HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Rebkeh » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Member since: Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:59 AM
Number of posts: 2,450

About Me

Progressive in the Midwest, a transplant from both coasts, homesick for the eastern one. Traipsing the line between calling it like I see it and knowing when to keep my thoughts to myself. *note: I slip a lot.

Journal Archives

It's class time. Today's lesson: Neoliberalism (video)

I saw this over at Daily Kos and since I'm relatively new to DU, I don't know if it's been shared here yet.


New to DU and new here. Also a question about optics

First, about Bernie. Yes, I am black and a Bernie supporter - I don't know if that will get me into trouble here. Don't care either.

I am voting for him. I am, as they say, "feelin the bern" but not for the reasons most cited. I am less of an issues voter than I am a values voter. My eye is more on trends than anything - meaning the way progress develops for everyone. If it's bad for poc, it's definitely going to be bad for everyone else in the long run. Anyway... I digress.

My question about optics is this - would it be a bad idea for Bernie, or his supporters, to cite Dr. King when speaking about socialism and socialistic positions?

Here's how it went - I made a suggestion to Bernie supporters in another, mostly white, forum about framing socialism. The main discussion had been about how Bernie messed up by bringing up European examples of why socialism is not a scary thing. Many suggested using FDR's policies, and even a quote by Lincoln, as examples instead. I suggested that if they were going to go down that road, to be very clear about inclusion regarding black people. 'Back in the day' nostalgia is unlikely to resonate. I know if it were me, I'd probably shut down and stop listening. That and I have no desire to get into yet another argument about why it's about so much more than class/poverty.

I then realized that Dr. King probably may be a good person to cite, but that is a fine line to walk. I myself hesitate to walk it because his legacy is still being co-opted. That and because I don't feel qualified to say as much because I have not personally studied his work. I did suggest it as an option to look into though. I got several responses from my post. One was that FDR's Four Freedoms are very much aligned with Dr. King's work. Also, a couple of links.



So - bad optics or no? I am sure Symone Sanders has already thought of this, but I don't exactly have her on my contacts list. My take is that Bernie should leave it to black supporters to do it. He himself getting up there is a bad look, or am I over thinking it?

I hate that I even have to think about this at all.

A Question for You All

Do you believe it is possible to have the country we want?

I do. I think America can be whatever we decide it to be. Most of us don't like the way things are, but it appears most also believe we don't have a choice. That we can only tweak things a little, here and there, as opposed to achieving actual progress in a comprehensive way. Incremental change is fine, but we can do better. So much better.

To my mind, we have 4-8 months to render the old model obsolete, or least start the process. If we don't, we will have to resort to the same old tired status quo, making very slow progress in baby steps. Political dramas, kabuki theater and tribal fighting are not what I want for America. I'm sick of the reality tv aspect of politics.

The whole point of being a progressive is to bring about progress. Inter-tribal fighting with republicans is not progress. It's the same dance we've been dancing for many years.

Hillary is running on anti-republican sentiment and counting on tribalism to get her elected. She needs division to win.

Bernie is running on the issues that affect the people and counting on us to help him - to help us.

The choice is clear.

So, I ask again. Do you honestly believe we can have the country we want? (not a rhetorical question)

Framing socialist policies with American examples

I agree with Thom Hartmann that selling Denmark is a misstep. Demonstrating democratic socialism with our own history instead of European ones is a good idea, but there's something to keep in mind. I can't speak for others but as a person of color, "back in the day" nostalgia does not click. No sepia tones for me, things were worse for blacks and women - two groups I am part of - LGBTQ+ and others (immigrants?) as well.

When talking to your friends and family, keep this in mind. FDR is a good example to point to, but be clear about inclusiveness. I suggest we don't sell sepia tones, but modernize historical examples instead.

Just a suggestion.

Hillary will destroy the GOP?

I read a comment over at Daily Kos where a Hillary supporter maintains that Hillary can and will destroy the Republican Party, that she's the best person to drive them out of Washington.

I emphatically disagree, I see that she unites the Republican Party. They thrive on hate and nobody hates her more than they do. She's also closer to them ideologically speaking (Neoliberal, Third Way, Corp/Wall St. friendly) than anyone else running.

I'm not anti-Hillary - she's good on a lot of things and depending on what your priorities are, she's not the worst we can do. But, come on, Bernie's where it's at. Clearly.

It worries me though, that Hillary is framed as the answer to the problem of the GOP. We should be countering their sick ideology instead of fighting people. Besides, they are destroying themselves.


Hillary did not win me over

Politicians vs. Leaders

I woke up unusually early this morning with a realization - something about Hillary at the democratic debate bothered me. There had been something naggling at me and I couldn't put my finger on it.

It was the moment she named republicans as the enemies she is proud to have. While I'm no fan of republicans and their positions, not by a long shot, I appreciate authentic leadership. Disregarding half the population she wishes to lead signals to me, though she's on my side of the divide, that she is no leader. It unsettled me, like she's in it more for the game than she is for the people. Snarkiness is not a leadership quality. At some point we are going to realize the difference between leadership and politicking, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Hillary proudly, and with humor I found kind of disturbing, effectively told many Americans that she holds them in very low regard. What kind of governance can a person expect from someone with such flaunted biases? I get that she has survived years of an incessant onslaught of attacks from the GOP, few could, but I'd be more inspired to vote for her if she rose above it instead.

I realize that by "republicans" she meant the GOP politicians and the conservative press, but do you really think regular, every day republicans outside the beltway, who make up the vast majority of the party, are going to make that distinction? An effective leader would recognize that she would be their president too, and would refrain from making such a statement. It's one thing to naively hold on to the idea that there can be consensus or compromise, it's quite another to openly alienate half the the country.

Hillary is not a leader, she is a politician and I am thoroughly sick and tired of politicians. Whether our legislators "get things done" or not, voters don't show up in substantial numbers for politicians. She claims to be a pragmatic progressive, which is arguably true, but I can't help but to wonder what goes on deep in her core. This is a public service position she is vying for, or it should be anyway. Not only do I question her integrity, but I now question her judgment - she may not get republican votes, but if she wins, she will be their president. Is she committed to leading everyone or just the people she likes?

We have a disengagement problem in our nation, too many tune out and opt out. The wisdom of doing so is not exactly sound, but washing your hands of the whole thing and taking your chances, letting the chips fall where they may, is an understandable reaction. You have to give people something to vote for, only giving them things to vote against is never good and policies alone are not enough. The abysmal voter turn out in 2014 makes this point clear, especially in comparison to the voter turn out of 2008 & even 2012.

I will begrudgingly and painfully vote for Secretary Clinton if she wins the primary, I will drag myself, internally kicking and screaming, to keep the republicans out of the white house. But for primary season, my vote was already going to Bernie and now I am even further entrenched in the Bernie camp.


New here

Hi all,

While I've been reading posts here for weeks, I've finally decided to join. Something Thom Hartmann said on his show, I don't remember exactly what, encouraged me to take a deeper look at DU. He referenced something he read here and I came to check it out. Anyway... seems like a cool place.

I live in a red state and I could always use more liberal energy around me, it's not always fun being a progressive in conservative places.

Go to Page: 1