subservient to the self - self-improvement, self-expression, personal choice and preference, individual freedom in all things. "I got mine, screw everyone else" is one variant, and self-actualization is another. One is associated with liberalism, and the other with conservatism, but they both rest on the same premises and assumptions - the individual above all.

[personman]

128. Ahh

I've been interested in more radical, anarchist and marxist ideas of self-actualization, quite different. :)

-personman

[Two Americas]

132. yep

I thought so. But see how the weak definitions we use lump people together who have nothing in common? That is the problem with modern liberalism - it has been hijacked and turned into something that is the opposite of what it once was and the word has no shared meaning anymore. Then we get swept into supporting things that are the opposite of what we want to support. It is really the labels and definitions, and all of the mushy implications and associations that now go along with them that I am attacking, not individual people. I suspect that everyone on this thread is more or less in the same situation that you are. With our sloppy definition of liberal, an Ayn Rand libertarian can pass as a liberal and we cannot get clarity or a shared purpose or effective political organization going when we do not have a consistent and solid bedrock of principle to anchor our politics to.

People are defending the label as though they are defending themselves. They are identifying personally with the label and that is taking precedence over taking a stand for the principles.

[Andrea]

138. This makes sense

But I see it as fact of life. No one can control whether another person really knows the definitions of the words they are using. Do you think something can be done? Do you think somehow definitions can be laid out and people can somehow be induced to learn those definitions and adhere to them? Unfortunately I think we are moving further and further away from that. I see sloppy and downright incorrect usage everywhere these days, on far less slippery concepts than we are discussing.

[Two Americas]

140. we can try

It is like holding back the tide, isn't it? Words mean whatever the person wants them to mean. Someday people will need to understand each other once again and work together, if we are going to survive. It is just a question of how much suffering needs to happen between now and then.

[balantz]

142. Yes we can?

Sorry:eyes:

[balantz]

147. Just trying to make a silly joke.

[Andrea]

148. I got your joke, balantz

It was a good one, but maybe too subtle for some. Keep it up, we all need a laugh these days!

:hi:

[balantz]

149. Hiya Andrea!

:hi:
I don't think anyone is checking in this old post to be able to see the joke. And it does poke at a certain candidate.

I think this dead horse has been beat. But I really admire your thoroughness and concern to keep on here and get to the bottom of the side issue that played out in this thread. Actually not a side issue, but at the heart of the O.P. in a way. I think some of us who have been involved in this little exchange have pretty much resolved where we sit with this right now, in our own ways and collectively. And then there are a few who washed their hands immediately, and perhaps a few who aren't quite sure. I will keep an open ear and mind for the not quite sure of it, because there is some little thing nagging me still about all of this, like something I may be missing. The issue needs to be continually investigated because underneath there is much truth to be seen behind all of the experiences and opinions or it wouldn't have attracted so much thoughtfullness, investigation and exchange. The emotional aspect always tends to get tangled.

[Andrea]

150. Good points, Balantz

At one point I thought we should stop because we were hijacking the thread, but then I realized it really did illuminate the point the OP was making. I'm going to keep an open mind and ear, too. It is important. I hope that the real issue can be addressed in spite of the risk it is for some people to weigh in on it.

See you around, buddy!

[balantz]

152. You know, I think the nagging thing is just the general complacency

Americans have with these looming problems. Bobbi is correct in that the most crucial problem that people are being complacent about is poverty. If this was the number one concern of Americans then we would truly be a progressive society. Because it isn't we are kind of doomed. If it was of top concern then we would have already been remedying the problem as a society a long time ago, no matter what the odds from the federal government. Now some of us here might be representative of some of the least complacent, so perhaps Bobbi should be able to take that into account when she asks us to help with the problem.

[lumberjack_jeff]

191. Whoa! Exactly! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. It was a straw man. Bobolink never suggested (s)he would be voting for a R.

You said that, then opined that (s)he couldn't possibly mean that.

There is a strain of elitism that runs through liberalism. Count the threads, just from today, about how stupid americans are.

... they mean other americans of course, the ones who are only considering voting for democrats.

We treat being democrat like being part of an exclusive club.

[Junkdrawer]

143. bobbolink: You toss bricks around, then whine when anyone even challenges...

the logic of what you say.

That's VERY trollish behavior.

[bobbolink]

195. Better than being a bully.

[Time for change]

11. Self delete -- wrong place

[personman]

112. poor IS punishment.

In fact, it's theft.

I thought Edwards offered the most change, and I'd prefer him, and the dems in general, to the republicans, but I have no illusions whatsoever that they actually represent my interests...

Edwards is more a progressive though: a liberal who favors corporate regulation. Far from ideal, but it's something.

The interesting thing I notice, is the more "educated" people are,(in the private school, Ivy League, sense of the word) the less they know...

We should think about this...The more they are taught...the less they know...

Very Orwellian...

There is more healthy skepticism of the political elite from the poor and uneducated than from our "Best and Brightest..." what does this say about our best and brightest?

[Lorien]

100. Er, you pay for that bag in grocery prices without the fee

just bring your own. I do, it cuts down on the use of petroleum and keeps non-biodegradable plastic from chocking our ecosystem, which supports ALL of our lives; rich, poor, EVERYONE. Don't think this is a real problem that thinking people should be concerned about? Read this:


Facts and figures regarding the true cost of plastic bags


Want to know more about Ireland's wildly successful PlasTax? How about numbers on consumption? Think paper bags are better than plastic bags?...Think again, and be in the know.

Top Facts - Consumption

# Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide. That comes out to over one million per minute. Billions end up as litter each year.

# According to the EPA, over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year.

# According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. goes through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually. (Estimated cost to retailers is $4 billion)

# According to the industry publication Modern Plastics, Taiwan consumes 20 billion bags a year—900 per person.

# According to Australia’s Department of Environment, Australians consume 6.9 billion plastic bags each year—326 per person. An estimated .7% or 49,600,000 end up as litter each year.

Top Facts - Environmental Impact

# Hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, whales and other marine mammals die every year from eating discarded plastic bags mistaken for food.

# Plastic bags don’t biodegrade, they photodegrade—breaking down into smaller and smaller toxic bits contaminating soil and waterways and entering the food web when animals accidentally ingest.

# As part of Clean Up Australia Day, in one day nearly 500,000 plastic bags were collected.

# Windblown plastic bags are so prevalent in Africa that a cottage industry has sprung up harvesting bags and using them to weave hats, and even bags. According to the BBC, one group harvests 30,000 per month.

# According to David Barnes, a marine scientist with the British Antarctic Survey, plastic bags have gone "from being rare in the late 80s and early 90s to being almost everywhere from Spitsbergen 78° North to Falklands 51° South .

# Plastic bags are among the 12 items of debris most often found in coastal cleanups, according to the nonprofit Center for Marine Conservation.

Top Facts - Solutions

# In 2001, Ireland consumed 1.2 billion plastic bags, or 316 per person. An extremely successful plastic bag consumption tax, or PlasTax, introduced in 2002 reduced consumption by 90%. Approximately 18,000,000 liters of oil have been saved due to this reduced production. Governments around the world are considering implementing similar measures.

http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php

It's not being "elitist", it's having common sense. Bring your own bags. It's so easy it's a wonder we haven't been doing so all along, just as our ancestors did (they carried baskets). But somewhere along the way we got addicted to laziness and convenience, and our planet is paying the price for that.

[bobbolink]

103. there's that "elite", who forget that not EVERYONE is in your circumstances.

This topic covered all that you have said, and reminded people that for some, "HOME" is a campfire at a busy intersection, with no way of saving bags.

Yet, that doesn't even seem to occur to so many liberals, hence "liberals" aren't seen by poor folk as caring much about their situations.

There was actually quite a thought-provoking post about the elitism of environmentalism.

You might want to read it and think about it.

I repeat... not EVERYONE is in your circumstances.

[El Pinko]

33. Sadly, you're right, bobbo, but we do need limo-libs and latte libs...

...I have more than a few friends like this living in comfortable enclaves in Marin County and Silicon Valley. Stories about homelessness, job offshoring, etc. simply don't impact them in the way they do me and my other working-class friends. They'll get up in arms about an anti-choice court nominee or an anti-gay ballot initiative, because they have gay friends and they have at least acquaintances that have needed to terminate a pregnancy. But the only working people they know are the people who deliver their flower arrangements or clean their houses. They give to charity and tip well, so it's like their consciences are clean. Clinton reformed welfare, the conomy is great - problem solved.

But they are good people with their hearts in the right place, even if they sometimes are out of touch and it's up to those of us in the working class to make limo-libs around us understand just how dire things are becoming for those of us who aren't so well-off.

I've never been unemployed for more than a week, and I make a lot more than minimum wage, but can barely make ends meet because of stagnant wages and soaring prices. I have better job security than many, but a lot of my friends have little. If I'm struggling this much, what about the people who have to get by on less than half what I make? Almost 1/3 of Americans are surviving on MINIMUM-WAGE jobs!

Just as the stereotype of the labor democrat who is conservative on social issues has some truth to it, so does the stereotype of the comfy ivory-tower liberal.

But give them some credit - it would be easy for a lot of them to go over to the dark side. At least they have a conscience and try to stay informed and vote for the betterment of society.

[Two Americas]

37. why?

Why do we need them?

What would it hurt if they did "go over to the dark side?" There are so few, relatively speaking, that the party would not lose anything of consequence in strength, and if that opened the party up to millions of blue collar people, the net gain would be enormous. Most blue collar people are not turned off to the politics of the left. In fact, on issues of economics and power - which is what politics is properly concerned with anyway - I find most blue collar folks far to the left from most upscale liberals.

[El Pinko]

38. I doubt they are that few, and they contribute considerable amounts to campaigns.

With organized labor at an all-time low in terms of influence and membership, you would blow off a group of well-meaning people who can actually afford substantial contributions to campaigns and other worthy efforts?

I know what you're saying, but some of the greatest progress we've ever made in this country was thanks to "limo-libs" like FDR and JFK.

[Two Americas]

41. who is blowing off whom?

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Green party activist a while back. I told him that the Green party was an insiders' circle, out of touch with the every day people; that it might as well be an aristocratic social club of upscale professionals and was politically irrelevant. He said that was not true, and that his chapter had mostly white collar professionals because he was in the Palo Alto area, and that was what most of the people there were.

I told him that I was familiar with the area and knew a few things about it.

Someone there is cleaning the streets. Someone is hauling the garbage. Someone is cleaning the offices, someone is scrubbing the toilets. Someone is driving truck, repairing the vehicles, bagging the groceries, stocking the shelves, manning the counter, washing the windows, maintaining the sewers, wiring the buildings, replacing roofs, driving the taxis, doing the carpentry, caring for the elderly, mowing the lawns, mopping the floors, pouring the concrete, delivering the packages, climbing the utility polls, fixing the plumbing, shoveling the gravel, trimming the trees, working the loading dock, changing the lighting fixtures, waiting table, cooking the meals, guarding the buildings, and doing the thousands of essential jobs that keep things running.

Yet he actually thought that upscale professionals were the only people there. He literally could not see those others - they may as well not have existed.

Those people are all invisible to most liberals - they look right through them. There are a thousand of them for every one upscale professional liberal.

[bobbolink]

69. Speaking of having it nailed ! We ARE invisible!!

When we speak politely of our situation, we are brushed off.

We are invisible.

When we appeal to reason about their ever-so-"enlightened" methods of punishing us with taxes on plastic bags, gasoline, etc., we are swatted at like so many irritating flies.

Then, when we rise up and DEMAND to be heard like the human beings we are, we're told we're "mentally ill", and badly in need of "professional treatment", like I got from that lovely group of Edwardians.

Yes.

Invisible.

UNTIL we DEMAND TO BE HEARD AND SEEN.

Then their true nature comes out.

[OneGrassRoot]

74. Who are "they"?

You said: "When we appeal to reason about their ever-so-"enlightened" methods of punishing us with taxes on plastic bags, gasoline, etc., we are swatted at like so many irritating flies."


Who is the "they"?

We need to fight, but those of us at these forums don't seem to be the ones you're fighting against. We all want to fight those who are manipulating the SYSTEM, resulting in all the suffering.

[bobbolink]

79. I thought you were talking about "liberals",... weren't you?

They are the they.

"but those of us at these forums don't seem to be the ones you're fighting against. "

Oh for gawd's sake... do you want to hear me or not?

Cuz if you don't, I'm certainly wasting my breath!

Maybe you need to reread my earlier reply to you....

FUCK YES I'M TALKING ABOUT "LIBERALS" ON DU!!!!

Some of the "elites" here are much more haughty to me than conservatives I know in real life!

[Andrea]

83. You are not happy with how people respond to you

that much I get. But could you please say what it is you want people to do?

[bobbolink]

87. Andrea, we talked about that in the forum, and none of it ever happened.

I can't see that repeating it will change anything, do you?

I wrote much to you in PMs and never received a reply.

I have a hard time considering your question as sincere.

[Andrea]

91. Then I conclude that you are not actually interested in communicating

You make posts and when people try to understand, you do not show them the respect of responding to what they write. Instead you re-iterate falsehoods.

My question is sincere. Your response does not seem sincere to me.

[bobbolink]

94. *IF* YOU are "sincere", then reply to my PMs!

Just publicly running me down makes you look ...petty.

And calling me a liar.... How..."liberal" of you.

I never thought I'd see you stoop to this...

ELITE.

PRIVATE CLUB.

LIBERAL.

[Andrea]

82. Your characterization of "most liberals" is counter to my experience

Actually, most of the liberals I know are the people you described in your second paragraph. Others used to be in those jobs and have moved up financially to some degree but nonetheless identify themselves with those people.

None of them would appreciate being characterized as being so elitist.

[bobbolink]

68. Again, their money means so much more than the pain they cause poor folk.

Fie on the party for that!

Which is exactly why you Dems may just be in for a HUGE surprise this fall... more and more people are observing that many of us are keeping our '04 pledge... we WON'T for the lesser of two weavils anymore.

We're done.

Caput.

BASTA!

[nikto]

43. I make my own Latte....

...with my own blends of beans I grind at home
and make in a simple Euro-style drip setup,
or (gasp) a French Press.

And, I wish Howard Dean could be President.
(But I'll settle for Obama)

So that makes me a Latte Liberal, for sure.

Unfortunately, I have to live on my HS Teacher's salary.

No Marin foothills for me.

But I am Liberal/Pregressive and PROUD OF IT.

And I love a good, strong, fresh-made Latte.

Tomorrow, I think I'll try a blend of
Sumatra, Peaberry and Costa-Rican Fair trade...

[Time for change]

48. I agree with all that, and I would add that

Just because someone has a lot of money or lives comfortably doesn't mean that they aren't concerned about economic justice just as much as they are about those other liberal issues. Consider John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, for example. In my opinion anyone who doesn't feel that that isn't an important issue isn't fully liberal. That's an integral part of the liberal philosophy.

[bobbolink]

70. Yes, I considered Dennis Kucinich. Until he dropped poverty as an issue.

And, no, I began to doubt just how "liberal" he really is.

[bobbolink]

67. Those "good people" are the ones who continually place their idea of "progressive" progress squarely

on the shoulders of us poor folk!

They AREN'T helping ME or those like me... they're doing all they can to hinder us and make us more miserable.

Fie on 'em.

[lumberjack_jeff]

190. All too often, it's more than "out of touch".

It crosses the line into openly hostile.

Here's an experiment. Start a thread on illegal immigration. Count how many posts it takes from a defender of free immigration before they call you a racist because unregulated immigration doesn't depress wages, and if it does, it only depresses the wages at the lowest end of the income spectrum.

[Two Americas]

209. racism exists

833,000 people, by the government's own admission, have been illegally rounded up and arrested and detained and denied all rights. I have experienced this first hand. Paramilitary swat teams with automatic weapons descend and separate people - whites from browns, hold them at gunpoint and drag off all brown people, citizens or not, and 99% of those people have ben innocent of any wrong doing. No warrants, no probable cause, no charges, no right to face your accuser, no right to a speedy trial or a hearing, or any trial at all, no access to legal counsel, no Miranda rights, no presumption of innocence, no phone call, no Habeas Corpus.

The wealthy and powerful corporate managers are who holds down wages. Blaming one segment of the working class for depressing the wages of another segment is highly reactionary. It is the same argument that was used against Blacks, including in the cause of opposition to emancipation and opposition to equality in hiring and pay.

Corporations - capital, the wealthy and powerful who have all of the capital - operate freely and with impunity across borders. Labor - workers who are not wealthy and who are responsible for creating all of th wealth - should have equality. That is the humanitarian position, the political left wing position - anything even slightly to the left of outright Republicanism - the traditional position of the Democratic party in keeping with all of the principles and ideals of the party, and is mainstream American thought regarding fair play and decency.

Wages are much more effectively depressed by hiring the same person south of the border to do the same job than hiring that person here. The anti-immigrant hatred that is being whipped up by the extreme right wing is dividing and conquering us.

In the small family farm world I work in, even Republican voting white males - those who actually personally know and work with immigrants - are not taking an anti-immigrant position or seeing immigrants as depressing their wages.

Anti-immigrant hatred is driven by racism. If separating people out at gunpoint based on skin color is not racism, then nothing is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. I respectfully disagree.

racists are drawn like parasites to the issue, but the issue is not ethnic, it is economic.

There is a strong alignment of interests between cheap labor republicans and self-actualized liberals on this topic. The small family farm you work at would pay better if there was a smaller pool of labor from which to draw. When I was in high school, most of the kids worked at the small local farms. Now that my own children are in high school, those jobs are no longer available due to a variety of factors including mechanization, large factory farming and unlimited labor availability. My own brother in law worked on a small family farm for nearly 30 years until declining health and unlimited cheap labor made him irrelevant.

In my area, the people who are most harmed by the surplus of labor in the natural resources industries are native americans. Every illegal worker who takes a job planting trees here further degrades the ability of american workers to fend for their own families. If nothing else, the money spent on the labor of an american citizen stays in the US economy.

It is as easy for someone in Georgia or here in Washington to claim that supporting unregulated immigration is motivated by racism. The poor in the northwest (who most need those jobs) are native americans. The poor in the Southeast (who most need those jobs) are African americans. Jobs are being taken from poor blacks and given to latin americans on the basis an unholy alliance of noble self-image among some liberals combined with self-interest on the part of businesspeople. Apathy among those who consider some of the millions of undocumented workers friends contributes to the problem.

I don't see any high ground here, only a race to the bottom.

Countries regulate immigration for a reasonable purpose; to protect the interests of the citizens of the host country. In this country, that's not considered much of a concern, because the people it harms aren't educated and occupy only the lowest rungs of our society. Better to kick 'em off that rung in favor of someone who'll pick lettuce, or build, or drive a truck cheaper.

[Two Americas]

223. response

There is a strong alignment of interests between cheap labor republicans and self-actualized liberals on this topic. The small family farm you work at would pay better if there was a smaller pool of labor from which to draw. When I was in high school, most of the kids worked at the small local farms. Now that my own children are in high school, those jobs are no longer available due to a variety of factors including mechanization, large factory farming and unlimited labor availability. My own brother in law worked on a small family farm for nearly 30 years until declining health and unlimited cheap labor made him irrelevant.

Yes, of course, I too worked on small farms as a kid. It isn't happening today, and it has nothing to do with wages. Young native people will not do farm work for any wage, and that has been true for over a generation now.

There is just as much a shortage of new farm owners as there is of people for entry level work. It is farming people are rejecting, not low wages.

In my area, the people who are most harmed by the surplus of labor in the natural resources industries are native americans. Every illegal worker who takes a job planting trees here further degrades the ability of american workers to fend for their own families. If nothing else, the money spent on the labor of an american citizen stays in the US economy.

Human beings are not a commodity, and "labor surplus" is a Republican concept. There are never too many workers. Too few jobs is caused by management and capital, not by our fellow workers.

Do you think the money that corporations make off of us stays in the US economy, let alone local economies???

Money that immigrants send home stabilizes the problem and comes back to us in many ways.

It is as easy for someone in Georgia or here in Washington to claim that supporting unregulated immigration is motivated by racism. The poor in the northwest (who most need those jobs) are native americans. The poor in the Southeast (who most need those jobs) are African americans. Jobs are being taken from poor blacks and given to latin americans on the basis an unholy alliance of noble self-image among some liberals combined with self-interest on the part of businesspeople. Apathy among those who consider some of the millions of undocumented workers friends contributes to the problem.

This notion of a finite number of jobs is false, and again is a Republican principle that is the opposite position from the traditional position of the Democratic party. If what you say were true, then 99% of the people today would be competing for the same fixed number of jobs that were available in the 1700's. More workers creates more jobs, not fewer. Restriction of the number of jobs available is the direct result of capital being restricted by the hoarding and controlling of capital by the few.

Countries regulate immigration for a reasonable purpose; to protect the interests of the citizens of the host country. In this country, that's not considered much of a concern, because the people it harms aren't educated and occupy only the lowest rungs of our society. Better to kick 'em off that rung in favor of someone who'll pick lettuce, or build, or drive a truck cheaper.

Management is always trying to drive workers wages down. That is not the fault of workers, and has nothing to do with immigration. Corporations can hire workers to do the same exact work cheaper south of the border than here.

The argument you are using was used to defend slavery. "If we free all of those slaves, there won't be enough jobs to go around and wages will be driven down."

The reason that labor is crossing borders is because capital first crossed those borders. Rich people crossed borders before poor people crossed borders, and the one was directly caused by the other. You are saying that it is OK for rich people to cross borders and exploit, set up businesses, and profit on the resources in other countries, but it is not OK for poor people to cross borders out of desperation for the purpose of surviving.

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. Ininite jobs

This notion of a finite number of jobs is false, and again is a Republican principle that is the opposite position from the traditional position of the Democratic party. If what you say were true, then 99% of the people today would be competing for the same fixed number of jobs that were available in the 1700's. More workers creates more jobs, not fewer. Restriction of the number of jobs available is the direct result of capital being restricted by the hoarding and controlling of capital by the few.

If the supply of jobs were infinite, and limited only by the amount of people seeking work, China would be the most prosperous country on earth.

Labor unions were formed to constrain the supply of labor. It most certainly is a traditional position of the Democratic party. If you have the opportunity, watch the movie Matewan.

In January 1998, the total nonfarm seasonally adjusted employment in the US was 125 million. In January of this year, it was 138 million for a total net gain over the decade of 11%. Our population grows 2.5 million people each year, half of which is immigration - primarily unregulated. The population in 1998 was 270 million, today it is 303 million. Our population has grown faster than our employment base. They call this statistic the employment/population ratio, and it has steadily declined since 1998. Were it not for immigration, our employment base would be able to maintain 1998 levels of unemployment.

A person who acknowledges that labor is subject to supply and demand can predict the outcome - stagnating wages.

The best tool management has to suppress wages is to import cheap labor.

Slavery? On the contrary. Freeing the slaves constrained the supply of labor. The better analogy is the argument used to bring in more boatloads of slaves; "no white folks will pick that cotton".

Of course they will, when the wage is commensurate with the work.

[Two Americas]

225. response again

I want to repeat something I said earlier -

If paramilitary teams raiding businesses, holding people at gunpoint and sorting them out for special treatment solely on the basis of skin color is not racism, then nothing is and we may as well strike the word from our vocabulary. It has lost all meaning, which I believe has been the goal of the right wing propaganda on this subject.

If the supply of jobs were infinite, and limited only by the amount of people seeking work, China would be the most prosperous country on earth.

What is a job? One person providing something of value for another person. We are all both of those persons. Increasing the number of people means more workers and an equal demand for workers. It cannot be otherwise.

Labor unions were formed to constrain the supply of labor. It most certainly is a traditional position of the Democratic party. If you have the opportunity, watch the movie Matewan.

From the management point of view, yes. Preventing scabs is a different subject than restricting labor. Unions protect workers for artificial "surpluses" of workers created by management.

How would we ultimately constrain the "supply" of labor? Kill people off?

I really have to object to your view of human beings as a commodity on the market, by the way.

Were it not for immigration, our employment base would be able to maintain 1998 levels of unemployment.

You can't know that. You conveniently leave out management's agenda. For all you know, more work would be outsourced in your scenario. I think that is very likely.

A person who acknowledges that labor is subject to supply and demand can predict the outcome - stagnating wages.

I categorically refuse to acknowledge any such thing. To do so is to take management's position over workers, capital over labor, profits over people. Human beings are not a commodity on the marketplace.

Slavery? On the contrary. Freeing the slaves constrained the supply of labor. The better analogy is the argument used to bring in more boatloads of slaves; "no white folks will pick that cotton".

That is correct, because there is no such thing as constraining the labor supply that is consistent with basic human rights, let alone the principles and ideals of organized labor and the Democratic party. Slavery moved human beings from one set of conditions to an improved set of conditions, just as immigration does.

To restrict labor supply, human beings must either be killed, or they must be held out of a particular labor pool and forcefully restricted to worse conditions of employment. Corporations do both of those things, routinely. That is how you restrict labor. It does not raise wages, it increases corporate power and domination, and with that life and death power over us they of course can also control our wages.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

I would hope that no Democrat would ever take a position on this that is far to the right of Abraham Lincoln, whom I will quote above, or the current Roman Catholic hierarchy. You are taking such a position.

Abraham Lincoln answers your argument:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

[lumberjack_jeff]

226. I'm not making up the rules

If two people are seeking a job, an employer will pay what the what the more desperate of the two will accept.

If 100 people are seeking a job, an employer will offer what they feel the most desperate candidate of the group will take, then look for ways to increase that pool to 200.

Unions were formed to take the benefit of that dynamic away from management.

From a trade perspective, labor is a commodity like any other. As a worker, it is in our interest to increase its value by any means available. Our labor is our primary asset. It does huge disservice to our humanity to deny that this is how the economy of labor works.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

The system in which an immigrant sneaks into the US, displacing the employment of a citizen, then returning home with the proceeds was clearly and obviously not the situation that Lincoln was envisioning. If they decide to stay (a decision which should be left to the citizens of the country in which they've taken residence, btw) soon they realize that they're being forced to compete with ever more desperate immigrants. Pretty soon, it's not really the land of opportunity - it's the land of serfdom.

The united states has one of the highest population growth rates (0.7%) of any country, and it's almost entirely attributable to immigration, most of which is surreptitious.

Using the labor/capital views of Lincoln is a straw man. The importation of free/cheap labor is exactly what capital wants.

Frankly, the idea that more workers = more prosperity is silly. It is no more accurate to say that inviting 30 strangers into your home will make your household more prosperous because each of the 30 makes more messes thus creating the jobs of vacuuming and dishwashing.

What it does do is to devalue labor.

[Two Americas]

228. the relevancy

I wouldn't have responded to this topic if there were no connection or relevancy to poverty.

Just as some on this thread are justifying placing an extra burden on the poor for the alleged cause of "saving the planet," so too you are ignoring and justifying horrific mistreatment of poor and desperate people in the cause of "saving American jobs."

Just as the debate here is not about bags, nor about saving the planet, so to the debate you are having with me is not about immigration, nor about jobs.

You can talk theory all day long, but the truth is that "immigration" was not a burning issue for people until a massive hateful racist campaign was mounted by the right wing propaganda machine, and the real world effect of that has ben a complete trashing of the Constitution and terrible mistreatment of poor and desperate human beings.

Just as the "bag" people here will not talk about the impact on poor people - poor people are invisible to them - so too you will not talk about the reality of the anti-immigrant hatred and the impact on human beings - those poor and desperate people are invisible to you.

What we need to discuss here is how being smart and clever short-circuits people's humanity - displaces their empathy and compassion. What is the process whereby clever thinking and rhetoric turns ideas that are the opposite of liberalism into something that can be foisted of as liberal?

If every immigrant were a crazed criminal maniac, it would not justify the way they are being treated.

If the immigrants were wealthy and white, we would not be having this discussion.

If compassion and empathy for your struggling and suffering fellow human beings were the most important consideration for you - or any consideration at all - we would not be having this discussion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. Don't presume.

If compassion and empathy for your struggling and suffering fellow human beings were the most important consideration for you - or any consideration at all - we would not be having this discussion.

Bullshit. I'll tell you what I think. You needn't guess. Calling me a racist isn't something I appreciate, nor is it a useful tactic to get me to shut up.

I have both compassion and empathy for the suffering of my fellow human beings. I consider it important to use government as a tool to mitigate it. The people who our government represents are called "citizens", and they come in every color and socioeconomic background. The ones who are harmed by self-regulated immigration are working class americans. Unlike many of my fellow liberals, such as yourself, I intend to vigorously promote their interests.

Every noncitizen here is (at best) a guest; citizens of some other country which is supposed to be looking out for their interests. Our foreign policy needs to encourage their governments to take care of their citizens.

Immigration wasn't an issue until up to 12 million people (approaching 10% of the workforce) had set up shop here illegally, nearly a million each year, finding the US law inconvenient.

Our difference isn't in our respective capacity for empathy, it's in our comparative tolerance for lawlessness. The laws on immigration and naturalization are in place to protect the most vulnerable americans. If the enforcement mechanism used on lawbreakers is inhumane or counterproductive, that's a different, honest discussion.

The political situation in Mexico, (and to a lesser degree other central american countries) is responsible for encouraging their most vulnerable to leave - because taking your job is easier than fixing their own society.

[Two Americas]

231. not presuming anything

Nor did I call you a racist. Nor do I know whether or not you have empathy for the poor.

Your argument keeps shifting. Now it is about legalisms, which is a red herring. You have not responded to any of my points. Your "protecting american workers" argument is a smokescreen. The same bosses are hiring people on both sides of borders. You ignore that. The instigation for the immigration scare - the cause of the "crisis" - is clearly hateful and racist. You ignore that. The result of the immigration scare has been massive violations of human rights. You ignore that.

You fall back on two very thin and unsupported assertions - that workers cause other workers to have lower wages or lose jobs; that enforcing the law justifies any sort of draconian action imaginable.

Immigrants are not criminals. Very few are scoff-laws and sneaking or cheating. The typical violations are on the level of seriousness as jay-walking, and are often due to bureaucratic snafus or foot-dragging, or confusion and misunderstanding. The immigration scare is not enforcing any law or catching any criminals or saving any jobs, it is empowering law enforcement to act in gross violation of the law and it is fomenting hatred for poor and non-white human beings.

So even if your assumptions are correct, and even if what is happening was in fact eliminating immigrants or catching law-breakers, that still would not justify what is happening. The method - whipping up fear and hatred among the people, and staging massive and widespread Gestapo raids in complete violation of the Constitution and basic human rights - is appalling and unacceptable no matter how desirable you may believe the cause to be. The ends do not justify the means.

[lumberjack_jeff]

232. "If the immigrants were wealthy and white, we would not be having this discussion."

One of the primary tools for obtaining legitimate residency in any country, is having enough wealth to be able to credibly promise that you'll improve the economy in the place to which you are moving. Wealthy people need not break the law. Whether that law is legitimate and just is a different question, but it is easy to argue that it serves a public interest.

I can't speak for you but if desperately poor whites were sneaking in and taking the jobs of working class african-american citizens, I'd still be "having this discussion".

I ignore nothing. I reject most of it. The same bosses are hiring people on both sides of the border, but there are great many industries which aren't interchangeable. If you want to work installing roofs, you need to work where the roof is. If you want to work planting trees you need to do it where the dirt is.

Weyerhaeuser doesn't hire people anymore, it hires subcontractors because it provides a layer of plausible deniability that the people who are doing the jobs pay taxes, get minimum wage and pay into the workmens compensation system. They can pretend that a contractor who does it for half the cost of direct hiring is paying minimum wage, withholding taxes and abiding by workplace safety laws.

If a worker gets injured up here, they're loaded in a car by the crew boss with $100 and sent home. This is the new workplace reality in the northwest woods. It's the new baseline, and it's purely the result of the alignment of interests between corporate greed and the "just seeking a better life" mystique.

The wage-depressing effect of uncontrolled immigration is well-documented.

Immigrants are not criminals.

The ones who play by the rules and come here legally and legitimately are not. The rest are.

I'm not arguing that law enforcement tactics are justified or appropriate. I defer to you, having seen it. I'm perfectly willing to believe that some of the raids are dehumanizing.

I am saying that with 12 million people in this country illegally, the magnitude of the law enforcement problem is mind boggling. Nevertheless, I can only see two reasons to change the law in surrender:
1) the law against self-regulated immigration is no longer beneficial to the citizens of the country
2) enforcing the law causes more problems for those citizens than it solves.

Illegal workers are to legitimate workers as scabs are to union members. It's as simple as that. It is unfortunate that the legitimate defense of the livelihoods of the working class get wadded up with racism.

[Two Americas]

233. I absolutely agree

Immigration needs to be regulated and managed. I am in favor of any program that will accomplish that without shredding the Constitution, violating human rights, abusing poor people, and treating people differently according to race or wealth.

Still my friend, it would do my heart much good if you would at least re-consider some of the things you are saying on this thread. That's all. Give what I am saying some thought.

I don't think you intend to do this, but you are still making classist and right wing arguments.

You say -"If you want to work installing roofs, you need to work where the roof is. If you want to work planting trees you need to do it where the dirt is."

Yes, but on small farms having that entry level labor increases prosperity for all and creates more and better jobs for native born people. I am not saying that this is always the case, nor that there are not abuses. But you are painting it all the other way and generalizing from the worst examples.

There are not "12 million illegal people." In this case, "illegal" means undocumented, which means there is no record which means we have no way to KNOW how many there are. The more we apply the punishment model, the more we drive people underground and the worse the problem becomes. There ARE millions of people in legal limbo, but that's the fault of the screwed up federal immigration bureaucracy, not the poor and desperate people who are being targeted.

You say - "I can't speak for you but if desperately poor whites were sneaking in and taking the jobs of working class african-american citizens, I'd still be 'having this discussion.'"

Perhaps, but I grew up in Detroit in the 50's and there WERE many whites "sneaking" - God I hate that, can you drop the de-humanizing and pejorative language? - in and working ion the auto plants, and there was no outrage whatsoever. In agriculture there are many Hungarian and Polish people coming to work the farms - they are fast-tracked to legality, never harassed by immigration even if their paperwork is out of order, and no one sees them as an invading horde that is ruining our country.

The wage depressing effect of immigration is NOT well-documented, in fact the most exhaustive studies have been done on the subject and the exact opposite has been found to be true.

You say - "One of the primary tools for obtaining legitimate residency in any country, is having enough wealth to be able to credibly promise that you'll improve the economy in the place to which you are moving."

Nonsense. No democrat should entertain that thought for one minute. It is people's labor that contributes to the wealth of the country, not their personal wealth. Giving wealthy people an easier time to get in is a matter of catering to the upper class and punishing the poor, which goes on all through our society. Our immigration policy reflects our general social policy, and is heavily influenced by the wealthy and powerful and the right wingers. Don't buy into their arguments.I don't care if other countries do the same thing - they are racist and capitalistic, too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

235. Canadian immigration

I know that you said that you don't care if other countries give preference to investors/businesspeople for immigration, but I thought this link was interesting.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/immigrate/business/index.asp

Why does Canada have a business immigration program?

Canada’s Business Immigration Program seeks to attract experienced business people to Canada to support the development of a strong and prosperous Canadian economy. The program includes three classes: the Immigrant Investor Class, the Self-Employed Persons Class and the Entrepreneur Class.

Business immigrants are expected to contribute to the Canadian economy by owning and managing businesses in Canada or by making an investment in the Canadian economy.

I'm not going to argue whether their policy is "racist and capitalistic". I will say that it has a clear rationale, described in terms of serving the interest of Canadian citizens.

Immigration needs to be regulated and managed. I am in favor of any program that will accomplish that without shredding the Constitution, violating human rights, abusing poor people, and treating people differently according to race or wealth.

Unfortunately, all too many liberals argue that denying anyone entry and access to services once they arrive, regardless of their reasons for fleeing their own country (how is child support collected in Mexico?), is inherently an abusive breach of human rights. This is what I reject; the idea that anyone has a human right to my job that transcends my own.

I use sneaking because it fits the dictionary definition. To elude deportation by the law enforcement agencies representing the government whose laws are being broken, one must sneak.

And it's not me who's bought into the rightwing/corporatist message.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html

I will give what you are saying more thought because I have a great deal of respect for you, what you are doing, and your insights.

[Two Americas]

239. thanks

I do understand what you are saying, and I do believe that we can reach an understanding on this. I appreciate your time and effort. I am sure that there is much more to explore on this issue, and that we can discuss it again in the future.

Not everything that the Cato institute says is something we need to automatically oppose, by the way. There are voices there who believe the Bill of Rights should be restored, for example.

Again - I think that immigration needs to be standardized and managed, and I am in favor of any plan that does that without shredding the Bill of Rights; that respects human rights and dignity; that is not biased toward business interests and the wealthy; that does not discriminate based on class or race.

Wealthy people get into the country and always have no matter what. Former Nazis, death squad leaders from Latin America, corrupt businesspeople, the families of dictators an tyrants of all kinds - if they are rich, then come on in! You are "our kind" of people. Poor people are abused and always have been - immigrants or citizens, workers or the homeless. As Democrats, we just cannot in good conscience ignore that.

If the super wealthy can cross the border, take advantage of people because of their poverty, bribe and corrupt local governments, destroy the environment and indigenous communities, hire private armies to keep the indigenous people terrorized, escape oversight and taxes and regulations, labor and environmental standards - if they can cross borders and do their business with such freedom and impunity, then by God as Democrats we should see that it is only justice to grant the same rights and freedoms to desperately poor people who are only trying to feed their family and to contribute their labor to this country.

Otherwise, you are supporting and justifying two tiers of rights and privileges - one set for the wealthy, and one set for the poor. Advocating that anywhere will lead to it happening everywhere. You are saying that the wealthy person's right to cross the border for the purpose of making millions of dollars quickly and more easily takes precedence over the poor person's right to survive and to feed their family.

[bean fidhleir]

240. In the real world, the world as it is today and will be tomorrow and next year

no paying jobs are created unless some member of the elite thinks he can increase his own wealth by creating them. The power to create paying jobs lies 100% within the power of the wealthy elites and nobody else. So to say that more people means more jobs completely ignores the everyday reality being lived by ordinary working people. It ignores it so completely that, honestly, it sounds delusional. Do you really think that if there were 1000 people lined up for every stoop-labor job at every farm that the wage wouldn't drop to nothing? All of history says it would. Can you name a case where it didn't?

In the 1300s, after the Plague had killed a third of the population in Europe, the survivors in England thought that they would be able to have better lives because there were fewer competitors for each job. So, they thought, the elites would have to pay them better wages to work the land. But the elites quickly got a law passed (the Statute of Labourers) that capped the wage a laborer could receive at the same level as before the plague AND required every able-bodied person to have a job. But prices and taxes weren't capped.

Since the elites have always, everywhere, conspired with one another to reduce wages to slavery level, it is 100% in their interest to have 1000 people begging for each job. Adding people increase competition and drives wages down. It doesn't matter how those additional people are obtained, whether immigration, worker-importation laws, laws against contraception and abortion, laws against homosexuality, propaganda, whatever. The elites will use them all. The more people, the more profit for the elites and the more desperation for the people.

In some other world, some humane world where everyone has the legal right to a sufficient share in the necessities of life, and is raised to understand the connection between rights, responsibilities, and survival, in such a world a few more people wouldn't necessarily mean noticeably more poverty. But that is not the world we live in today! And it's not the world we're going to live in tomorrow or next year either. Perhaps in a hundred years, but only if we work our fingers to the bone to create the conditions, starting now.

[Two Americas]

241. ok

So, since a handful of wealthy and powerful people control the number of jobs, because of their control of capital, therefore we should accept this as the "real world" and it is perfectly OK to see our fellow peons as a threat to us because they are scrambling for the crumbs that the wealthy few toss to us, and if they grab any we get less?

What happens to all of those who are left out during those 100 years that "we" are building this humane world? And what sort of building of a humane world is it that requires starving and desperate people to clear out of our corner of the world and wait until we have built this humane world of the future?

More and more, people are turning to independent contractor work of various kinds in response to the corporate destruction of jobs. While there may be more people looking for work, there are also more people needing work done. There are many small employers trying to survive in a corporate dominated world who are employing people, many of whom are desperate for help, and more small employers are springing up all of the time in response to corporate domination of the economy. Would you abandon or dismiss all of those people as well, because "the elite" control the number of jobs available, and that is just the way it is and we should accept that as inevitable?

Are you saying that people must first pass your test - they must be "raised to understand the connection between rights, responsibilities, and survival" before you will permit them to do what they can today to survive?

[bean fidhleir]

243. "many of whom are desperate for help"

So why do we have millions of un- and under-employed people, then?

The reality is that yes, there are many employers "desperate for help" but not so desperate as to pay a wage that will attract the help they want. They want desperate *workers*. Workers who are resigned to having to pay part of the costs that should be absorbed by the employer.

In other words, it's like the 1300s after the plague.

And the 1700s that Adam Smith wrote about, where employers "are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate".

And the 1900s where appeals to patriotism backed up by anti-strike and sedition laws were used during the world wars to suppress wages while at the same time the elites were profiteering like crazy.

Like every century, in fact.

therefore we should accept this as the "real world"?

Accept that it *is* the real world, yes. The one absolute prerequisite to change is understanding where you're at now, and that means understanding what the real world is like now.


One of the reasons the elites are more successful at resisting change than we are at creating it is numbers. The fewer the people needed, the easier it is for them to get together. If that's not intuitively obvious, take a pencil, draw little circles in loose groups of 2, 3, 4, and 5, connect each dot to each other dot in the group and then count the connections. Notice that the number of connections rises MUCH faster than the number of dots. That fact led to Brooks's Law: adding people to a project that's behind schedule makes things worse, not better.

If change were up to me alone (or you, I suppose), the world would be transformed completely before the day was out. If it were up to you and me, I'm sure it wouldn't take us more than a week to agree a set of changes. But try to get even the small number of people at DU to agree.

Adding people makes a bad situation worse, not better. Unless it's an expendable army.

Are you saying that people must first pass your test - they must be "raised to understand the connection between rights, responsibilities, and survival" before you will permit them to do what they can today to survive?

It's not a test.

We're in trouble today because most people naturally believe the myths we're taught in school. Look around you and count the number of people who really understand the difference between causation and correlation. Count the number of people who understand the idea of a tipping point. Count the number of people who understand - *really* understand - that prevention is easier than cure. Count the number of people who really understand why cooperation is more powerful than competition, even though they see it every day of their lives. Count the number of people who understand that human systems aren't self-maintaining. Count the number of people who can spot propaganda. Count the number of people who can recognize the difference between form and substance. Count the number who understand what democracy really means.

We're not taught those things in school. Or anywhere. But the children of the elites are taught them. Betcherass they're taught them! Until our kids are taught them too, any changes we succeed in making will be built on sand.

As for your loaded question, my permission isn't involved. But I'm not happy about them coming here any more than I'm happy about people coming here on H1 visas from India. In both cases, they're doing "what they can today to survive", and in the process making things worse for everyone.

The US lifestyle is based on semi-slave labor. Millions of people come here and do stoop labor, clean toilets, mop floors, shovel burgers, and all the other scutwork. By doing "what they can today to survive" they help turn the US into an overpopulated third-world country like the ones they came from, AND they help the elites both there and here disguise the real costs to working people of the elites' wealth.

If they'd stay where they are, they would keep the pressure on the elites in their countries plus indirectly help expose and change the extent to which the US economy is based on exploitation.

No other western country has a problem keeping out foreign workers. It's understood that as long as there are local people who need work, their society's first responsibility is to them. Local people aren't less worthy than other people, and there's a *reason* that "charity begins at home".

[Two Americas]

245. real world

The "real world" you are describing is the view from the ivory tower.

In the real world I live in human beings are suffering.

One could say with equal validity that the peasants have always resisted the tyrannical rule of the few, and that THIS is the real world, and that THIS is what the political left and liberalism should be about. But you choose to say tyrannical rule by the few is the real world, so therefore we should not get too excited or fight. In other words, you are choosing a side - betraying where your loyalties lie - while disguising the fact that you are, and trying to sell your views as "liberal." That is the very essence of "liberal elitism."

In your posts you sound as though you are speaking from or for the left, yet you are putting together convoluted arguments that defend the status quo and promote the upper class. What some of us are seeing is that human suffering is "acceptable" to some, if it is in the pursuit of supposedly "liberal" or "progressive" agendas.

Saying that if "'they' would stay where they are" then "we" could make things better is the age old argument of the ruling class. Stay in bondage a little longer, stay in poverty a little longer - being uppity and rabble rousing is making things worse! - and "we" will keep working on fixing things up. But don't get your hopes up TOO high, because poverty and misery and tyranny have always been with us, and that is just the way that things are. Some day when you are smart like we are, you will understand this.

You are extrapolating onto the working people your experience, your education, your angst and struggles.

"We're in trouble today because most people naturally believe the myths we're taught in school. Look around you and count the number of people who really understand the difference between causation and correlation. Count the number of people who understand the idea of a tipping point. Count the number of people who understand - *really* understand - that prevention is easier than cure. Count the number of people who really understand why cooperation is more powerful than competition, even though they see it every day of their lives. Count the number of people who understand that human systems aren't self-maintaining. Count the number of people who can spot propaganda. Count the number of people who can recognize the difference between form and substance. Count the number who understand what democracy really means."

Bullshit. You are describing the very narrow experience of the few, the more upscale for whom this is some sort of important struggle - seeing through the lies to the "truth." It is self-absorbed and petty. It is predicated on a dispassionate, aloof and bloodless existence of the aristocracy. The average blue collar person knows - better than you do - all of the things you are claiming the public is too stupid to understand.

It is those groomed to be shills and propagandists for the upper class who struggle over the things you think we should all struggle with. You are blind to your own prejudices and bias, yet you dismiss and demean millions of people - your presumed inferiors - and then try to convince us that you are somehow politically on the left.



on edit - typos

[bean fidhleir]

246. Is that the best you can do? Personal attack?

You say that employers are "desperate", as though it's the responsibility of working people to take care of them. Whose side does that put YOU on?

You claim that I "choose to say tyrannical rule by the few is the real world, so therefore we should not get too excited or fight." Why don't you point out where I said we shouldn't fight? Hey? Do that.

You claim that I "defend the status quo and promote the upper class". Walk us through where I do that. Tell us how you got that out of anything I said. Give us chapter and verse. Walk us through.

You say that I'm "claiming the public is too stupid to understand" the fundamental principles I listed. Again, point out where I said anything of the kind. Quote me. Chapter and verse.

If I'm really saying any of this stuff, you shouldn't have any problem. But you won't be able to, because I'm not, and anyone reading honestly knows I'm not.

The current system is based on exploitation of desperate working people. I notice that you have nothing to say about that. Why not?

Bringing in cheap labor in the form of desperate people from other countries helps prop up the current system. Why don't you have anything so say about that?

Without those exploited people in the system, the elites running it would be forced to change it in some way, either by employing more local people, or changing how things are done. Why don't you tell us what you think would be the result of all the exploited immigrant labor disappearing? Eh? Tell us.

In the 1920s, new immigrants, most of them Slavs who couldn't speak English, were brought in as cheap scabs to break the strikes in the steel mills. Those who didn't quit once they found out what was going on got short-term benefits from it. But the long-term effects were bad for everyone except the bosses. That's basically what's going on here, too, only these immigrants and imports and beneficiaries of job export are not tools being used to scab, they're being used to turn the US into a third-world country. They get a benefit, everyone else gets it in the shorts. Except the bosses you want us to take care of because they're "desperate".

[Two Americas]

247. scabs are a separate issue

"You say that employers are 'desperate', as though it's the responsibility of working people to take care of them. Whose side does that put YOU on?"

Quite simple. Latin American immigrants are the fastest growing group of new farm owners, as just one example. Does becoming a farm owner suddenly put them into the class of "the elites?"

Scabs are a separate issue from immigration. The fact that immigrants and scabs are sometimes the same people does not justify your generalizations.

"The current system is based on exploitation of desperate working people. I notice that you have nothing to say about that. Why not?"

Begging your pardon, but I would not, and did not say otherwise.

"Bringing in cheap labor in the form of desperate people from other countries helps prop up the current system. Why don't you have anything so say about that?"

No one is "bringing in" cheap labor, people are making their way here. No doubt people are being exploited. But they are not the ones who should be punished.

"Without those exploited people in the system, the elites running it would be forced to change it in some way, either by employing more local people, or changing how things are done. Why don't you tell us what you think would be the result of all the exploited immigrant labor disappearing? Eh? Tell us."

You jumped on one statement of mine - the only one you could get any leverage with. You lump all employers together and paint them all with the same brush. There are many small employers - as I said - who are no different from you and who are not in a position, even were they so inclined, to exploit workers the way that corporations can. I am sure that somewhere in your life you are also dependent upon and take for granted unskilled labor. many small employers are much closer to working class then they are to your "elites."

As for these following statements, I have no idea where you stand on those things. Your posts are vague and obscure. If I mischaracterized what you are trying to say, so be it. It was by best guess.

"You claim that I 'choose to say tyrannical rule by the few is the real world, so therefore we should not get too excited or fight.' Why don't you point out where I said we shouldn't fight? Hey? Do that."

OK. Whatever. It wasn't clear what you were saying. So we are to fight, but not to focus on class? I am confused.

"You claim that I 'defend the status quo and promote the upper class'. Walk us through where I do that. Tell us how you got that out of anything I said. Give us chapter and verse. Walk us through."

Again I am not sure what you were trying to say. saying that we should not talk about class favors the ruling class. No? Explain.

"You say that I'm 'claiming the public is too stupid to understand' the fundamental principles I listed. Again, point out where I said anything of the kind. Quote me. Chapter and verse."

I don't know. What were you saying then? It was not at all clear, and if I understood you incorrectly - good. I hope I did.

[bean fidhleir]

248. Your arguments sound very Libertarian, and I don't mean the small-L socialist kind

Does becoming a farm owner suddenly put them into the class of "the elites?"...There are many small employers - as I said - who are no different from you and who are not in a position, even were they so inclined, to exploit workers the way that corporations can.

Your defense is the kind a mugger or burglar might make: "Hey, I'm just a small businessman. I'm not the freakin Mafia, ya know." A small exploiter is still an exploiter. The fact that he exploits ten people rather than ten thousand is a reflection of his power, not his ethics.

And scabbing is not a separate issue unless you choose to see it as a separate issue. When people refuse to take a job because it pays exploitative wages, there's no essential difference between that and the steelworkers' walkout at the Homestead plant when Frick cut their wages. It's a strike. And people who undermine the fight for a living wage are scabbing. They might be doing it because they're hungry or they don't know any better, but they're scabbing - they're helping the bosses break the strike. And as far as I'm concerned, that puts them on the wrong side. "Which side are you on?"

[Two Americas]

249. misunderstanding

We are talking past each other I think. This subject is a side-track from the thread and I didn't out enough attention on it.

Your defense is the kind a mugger or burglar might make: "Hey, I'm just a small businessman. I'm not the freakin Mafia, ya know." A small exploiter is still an exploiter. The fact that he exploits ten people rather than ten thousand is a reflection of his power, not his ethics.

Well, I am no defending anyone. Of course an exploiter is an exploiter, and any owner who abuses employees needs to be held to account. I was not suggesting otherwise.

The point is that it is farming that is no longer attractive to people - at any level. Part of the reason for that is income, but it is more than that. Young native people prefer working for a fast food chain at much lower wages, for example. There is as much a shortage of new farm owners as there is of employees. Also, in rural areas there is much flexibility as to who is working for whom, and no hard lines between boss and employee. Independent contractors of all kinds are the rule, not the exception, and the same person who may work for someone part of the year - or part of the week or day - may be hiring a couple of people for another job at other times. Also, few if any are locked into any position, so there is not a fixed and permanent underclass.

And scabbing is not a separate issue unless you choose to see it as a separate issue. When people refuse to take a job because it pays exploitative wages, there's no essential difference between that and the steelworkers' walkout at the Homestead plant when Frick cut their wages. It's a strike. And people who undermine the fight for a living wage are scabbing. They might be doing it because they're hungry or they don't know any better, but they're scabbing - they're helping the bosses break the strike. And as far as I'm concerned, that puts them on the wrong side. "Which side are you on?"

I see your point and it has merit. Immigrants are organizing and their efforts are reviving the labor movement. I object to blaming the employee, and calling them scabs when they are not in fact crossing a picket line.

Generally speaking, employers are always trying to drive wages down. I am not convinced that there is anything special about immigrants that makes this worse.

I don't understand why it is to be preferred to have ADM hire the same person at $5.00 a day south of the border, rather than have ADM hire them for the same work at $12 an hour north of the border. That eliminates the job here, but does so in a way that is less obvious, and in a way that is more damaging to workers in the larger picture.

Stop ADM from moving jobs south of the border, and then we can talk about stopping the worker form moving north of the border in response to that.

Why should wealthy people have the right to move jobs across borders for their benefit, but workers are not to be allowed to cross those same borders? That is what I don't understand about your argument.

[bean fidhleir]

250. Do you have a reservoir of this stuff in your head?

Why should wealthy people have the right to move jobs across borders for their benefit, but workers are not to be allowed to cross those same borders? That is what I don't understand about your argument.

Because this is not my argument, and there is no way you could get this from anything I've said. *OF COURSE* the bosses should not have the right to export jobs! Who but a boss or one of their lackeys, or someone who's drunk their koolaid, could think otherwise? If it's sold here, it needs to be made/grown here.

Immigrants are organizing and their efforts are reviving the labor movement. I object to blaming the employee, and calling them scabs when they are not in fact crossing a picket line.

It doesn't look to me like they're "reviving the labor movement". From here it looks like they're doing exactly what the bosses want: work cheap. Do you really think the bosses care about them marching and talking big? What they care about is that they stay in line and show up for work on time every day. The bosses care about getting their beds made and their meals cooked, their floors scrubbed and their crops brought in. The serfs can march and talk as big as they like as long as they continue to serve the bosses. Kinda like what most self-proclaimed liberals do, really, don't you think?

You can say they're not scabs because they don't cross an official picket line. But I see an invisible picket line in front of every place where the boss refuses to pay a living wage. And I say anyone who takes one of those jobs is a scab.

The current situation is the worst possible: good jobs being exported, cheap labor being imported. And your distinction that the Spanish-speakers are "just coming" rather than being imported looks like sophism from where I stand. Using H1 visas is active importation - hiring "informal" immigrants is passive importation. In both cases the ones doing it are sabotaging the country to line their own pockets, and the ones who hire the "informals" should go to prison.

The point is that it is farming that is no longer attractive to people - at any level. Part of the reason for that is income, but it is more than that. Young native people prefer working for a fast food chain at much lower wages, for example.

I'd suggest that any "not attractive" is in part a recognition that the wages are not high enough for the level of labor demanded. It's not that they don't want to do farm labor as an absolute choice. If it paid $100/hour there'd be plenty of people lined up. It's that fast food brings a better return for their labor.

The other part, I bet, is that few people right now know anything about farming and not many people want to be embarrassed by signing up to do something they don't know anything about. That will change, if we want to stay in business as a species. As will farming. I would be willing to bet money (if I could live long enough to collect) that the only farms that look like today's, in a hundred years, will be growing grain-like crops. Truck farming will be done intensively in microplots, fruit trees will be part of the arboreal cover, and non-humans destined for slaughter will roam somewhat freely during their lives rather than be confined in feedlots. Or we'll all be aboard the Extinction Express.

[trthnd4jstc]

13. I tell People I am a Liberal

I did not like that the Candidate that I am supporting would not answer in the affirmative that he was a liberal, but I can publically, and honestly tell anyone I am a liberal.

Thanks for the Thread. It is wonderful.

[Time for change]

42. Thank you -- It always makes me happy to hear of people who are willing to

acknowledge that they are liberal. If there were more people like that our corporate news media would't be able to get away with denigrating the word like they do.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

17. As an economically "POOR" person, "ELITES" are rarely "LIBERAL".

We have a few MEDIA-castrIZED wealthy liberal (e.g. HUMANITARIAN rather than corporate-profit-sucking fuckers) "elites",...and they get their asses chewed on (if you have failed to ever notice).

Those of us who continue to FIGHT against oppressive regimes have no name, anymore, because those who engineer society towards their power will call us any word, possible, to defeat us and manipulate minds.

I don't know what else to say.

[Time for change]

49. "Those of us who continue to FIGHT against oppressive regimes have no name, anymore...

because those who engineer society towards their power will call us any word, possible, to defeat us and manipulate minds."

In my opinion one of the main reasons that we have no name is because we have tried too hard to fit into the concept of the oppressive regimes that you speak of. I think that when liberals were accused of being liberal they would routinely say something like, "Yes I am, and I'm proud of it" and then go on to explain what a liberal is, the marginalizing of liberals would end, because the oppressive regimes would have no answer to that which makes much sense and help their cause at the same time. They would have to try another approach.

[Andrea]

85. I agree with you

We need to reclaim the term so that people who might be attracted to our agenda are not turned off by our label.

Your OP is a cogent summary of the difference between liberals and those that support the Bush administration. I thank you for writing it and I have saved it to my computer. I am going to use it when appealing to those that somehow don't understand my position, with proper attribution, of course.

[Time for change]

99. Thank you -- It's very nice to know of people who want to put this to good use

[DetlefK]

19. The meaning of "liberal"

It seems to me, that in the US "liberal" equals some sort of moderate-leftwing-stance. In Germany there's a party (the FDP) that's also called "The Liberals", yet their core beliefs are quite different.

In Germany "liberal" means sort of personal freedom, self-reliant individualism. It means personal freedom from social demands (e.g. lifestyle), as well as from political demands (including taxes and laws). It means tolerance on a personal level.
So the liberal party stands for smaller government, less governmental interference in society and economy and lower taxes. And accordingly their key voters are upper class and upper middle class. Quite different to the US...



You are mad, because "liberal" is treated as if it's some insult? RECLAIM IT!
Next time somebody calls you a liberal, SAY IT!
"I'M A LIBERAL AND I'M PROUD OF IT!"
Remember: If you use a word, YOU CONTROL IT'S MEANING.

[Time for change]

52. Damn right! We can't let them define what we are -- we need to do that ourselves

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=779649

[elleng]

21. Wes Clark has said:

'We live in a liberal democracy....That’s what we created in this country. I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment... It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.'

Interview with Bill Maher, on Real Time with Bill Maher (5 September 2003)

[USA_1]

22. Pukes Like To Use Labels ...

... such as ''elitists'' because Democrats are too scared to swing back.

The truth is that it is Republicans who constitute the wealthy elites who run the country. So why don't the Democrats point that out? Answer: they are just too scared to do so and always allow the Pukes to frame the issues.

Weakness is a choice. And, as usual, Dems choose weakness during the campaigns.

[Time for change]

53. I agree that they should fight back a lot more on this than they do

But it is also true that they are facing a tremendous disadvantage, with the corporate news media allayed against them. It will take courage, and a lot of smart strategy to fight this as well.

[mdmc]

29. I think that government is a positive force in the lives of its citizens

I am a liberal

[puebloknot]

44. Kicking and bookmarking for later. Liberally yours...

...

[OneGrassRoot]

50. Bobbolink and Two Americas, can we cut to the chase?

Please tell us WHAT EXACTLY YOU WANT US TO DO that we aren't doing. Forget income level, forget level of compassion, forget level of community involvement, forget interest in self-actualization. I get the message from you both that you disagree with people looking "within" - though bobbolink, you mention that it was effective and helpful in the good ole hippie days and that seems very true. I can see where, like everything, it's gone (in many cases) to the opposite end of the spectrum.

But what I never get from either of you is WHAT YOU ARE WANTING US TO DO OR BE specifically. Why don't you NOT TALK DOWN TO US and be specific as to what we are not seeing or doing - we're paying attention. Help us see what we're missing and what ACTIONS we can take to move in a better direction to tackle issues. Most of us at these forums want to WORK TOGETHER - not just as individuals - but want to move together collectively.

Take a deep breath and try to answer based on the premise that the person asking the question doesn't look down on anyone, regardless of income (or lack thereof), where or how they live, and so forth. Even if you don't believe it, answer the question pretending you do, please.

If someone has a sincere interest in bettering this country and ALL of its people, WHAT ARE SPECIFIC STEPS YOU WANT US TO DO THAT WE AREN'T DOING.

This same issue is, rightfully, being discussed in various threads and in various forums. One common criticism is that "we" are looking down upon anyone who is homeless and that our compassion is condescending. That's fine. The only thing I consistenty try to give and expect to receive as a human being is RESPECT. Respect can be given and received regardless of income level or situation in life. Perhaps we are so frustrated with life in general that we interpret respect and genuine kindness as being condescending when it is in fact genuine. It seems there's a lot of judgment going around - all the way around. Can we get beyond that?

[Two Americas]

55. fight

Rabble rouse, organize, resist, fight.

[OneGrassRoot]

64. But aren't you guys stirring the pot....

and taking the focus off who/what we SHOULD BE FIGHTING?

A lot of us are on board to fight the system which enables a handful of people to control money/power, influencing everything in our society (and globally). And we recognize it's a huge task and we have to start somewhere.

And criticism of us/ourselves is fine. I want to learn.

But what I've seen these threads devolve into is a tearing apart of those of us who are on the same side, wanting to fight the system. And a tearing apart/criticism which seems to go nowhere instead of it being constructive.

I don't see many people here responding that they've had an epiphany about themselves as a result of what you, Bobbolink and a few others have posted, even though a lot of us are TRYING to have that epiphany. That's why I wonder if stirring the pot without an objective being made clear is effective, even though you have a captive audience.

[bobbolink]

72. If all you want to do is to fight a common enemy in order to circle the troops, then yes,

you have found the right propaganda.

If what you actually want is a strong party and a strong country, it takes much more than that.

[OneGrassRoot]

86. If you ever decide to tell us WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO,

I'm all eyes and ears.

Until then, you're part of the white noise that surrounds us all nonstop nowadays. It's why so many people turn off from anything REMOTELY resembling anything political. Bitching without being clear as to how you see the suffering being addressed and eliminated. White noise. Lashing out at anyone, about everything.

[bobbolink]

89. White noise. bitching. Lashing out.

Yes,

That's as good a way to dismiss me as any.

that's where we started, isn't it?


ELITE.

LIBERALS.

Looking down your ever-so-pure noses.

Your press is deserved.

[Occulus]

151. You have provided no solutions in either this thread or your previous one

on this topic.

At least, I never saw one, and I read the whole thing. The fact is, this horse's corpse was beaten to death so badly the last time that flies won't even land on it.

Point blank question: do you have any clear, well-defined solutions to help us find the dime for your extra shopping bag?

[Two Americas]

109. trying to answer this

I have been trying to answer this.

What I did was look at the farm bill part of this, and have ben on the phone locating the agricultural liaisons for various congress critters, persisting until I get ahold of them and having in depth discussions with them about the bill. Also contacting farm organizations and speaking to farmers, and raising hell everywhere. That is just a starting point for me, others will have other points where they can start. This is not because I am a somebody, nor that I have connections, nor that I am clever or smart, rather because I am determined and because this is life or death and there is no time to worry about the right approach or being popular or not offending people. We cannot afford the luxury of worrying about ourselves, nor about propriety, decorum or people's social status.

It is urgent, it is a crisis, it is an emergency. None of us will be able to escape, so we might as well start fighting for our lives now. The ship is sinking and we are all going to go down with it. Start bailing anywhere.

I think this breaks down like this - either we are trying to adjust people to the system, or we are trying to adjust the system to people. If we are trying to work within the system, to learn how to manipulate or negotiate the system, or bringing people into the system, or accommodate the system - play the game, in other words - we are reinforcing and strengthening the system, and it is the system that is causing the problems and people are getting hurt by our adherence to this approach. If on the other hand, we see the system as wrong rather than people, we can attack the system, escape the trap of personal preference politics, discover that almost everyone is a potential ally, and move forward together.

[OneGrassRoot]

117. Thanks, Mike...

I know this is tough. This is really, really tough on so many levels. Thank you for not only trying to help others understand, calmly, but for doing what you're doing offline.

I am behind you 100% about the system and too much is at a breaking point. The system needs to be broken - well, it IS broken - so we can rebuild.

Let's take a deep breath and figure this out...how we can all do what we can to approach this en masse.

[Two Americas]

122. there you go

I believe that we see things the same way. It is our approach that hasn't worked, and that is what I am questioning. If what we have been doing worked, we wouldn't be in the mess we are. The modern self-improvement individualism and success model is very seductive and it is pounded into us continually and forcefully. It has all of us by the throat.

[Andrea]

146. I appreciate this concrete example

Many of us are doing these things. I'm sure my reps are sick of hearing from me. My conscience is clear on this - I have been working, very, very hard in many ways. I have sacrificed most of my personal life and have put my health on the line. I'm doing all I can. If I could be working more effectively or efficiently, I'm open to suggestions. But, I won't play guessing games and I won't submit to abuse.

[bobbolink]

172. "I won't play guessing games and I won't submit to abuse."

Me, too.

Exactly.

ME, TOO, NEITHER!!

[Tech 9]

155. I've learned more from the words of

Two Americas and a select few others than from almost anyone else in my life.

Your words sound like a bargaining position: here is what "we" are onboard with, you can either accept those parameters or go to hell. Also you WILL be constructive, where constructive is defined as placating us at all costs and never offending our delicate sensibilities.

If you agree to these stipulations we are on the same page and we can "epiphanize" together, ain't life grand?

[OneGrassRoot]

157. Hi, Tech 9 -

I'm just trying to understand what the heck is going on. Glad you understand. You're much smarter than I am.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Two Americas]

158. that means a lot

Thanks. The only thing that Bobbolink and I are asking is that people see what we are saying. It is very stressful to be swimming against the current and misunderstood. It means a lot that you understand what we are saying.

[Tech 9]

162. You're not alone buddy

Ever think people play stupid and figure "if we hold out long enough, he'll think he's crazy"?

[OneGrassRoot]

163. You know what the sad part is?

I'm not playing stupid. I AM stupid about this. I really just don't get it, but no one can say I didn't try to understand.

Why don't you take out all your bashing against the stupid, oblivious dipshits of the world here in reply to me. Get it out of your system.

P.S. - If you have some image of me as a Lexus-driving, spa-going, "weekend do-gooder" you couldn't be further from the truth. But, still...I AM indeed stupid in this thread because I'm not understanding what those who have more knowledge and experience in activism about this issue are saying. Not that you give a shit, just sayin'...trying to help your creative visualization.

[Two Americas]

168. hard to tell

The selective compassion is stunning. I think this is automatic for people or something, rather than malicious for the most part. The effect is the same - stonewall (intentionally or unintentionally) and put the burden on the speaker, and wait while the crowd comes to the conclusion that the speaker is nuts or otherwise suitable for ostracization. I think when we were kids in middle school, we got caught up in that without thinking it through or making a conscious decision. This must be similar. Some herd instinct sets in. I was prepared just a few days ago to join the chorus and kick Bobbolink to the curb and what I saw in myself was truly appalling. We crave recognition from our peers, we desperately want to be part of the group, and it is difficult to risk being unpopular and being ostracized by bucking the trend when the herd is running so strongly in one direction. I think when we start down that road of compromising for the sake of being part of the insider crowd - for the comfort of nestling oneself inside of accepted common wisdom and agreed upon premises and assumptions - we can be led in some truly chilling directions.

I don't know if there is any sort of dimissal or mistreatment that is quite as bad as this - yet [people here are completely oblivious to the idea that they could be abusing anyone. It is one thing if people disagree with you, but to have people go on and on refusing to hear what you are saying and demanding that you jump through hoops to explain yourself - that drives you a little crazy. I fully understand why Bobbolink puts it out there aggressively and forcefully without regard to currying favor or winning popularity, or propriety or decorum, because taking the time and putting in the effort to carefully explain the point just means that you get tormented for a few days.

[bobbolink]

174. I'm printing this out!

The pain of that "selective compassion" IS truly stunning.

I'm printing this as a reminder to myself, and also to stick under the noses of a few who take delight in adding to the burden I already carry.

AND.. to clarify... what keeps me going is the few who write to me, or talk with me, and say, "Please don't forget me."

:cry:

It tears my heart out.

So many are suffering so deeply, while "progressives" fiddle.

And that herd instinct?

It's called "Good Germans".

[bobbolink]

173. "if we hold out long enough, he'll think he's crazy"?

Well Said!!

That just about nails it, and, with your permission, I'm quoting this!

:applause:

[Tech 9]

176. Do it!

[lumberjack_jeff]

196. Nine days out of ten, what I read here causes me to wonder why I bother.

On the tenth day, I read something like this and the things that bobolink and Two Americas. It keeps me coming back for the other nine.

Well said.

This thread is the upside of primary season. Those who have nothing better to say than :eyes: have other topics on which to take out their smugness.

[bobbolink]

71. When you tell me to forget "income level", then you've left me out.

And maybe that is exactly what you want to do.

[Andrea]

88. I think it is pretty clear that she is asking for the benefit of the doubt

Could you, for a moment, take people at their word that they want to help? Could you briefly not characterize people with regard to their relative wealth or station in life (especially since you characterize so many people falsely because you know nothing about them)? Could you briefly stop slamming us for somehow doing something to you that we don't understand and have no intent to do?

And in that moment, could you state what you want us to do?

Could you possibly stop defining us, putting us in little boxes, castigating us and maybe recognize that we are people, too? We are as much human as you are. And when I say "we" I mean virtually everyone that I have seen you respond to in the last ten days or so, because with a very few exceptions you have been abusive.

[bobbolink]

90. Look, Andrea, you went from "friend" to self-appointed castigator.

I wrote ALL of that in depth, and more.

You chose to turn your back.

NOW, in public, you want to run me down.

Talk about putting people in boxes.. you're quite good at that, aren't you?

So be it.

ELITE

LIBERAL.

[Andrea]

95. I've made my last attempt to understand

You continue to post in a public forum things about me which you know are false.

You show no interest in actually communicating, but instead seize every opportunity to back away from true communication and into a logical fallacy of a circular argument, the goal of which I cannot discern.

I will no longer engage in this. Nor will I concern myself with your attacks. I rest on my reputation. People who know me will see your attacks for the specious arguments they are.

[bobbolink]

96. Your last? Promise?

Whew!

Remember, dearie, YOU were the one to insert yourself into a reply I made to another.

YOU had and still have the opportunity to reply to my PM, like an adult.

YOU are the one making ad hominems here.

REST on that.

[OneGrassRoot]

107. You are really enjoying this, aren't you?

I know for a fact several people not only have PMed you trying to help THE ISSUE at hand (not just you - as no one is trying to "fix" you, as you keep saying), and you have ignored them.

Whenever anyone listens and interacts WITH you about DOING something, you ignore them. If anyone asks a sincere question, you spew shit.

I now completely believe you are here to do nothing but cause trouble, with no honorable or useful end result whatsoever. And that's a damn shame, 'cause there's so much suffering and so much needs to be done.

[bobbolink]

108. Oh, get off it! Nobody from the vaunted private club has PM'd me, including Andrea.

She wants to protect her rep, so she's making like she's fallen all over me, when she hasn't spoken to me, except one short PM, since she started the private club. Then didn't respond to my reply.

And nobody else has written.

I've posted requests for Action, which I don't see you having replied to, and so have others.

But, as always with DU, those sink from lack of interest. If there was REALLY a sense of urgency about suffering, people, such as you, would be all over those threads, and pass them on to others, and actually make the calls.

But, you're having too much fun dissing me.

And, no, after the hurt from the last time I trusted here, I won't lay myself out to be either ignored or dissed.

Deal with it.

[Junkdrawer]

144. Simple silly: Fight among ourselves.

They throw WAY more bricks than they shed light.

VERY trollish behavior.

[Tech 9]

153. Total obliviousness

Please tell us WHAT EXACTLY YOU WANT US TO DO that we aren't doing. Forget income level, forget level of compassion, forget level of community involvement, forget interest in self-actualization.

END QUOTE

They are telling you that you CAN'T ignore income, self-involvement, individualism, and lack of empathy. They are asking you to think about how your perspective is colored by those things. To pretend these disparities don't exist is asking others to appease you.

You want others to be straight with you. Start by acting in good faith and tell us flat out: is income level an important and difficult hurdle or not? You've certainly implied that its not and are one step away from telling those who say otherwise to "get over it"

"We're all in this together" doesn't slice very deep when the meeting adjourns and some crawl back to their hovels while others speed away in their new Lexus.

[OneGrassRoot]

161. Quite obviously, you're correct. n/t

[bobbolink]

175. Thank you, Tech 9 -- It's refreshing to hear someone "put it out there"

really means a lot to me!

I saw this classist attitude developing and gaining strength a while back... and had a couple of PMs from poor folk on DU expressing their distress about it. I guess I had hoped the Edwardians were "above" it, but clearly.....

It's interesting, isn't it, that when *other* problems are put in front of DUers and other "progressives", they put their heads together and come up with ideas for dealing with it. Not so with poverty... we are the ONLY issue I can think of that is made responsible for designing the solutions--without support, without understanding--and knowing, all the while, that the things we ask will be ignored. It's happened before, and will continue happening.

""We're all in this together" doesn't slice very deep when the meeting adjourns and some crawl back to their hovels while others speed away in their new Lexus."

Bingo! Eloquently stated.

Welcome to DU... unfortunately, you aren't likely to garner a lot of buddy-buddy friends with your ability and willingness to put it out there.

:hi: :applause:

[Tech 9]

177. Liberals hate the poor

Sure there was a racial element, but we all love how Bill Clinton "cleaned up" Welfare, remember? God forbid some impoverished welfare cheat get $200/mo..

[bobbolink]

178. As angry as people want to paint me, I wouldn't use the term "hate"

But, certainly, we aren't considered an important "issue".

You may be too new to DU to know it, but....you're likely to get Blasted for your slam against "the big dog".

:puke:

Just like I got royally slammed for protesting about the fawning over animals when two-leggeds can go hungry and homeless and sick with nary a care.

We're one sick society, and party, too!

[The Wizard]

51. The words liberal and liberty

come from the same root.
Is there any wonder Republicans have trouble with liberty? It's the antithesis of authoritarian totalitarianism. This country and its Constitution are founded on liberal democratic principles.
Now Nazi Germany----------not so much. What political party is more closely aligned with the Ku Klux Klan?

[Phred42]

54. Remember Reich-Wingers: Jesus was a Liberal

[Time for change]

60. He most certainly was

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1019-24.htm

[bobbolink]

73. And a lot more angry than I am!

~~gasp~~

He MUST have been "mentally ill"~ Anyone with that much rage, and a self-destructive bent...

Oh goddess... if only they'd had mental wards and "meds" then!!!

He woulda been SAVED!!!

[personman]

115. If he existed and lived up to his rhetoric, he was at least a socialist, IMO n/t

[Two Americas]

123. agreed there personman

I think we are all born "socialist." I think it is our nature. We are social critters and community beings. Everything about human history screams at us that our desire for cooperation and community is why we have survived as a species - we don't have big teeth or high speed or sharp claws. We are living in a very odd and unusual time of extreme individualism. It is self-defeating and could be the last chapter in the story of human beings if it goes on much longer.

I think the reason that people get so upset about this subject is because there is a dissonance - our better natures are in deep conflict and opposition to everything going on around us. In our frantic and obsessive attempts to perfect ourselves we are actually denying ourselves. In our attempts to adjust to an insane society, to function within it and succeed at it, we are ourselves becoming insane. We are not happy or comfortable with this conflict, and it takes a lot of effort to hold things together in our minds. When someone points out this conflict, these contradictions, we get very uncomfortable. That is why I say that we are all homeless - even if we have a house - and that we are all teetering on the edge and holding on for dear life. We are being forced to live in ways that are against our nature.

[personman]

127. I agree.

It is a testament to the true good nature of people, how much effort goes in to driving ideas like solidarity, and concern for others out of us.

[bobbolink]

230. "It is a testament to the true good nature of people" GREAT post!

Wish I could recommend this post of yours, because what you have said here is very thought-provoking... if only some will.

It's so much easier to just bash * and get lots of congratulating replies.

"how much effort goes in to driving ideas like solidarity, and concern for others out of us."

Perfect!

Really solid thought... thanks for posting this!

:applause:

[nursenwhite]

57. Proud to be Liberal

I am a nurse, a teacher and proud to be a Democrat.  I learned
early when my father was helping the IBEW union movement, not
coming home during a strike or helping others to organize. 
OUR Government is FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND NOT FOR
THIEVES LIKE BUSH AND HIS CADRE OF CRIMINALS.  It is time that
people who believe in the causes of mankind stand up and with
pride state, "I am a Liberal" and if you don't know
what it means than you don't understand what a Democracy is! 
This was an excellent article.  I am sending it to many of my
friends.  :toast: 

[Time for change]

59. Thank you - and welcome to DU

:toast:

[pitohui]

65. you know even when i was desperately poor i was called an "elitist" by the rednecks

what you're missing is that, as far as the bigot is concerned, if you use your brain, that is in itself "elitist" and unfair on the face of it, presumably because they don't have brains of equal quality

there have long periods in my life where i had very little income, well below the poverty line, and no access to health care -- but because i was educated and had a liberal point of view, i was still accused of being "elite"

probably everybody on DU, including the folks who are posting free from the public library and will sleep in a tent tonight, are considered "elite" by the buttheads if they can communicate a clear thought in clear language without being forced to parrot some cant from talk radio or the bible

my suggestion is that we just ignore the name-caming, it's hopeless, if someone wants to despise you for having a heart and a brain, you cannot please that person without fundamentally harming your true self

[Time for change]

81. Exactly

The worst thing we can do in response is to claim that we're not liberal. In the interest of furthering the conversation we can explain what it means to be liberal, but we should never disclaim it.

[pitohui]

154. i agree EOM

,

[Larry Ogg]

76. If there exist a natural genetic instinct of right and wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2983859 "> I believe it could be measured in terms of liberal and conservative

In addition:

To the degree one is liberal the more conscience one is.

To the degree one is conservative the more conscience one is not.

To the liberal, objectivity is sacrosanct to logic and compassion.

To the conservative, subjectivity is sacrosanct to logic and compassion.

The liberal is able to feel the causative affect of that which exploits, harms and lays waist to the most defenseless members of our species, this results in morals which try to eliminate such affects.

To the conservative morals are created by liberals and are a hindrance to their goals, which means they have to lessen and pervert liberal moral values sufficiently to justify the actions that exploit and lay waist the weakest members of our species.

[Andrea]

97. Thanks

This is a very thought-provoking post, as is the article you link to. Thanks for making this available to me.

[Larry Ogg]

101. No problem Andrea, I am just happy to point out a few of the many virtues

that make liberals superior to conservatives.

Unfortunately what conservatives lack in intelligence they make up for in their ability to deceive.

[personman]

116. The idea that the "Elite liberal" is a myth, is a myth...

The idea that there is no liberal media, is a myth.

The New York Times?

The media is probably as liberal, or more liberal, than conservative, but to paraphrase Chomsky, the liberals are the commissars: they say how far acceptable discourse goes, and reign in the citizens who get "unruly."

Was horrible what they did to Cindy Sheehan.

The unfortunate truth is, at the elite level, the conservatives and republicans have a lot more in common with each other than us. They also recognize it is in their interests to play down those commonalities publicly, and to frequently, loudly, publicly, air shallow criticisms of one another, that keep real issues off the table.

-personman

It's theater folks...

[otherlander]

186. There are elite liberals.

Most liberals are not elite liberals.

[blindpig]

187. But

if they follow the lead of the elites, accept what is decided in K street offices as the best we can do, accept RW framing as the canvas we must work with, ape those elitists and accept their pronouncements as wisdom, refusing to see their classist prejudice, then they are an obstacle to progress.

[otherlander]

194. I can't speak for anyone else, but

I don't follow anyone's lead. And I can understand how some people here, who are legitimately trying to understand the alternatives to following the elites, might feel like the anti-elitists are unfairly accusing them of not caring.

[blindpig]

198. Bill Clinton cared....

and went on to gut welfare...

prosecuted a murderous embargo against the Iraqi people...

botched health care so badly that I can't help but think it was meant to fail...

had a pathetic environmental record...

it takes more than just caring.

[Andrea]

203. Sure it does

But when the so-called "anti-elitists" don't communicate their platform and only accuse people of un-named crimes when they know nothing about those people, the chance of getting beyond just caring is depleted. When those who want to do something are broad-brushed and attacked, they may feel like giving up.

It requires a great deal of patience to continue to strive for an understanding when one's questions are met with abuse. One might conclude that the intent of those attacking is merely to cause dissent.

[blindpig]

206. I don't see how my post was abusive

Touchy, hmmm?

However, if it's platforms you seek, here's a pretty good one:

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Ecosocialist.html

and here, the granddaddy of them all:

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

[Andrea]

211. Your post wasn't abusive, sorry

I should have been more clear. I was referring to others throughout this thread who have attacked myself and others for trying to get a handle on what they are saying.

I will check out the links. thanks.

[otherlander]

217. Ok... I'm not really a Bill Clinton fan.

People know it takes more than caring. They're asking what they should do, and they're told that they're "playing dumb". That's not really a good thing to tell someone who wants to go beyond caring to actually taking action.

[Two Americas]

208. this outrage

Let's say that people are unfairly being "accused of not caring" or imagine that they are.

So what?

If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't fit, don't.

Are we to imagine that it is too much trouble to examine ourselves or look in the mirror?

People can "accuse me of not caring" all they want to, with no objection from me, no outrage, no offense taken. You know why? Because the most important component of caring about others is a willingness to be humble and to accept the obvious truth that I am not doing enough, not understanding fully, and not caring enough.

The alternative to that would be for me to see my own hurt feelings or bruised ego as more important than the real suffering, humiliation, deprivation, mistreatment and cruelty that my fellow human beings are enduring on a daily basis.

PLEASE - hurt my feelings! PLEASE - offend my sense of self-importance and self-righteousness! PLEASE - accuse me of not caring enough!

[Andrea]

212. Implicit in your response is the assumption

That those who object to maltreatment are in fact "not doing enough, not understanding fully, and not caring enough."

As far as "not doing enough", you have no basis on which to make this claim. You have no idea how much I do, how much I give or how much of a sacrifice it is.

"Not understanding fully", you have contributed so much to the inability of people to understand by refusing to answer questions or clarify anything, that I find it very ironic and more than a little bit funny that you would say this.

"Not caring enough"? You explicitly stated in a related thread that "being nice and caring is being patronizing and condescending." You've told people not to care, now you say they don't care enough.

It's the illogical thread woven through all this that makes it impossible for me to understand you.

Furthermore, because I know quite a bit about the effects of abuse and the scars that people carry around, I would never tell anyone, on either side of this conversation, not to assert themselves in response to be being abused, mis-labeled, or treated unfairly in any way.

"PLEASE - hurt my feelings! PLEASE - offend my sense of self-importance and self-righteousness! PLEASE - accuse me of not caring enough!" You are lucky to have come through life so unscathed to this point that you can afford to make this statement so cavalierly.

Other than the consistent illogic, I think the most distressing aspect of your argument is your unwillingness to see that everyone in this discussion, regardless of which view they take, is a human being.

[Two Americas]

214. yes I do

I absolutely can make the claim that I am not doing enough, caring enough, and understanding enough.

I agree that everyone in this thread is a human being. I understand that some disagree with the things being posted, and are taking the expression of those points of view as abuse or as insulting or as offensive.

However, when it comes to siding with those who feel personally offended, or those who are being dismissed and marginalized and not heard, I am siding with the second. It need not be an either/or, but it has become that and so requires a response.

No one is going after you, no one is attacking you, no one is judging you.

[Andrea]

216. You know what,

At this point, I can agree that you aren't attacking me or judging me, because you have clarified some things. But just look at the things Bobbie has directed at me throughout this thread and elsewhere. It's clearly abusive and slanderous and she just won't stop. She seems determined to damage my reputation. I'm not too concerned that she will succeed at that, because I think most people are rational enough to see what is going on and will judge me more by my actions and the contacts they have had with me, than by the outrageous attacks she throws my way. Still, it's wrong. She should stop.

[Enrique]

131. it's not the issues, it's the attitudes

you can list all the issues in the world and it doesn't address the emotional force of the liberal elite label.

[AlienGirl]

166. It means the same as "New York agitators" and "Hollywood elite"...Jews and gays

It is a dog-whistle term designed to appeal to the biases of the base.

Tucker

[MedleyMisty]

188. So are all the threads and posts that bash poor people on DU

really Republican trolls spreading the "liberal elite" meme? Because that's a lot of Republican trolls.

I'm not at all denying that it's Republican propaganda, because it is. And yes, the Republicans are way more classist when it comes to policies, which means that they have really really great propaganda skills. But still - watch DU for a while. You'll see what bobbolink is talking about. Talking about "trailer trash", hatred, stereotyping, and condescension for people stuck in McJobs, etc.

I suppose you could take it as a positive - we're not evil and manipulative enough to be able to hide our class prejudice and convince the sheep to vote for the wolves?

[Andrea]

204. Could you link to some threads and posts that

bash poor people here? Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places.

[lumberjack_jeff]

192. This was written right after Edwards suspended his campaign.

http://prorev.com/2008/01/john-edwards-hidden-problem.html

JOHN EDWARDS has departed the race leaving a surprising number of liberals without a target for covert class prejudices that have so broadly replaced ethnic and gender discrimination among the better educated. Now the righteous are safe to make what is in their mind a decent and diverse choice: between a black and a woman, one a graduate of Harvard Law School, the other of its Yale equivalent.

It's sort of like the beginning of the Clinton administration which was going to look like America. In fact, 77% of Clinton's initial cabinet were millionaires, beating out both Reagan and Bush in this category. In DC, the Clinton choices barely raised an eyebrow. Clinton's cabinet may not have looked like America, but it certainly looked like establishment Washington. It required no corruption or conspiracy for the city's journalists to ignore it; everything was just too normal.

One of the delusions of elite liberals is that that they lack prejudice. To be sure, they treat black, women and gays far better than once was the case. But if you are poor, uneducated, own a gun, weigh a lot, come from the South or mainly read the Bible it is another matter. Class and culture have replaced the genetic as acceptable targets.

The 28% of the American adult population with college degrees defines the country's values, its policies, its laws, what is stylish and how you get to the top, including the White House. And what it has defined has exacted no small price from the remaining 72%. For example, just in the past eight years, the following have gotten significantly worse:

Median income
Number of manufacturing jobs
Number of new private jobs
Percent of workers with company based health insurance
Poverty
Consumer credit debt
Number of housing foreclosures
Cost of heating oil & gas
Number without health insurance
Wages in manufacturing
Income gap between rich and poor
Wealth of the bottom 40% of Americans
Number of older families with pensions
Number of workers covered by defined benefit pensions
Hunger
Use of soup kitchens
Personal bankruptcies
Median rent

Yet when John Edwards tried to build a campaign around these issues he was subjected not only to the opposition of the establishment and its media but a notable tone of ridicule whose subtext was: why would anyone want to bother with such things? Especially a guy as rich as Edwards?

And when he pulled out of the race, Edwards was treated to more of the same, especially from such faux hip websites as Gawker, Radar and Fark:

Radar: The pretty-boy presidential candidate scored just 14 percent of the vote in yesterday's Florida primaries. . .

Fark: John Edwards announces he will drop out of race today to spend more time with his hair.

Gawker: John Edwards will end his 49th run for president Wednesday after failing to capitalize on his angry hobo-under-the-bridge message.

These sites, like much of elite America, are led by spoiled offspring of generations who had to struggle with just the sort of issues Edwards was trying to raise, but from which they now consider themselves immune by their education, status and cleverness.

[blindpig]

199. That's it! n/t

[Andrea]

205. You came a bit late to this thread and may not realize this,

but I am a struggling working person, without a college degree, Edwards supporter, living in the inner city and I have been attacked repeatedly because I have asked some questions to try to get some people to clarify their statements.

Somehow this whole "us" against "them" dynamic has become both very strong and very twisted here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

219. The subthreads where you and TA have discussed this are fascinating.

I've read almost all the posts. The two of you have examined some very significant issues. Kudos to both of you for discussing the topic in an honest way.

The point of this post was to counter the OP's belief that there is no such thing as liberal elitism. This view strikes me as smug and somewhat delusional. The link I posted rings true to me.

[Echo In Light]

200. Fascism has been alive here under the guise of "conservatism" for a long time

And is so prominent that its appeal carries well over into rightward-leaning dem land.

[McCamy Taylor]

222. "Liberal elite" means people with advanced degrees that do not vote Republican

It is a divide and conquer term intended to sow seeds of disharmony in the left by making working class leftists jealous of their better educated comrades in the struggle for human liberation.

Is no different than "welfare queen" in its intention.

There is an inherent contradiction in the terms "liberal" and "elite" just as there is in "welfare" and "queen" that proves both terms to be lies. Propaganda.

Try calling Republicans "Po' White Trash With Money".

[AikidoSoul]

227. Nominated! Very well done

I will bookmark this.

Every liberal should memorize whole segments of this argument. We should be proud of the "liberal" label.

[gulliver]

234. It's just a wedge to separate the liberal stupid from the liberal smart.

Liberals don't like the idea of "elite" so this is just another piece of dummy bait the Republicans like to throw out. It raises resentment and envy in the liberals who aren't economically well off and simultaneously brands the "elite" target liberal as some kind of traitor to the "classless" cause.

It's for idiots. Others it has no effect on.

[blindpig]

236. Did you read all of this thread?

If you did, and still cannot discern the classist assumptions that are internalized by liberalism then perhaps either you're tremendously dense or are consciously defending class interest. And there are only two classes, the capitalist owners of our society and the rest of us, the workers.

[Two Americas]

238. "liberal stupid?"

"Idiots?"

"Envy" in the "liberals who aren't economically well off?"

"...brands the 'elite' target liberal as some kind of traitor to the 'classless' cause?"

In other words, you suggest that we only selectively rouse the rabble, against the Republican aristocracy but not against the liberal aristocracy. Against the "bad" winners, but not against the "good" winners - with "good" and "bad" defined by you.

You ignore two things. First, there obviously are liberals who resist, or who have difficulty with thinking in terms of class. You seem to, for example. Secondly, the Republicans could not get traction with their "liberal elite" propaganda were there not some truth to it. Of course, you see the people as "stupid" and as "idiots" which allows you to dismiss the possibility that there is some truth to the idea of liberal elites. "It isn't there but the people are so stupid that they think it is when the Republicans tell them there is" you are saying.

What sort of left wing politics sees the people as stupid, sees advocacy for the least fortunate as undesirable and upsetting, and places the feelings and prestige of the better off people who happen to call themselves liberals or Democrats above the suffering of the poor and left behind people?

"Get to the back of the bus you poor people, you idiots and stupid people, and let us, the better off and smarter liberals run the show." That is what I hear in your post.

If your language and condescending approach is not a perfect example of the liberal aristocracy speaking, I don't know what would be.

The difference between the modern liberal approach to the poor and unfortunate and the conservative approach to the poor and unfortunate is this: liberals think that pets are best managed with praise and treats, conservatives think that pets are best managed with punishment and threats. But in both cases, the poor and unfortunate are seen as pets. Actually, too many liberals have more compassion for dogs and cats then they do for human beings. Also, more and more liberals are now advocating that more punishment and threats be added to the "mix" for best managing the "stupid" and the "idiots."

[gulliver]

242. Class exists. But it is negligible.

I don't resist thinking in terms of class nor think in terms of class. Class is a low priority factor in the solution to classism. It's just one of many considerations in the viability of the liberal vision of a classless, sustainable society. Is there some logical rule that says that in order to achieve a classless society, you must fixate unblinkingly on the class system? News flash. That only strengthens it. It's like trying to burn away lung cancer by smoking more.

The term "liberal elite" is a litmus test for idiocy. The term has no important meaning to wise liberals. That's just a fact in my view, condescending or not. The idiocy is not inescapable or the result of IQ . All one has to do is think a little, then take the test again. When "liberal elite" means nothing, one self-defeating idiocy is defeated.

No one should hate the poor and no one should hate the rich. Just tax the hell out of the rich and invest in the poor without any negative emotions at all. Just the people's business.

[blindpig]

244. Nonsense

Where are these "wise liberals"? Show me their wisdom.

So, by ignoring class we defeat it? That worked so well at Munich, didn't it?

What exactly is this test you speak of? I want to take it.

There was this illusion around when I was a kid that we were all middle class. It was possible to maintain when the US was the only major economic power, the aftermath of WWII. It was possible because we had a free hand in exploiting the rest of the world. And it was possible because of the New Deal and the GI Bill. The revival of other economies and the treasure drain of the Vietnam War put an end to that. The halt and then gradual dismantling of the New Deal furthered that trend. But even as a 10 year old I could see it wasn't so, the people in the burbs lived much different lives than us, had so much more, were condescending even then. Yes, many of those folks had better education(often due to the GI Bill), but how is it that persons performing vital functions for society, albeit low skill, are worth magnitudes less than those preforming higher skilled jobs, many of which were irrelevant to the basic functions of society? This is education as gatekeeping, this is Social Darwinism, it is classism.

I do not hate the rich as individual persons, I'll guess that many are decent folks. But they function as members of a class, they are products of their environment. As a class they are worthy of the common man's enmity.