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.ph...

[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.

[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_nee...

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 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.

[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.



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!

for your spine!