Skip to main content

1st Confederate Republican Flag (Present day)
The GOP can't let go of the 20th century.
You've likely all heard of the Republicans' "Southern strategy." As a reminder, here's how its architect, then-Nixon adviser Kevin Phillips, described it in 1970:
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
Writ large, the Southern strategy sought to drum up white resentment toward the "other" in American society, i.e., minorities, and present the Republican Party as the institution that was on the side of the resentful. We know the results: Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen" myth, the launching of his 1980 presidential campaign with a speech on "states' rights" just outside the Mississippi town where three civil rights volunteers had been martyred, an act that a Republican National Committee member from that state had urged Reagan to take in order to win over "George Wallace inclined voters." And then, eight years later, George H.W. Bush and Lee Atwater gave us Willie Horton, a campaign tactic even Atwater recognized later on required a public apology. A wonderful way for the party that loves to wrap itself in the flag to build a strong sense of national community, right?

In the 21st century, there have been some Republicans who have called for the party to abandon its resentment-based strategy and reach out in a meaningful way to non-whites in order to have a chance to win as the voting population becomes less white. Others, however, cling to the bitter ways of the past, but hope to adapt them to a new, more diverse America. Two recently published studies by Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richardson of Northwestern University provide reason for these bitter-enders to keep hope alive.

One found that whites who are presented with data showing that the American population is growing less and less white expressed greater resentment toward non-whites than those who were not given the data. The other study discovered that whites—and this includes liberals, moderates and conservatives across the board—all shifted rightward in their policy positions and their party identification after being given similar information on demographic trends. Maureen Craig explained:

Overall, making this racial shift salient could bring more moderate White Americans into the Republican Party, as well as increase turnout among White Americans who already consider themselves Republicans.
What can liberals do about it? Follow me beyond the fold to find out.

The answer is simple; If Republicans benefit from dividing us by race and increasing white resentment, then we have to do whatever we can to build stronger and better relations across racial lines, in particular between whites and non-whites. How do we do this? There are two main categories of actions we take.

First, and most importantly, we emphasize the common economic interests of the overwhelming majority of people of every race. We emphasize that Republicans serve the interests of the 1 PERCENT, the economic elite, and that dividing us by race is how they distract us from seeing that. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have long operated from the principle that racial resentment is the true opiate of the (white) masses, the delusion that keeps them in line, worried about dark-skinned "takers" while the elites pass laws designed to help them line their own pockets.

Second, we have to do what we can to help alleviate this white fear of being a minority, the fear that breeds the resentment and the conservatism. This is the part that might seem, at first, to be unnecessary or maybe even distasteful. After all, why shouldn't it be up to fearful whites to change their attitudes? First, it is up to them. Reducing fear and resentment requires action by all sides, not just one.

Second, let's remember that their fear is being ginned up by forces with a lot of money behind them, for a very specific reason. We can get on our moral high horse and cross our arms, or we can fight back by countering that fear with love, with American unity. That's how we win the battle, a battle whose prize is the ability to move our country's laws in a progressive direction, one that will bring about greater justice, prosperity and equality for all, of every race.

Let me be clear about a couple of things. In no way am I suggesting progressives moderate or alter their policy positions, in particular on issues like the fight for racial justice and equality or comprehensive immigration reform. We believe what we believe, because those beliefs flow from our morality as well as our conviction that they are right for our country. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that liberals are out there advocating some kind of "brown supremacy," and that that's what is scaring whites.

All I am suggesting is that, where the opportunity presents itself to talk about fellowship across racial and ethnic lines, we take it. Liberals are already doing this, of course, and we need to keep on doing it. Barack Obama has provided the model, as I discussed a couple of years ago:

Obama addressed these issues most directly in his Philadelphia race speech. On white privilege, he stated: “most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.” That doesn’t mean he believes that they haven’t been privileged, but that’s beside the point for the purpose of winning their support for his policies. The President also said “to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns—this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.” By this point he has, hopefully, established some credibility with the resentful whites he is trying to reach. He has established that he has empathy for their position.

Having done so, Obama can then deliver some truths: “Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.” He added: “these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze.”  This, I would argue, is a far more effective way to win white support both for universal measures to improve the lives of working-class Americans and for specific measures to counteract the all too real effects of discrimination non-whites still face.

Berating the resentful among the white working class for their bigotry would, without question, lead any of them who were listening to stop, and to dismiss the speaker as someone who just doesn’t get them. Speaking the way Obama did is far less satisfying – as nuance always is initially – but his election suggests that it worked in 2008. We’ll find out more in November.

As progressives, we must not dismiss the perspectives of white working class voters – even those who express racial resentments – any more than we do the perspective of non-white voters, because we need to win their votes. We have to convince these white voters that their interests lie not in allying themselves with the economic elites against minorities, but in coming together and creating a broad, multiethnic coalition of Americans united. This is the truth, and it is what Obama seeks to do. Such a coalition can be the driving force for real change, for policies that benefit members of all ethnic groups while ensuring equal opportunities for all Americans.

Ginning up white racial fear to win votes for the Republican Party is not only cynical, it can become downright dangerous to our domestic peace. We must present an alternative, progressive vision of America. Our vision is one where fellowship across racial lines triumphs over division, where the government serves the common good rather than the interests of the elite, and where everyone is an equal member of the national community, no one—no one—is more of a "real" American than anyone else.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for being one people. (110+ / 0-)
  •  I explicitly advocate class warfare (25+ / 0-)

    Uniting black and white in hatred of the 1%.  They should be encouraged to hate and people such as the Koch brothers should be held up as Emmanuel Goldstein-like symbols for people to focus their shared emotion.

    Maybe I am cynical, but I support ginning up biracial economic fear, or at least the threat of it, so that the economic elites find caving as the best way to preserve domestic peace.

    Haters gonna hate, try and make the haters hate the same things you hate.

    •  If we motivate them to vote against the 1% (27+ / 0-)

      we can change the system. We have to win the reins of power in order to do it.

      I do hear and share your anger, I just can't go along with fighting hate and fear with hate and fear. But we definitely have to fight hard to effect change.

      •  Strong emotions are the best motivator (17+ / 0-)

        You're not going move people by reasoning with them and you're not going to get people to vote by having them sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya.

        If you can find an emotion other than hate and fear and anger, then you can substitute that, but an emotional appeal will be the most powerful one.

        •  Here are some examples of what you asked for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WednesdaysChilde

          In Zen Buddhism we call the discovery of compassion for oneself and others in the face of total denial from society kensho (seeing your reality) or satori (sudden remembering). In each of these cases, the writer or the actual person has told us in some detail of the thought process and the human interactions that led these characters and people into delusion and then out again.

          First in fiction.

          Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain

          Well, I will go to Hell, then.
          "in which a good heart overcomes a troubled conscience", resolving to break the laws of both God and Man by helping his friend Jim escape from slavery.

          Dingaka, directed by Jamie Uys, of The Gods Must Be Crazy fame, and starring Ken Gampu

          I will do right, though the Gods slay me.
          resolving to kill the lying and hypocritical tribal religious leader who murdered his daughter, even if the murderer does have the power of the Gods on his side.

          In the Heat of the Night, directed by Norman Jewison, and starring Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger

          Hey! You"re just like us!
          realizing that an honest Black cop wants the collar in a murder case just the same as an honest White cop does, no matter who it turns out to be.

          Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, starring Sidney Poitier, Spencer Tracy, and Katharine Hepburn

          Well, I'll be a son of a bitch.

          recognizing that he is too a racist for all that he denied it and blamed society.

          And in real life:

          Rev. John Newton, Anglican priest, author of the hymn Amazing Grace, and mainstay of the anti-slavery movement in the British Empire, but previously a slave ship captain.

          John Dean, first of Watergate infamy, then the chief witness against Richard Nixon until the tapes came out. Dean later wrote Worse than Watergate and Conservatives Without Conscience.

          Studs Terkel's favorite interview of his whole life was with C. P. Ellis, once the Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan for Durham NC, and later an official with a mostly Black labor union.

          Annals of Race and Redemption
          "Why I Quit the Klan”—An Interview with C. P. Ellis
          By Studs Terkel

          They say the older you get, the harder it is for you to change. That's not necessarily true. Since I changed, I've set down and listened to tapes of Martin Luther King. I listen to it and tears come to my eyes cause I know what he's sayin now. I know what's happenin'.
          —C.P. Ellis

          "A conscience awakened is the most beautiful thing in the world." —Brazilian Bishop Dom Helder Camara

          C.P. Ellis was born in 1927 and was 53-years-old at the time of this interview with Studs Terkel. For Terkel, America's foremost oral historian, this remains the most memorable and moving of all the interviews he's done in a career spanning more than seven decades, for C.P. Ellis had once been the exalted cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan in Durham, N.C. During the interview, Terkel learned that Ellis had been born extremely poor in Durham, North Carolina; had struggled all his life to feed his family; had felt shut out of American society and had joined the Klan to feel like somebody. But later he got involved in a local school issue and reluctantly, gradually, began to work on a committee with a black activist named Ann Atwater, whom he despised at the time. Eventually, after many small epiphanies, he realized that they shared a common concern for their children, common goals as human beings. More surprising still, Ellis became a union organizer for a janitor's union—a long way from his personal philosophical roots. The Ellis-Atwater story is best documented in The Best of Enemies, a book by Osha Gray Davidson that tells of the unlikely friendship that developed between Ann and C.P. Ellis, when they first met in the 1960's. Apparently, their commonalities as oppressed human beings proved far stronger than the racial hatred that initially divided them.

          Abraham Lincoln was raised in racism, but evolved out of it step by step over many years. Frederick Douglass helped him get from freeing the slaves and sending them back to Africa all the way to letting former slaves be full citizens.

          There are lots of other famous examples. But those are one-at-a-timers, even though Lincoln's evolution was so consequential. What counts much more is the millions of mostly young people who fall away from the Right every year, even if it comes at the cost of being cast out from their communities and shunned by their families.

          Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton left the Southern Baptist Convention when it gave up on racism, but doubled down on misogyny, bigotry, and science denial, helping to form the New Baptist Covenant

          to address poverty, the environment and global conflicts
          Their 20 million members have some evolving to do on LGBT rights, but they are engaging the question, unlike the SBC. NBC just doesn't get any press for being reasonable and more or less Christian. "Dog decides not to bite man" is totally not a headline.

          Moral Mondays organizers in North Carolina are being invited into some White communities that are realizing that Republicans consider them the enemy, too.

          Once you start looking for it, you can find it everywhere.

          You know, I should Diary this. Well, I will, then.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Tue May 27, 2014 at 11:18:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I want to demonize the rich (5+ / 0-)

        Things are too far gone and deeply serious for cerebral arguments with scared white voters.  Give them a greater, shared fear of the %1 and sort things out later.  If there is a later.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Mon May 26, 2014 at 04:56:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pitchforks and torches is not the way to go! (7+ / 0-)

          To start with, the wealthy are not by any means all evil. Think JK Rowling, for example, who gave away so much of her wealth that she dropped out of billionaire status.  She's still plenty wealthy, but she's not the enemy.  And I don't think George Soros is, nor Warren Buffett.

          And there's a big difference between the "1%" and the exospheric levels of wealth of the big hedge fund managers, the Koch brothers, and so forth in the 0.01% (and beyond).  People at the 1% level (about $500,000 for a household) are still doing very well indeed, and anyone earning that kind of stable income is not likely to be subject to the problems of the bottom 50% (which tops out at about 10% of that), but they aren't so wealthy that they're completely immune to serious reversals, particularly pre-ACA (if you think about it, even a few million dollars in assets could be depleted very quickly by a serious illness combined with job loss).

          Finally, things like that can go wildly out of control.  Think about what happened to the French Revolution, for example.  The American Revolution was one of the few such that I can think of that really led to a stable, pluralistic society.

          •  Sorry, this is a class war (9+ / 0-)

            You don't consistently win elections by picking and choosing specific players - you attack in broad strokes, letting individuals off the hook, as you can.

            I grew up with wealthy folks as neighbors and relatives for most of my childhood through college years - many of them had no idea if they were contributing to various vectors of economic inequality, environmental degradation, social casting and the like.  They mostly made their money and impacts of being involved in the process were not their concerns.

            Well, it's not everyone's concern.  Sorry, I don't see a problem with rallying disaffected white voters against the de facto ruling class - if you're making $500K or above, you may gain my essential human sympathy for your particular, human issues - but, certainly not for your income.

            There has to be a line drawn when it comes to political movements - whether that be $0.500M, $1.000M or something else, it needs to be done in an absolutist fashion if we expect it to gain ground with the voting genpop, I feel.  As much as I often talk about fair play in all cases, I don't think it's entirely unfair to say that most people above a certain line are - either wittingly or unwittingly - contributing to an international confluence of the wealthiest desires that has been poisoned by the selfish behavior of the most powerful and wealthy.  Much as right-wing, white males have made most USA white males look like a problem demographic for both voting and legislating fairly in this country, the richest have poisoned the attainment of wealth at many levels.

            And, similar to the case of white males, it's partly up to the wealthy to help get underneath their peers in that demographic and turn attitudes around.   I make my white peers uncomfortable in bringing up right-wing politics around me or in public because they see me as an implicit "peer" and don't expect pushback on good-old-boy attitudes from those who (on the surface) appears most like them - the wealthy should get used to doing that within their own peer group, I feel.  And, the rest of of should shame the worst offenders mercilessly, connnecting them fully to Republicans and conservative Democrats.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:47:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no point in history, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dallasdunlap, hopesprings

              where a ruling elite has not won. You may reference a few revolutions in history, but at those points one subset of the ruling elite has simply displaced a different subset.  

              You seem to think you could win a conflict of sorts with only those earning less than 500k or 1M.  That's misguided at best.

              •  Whenever someone talks about history like that (4+ / 0-)

                This is what I think of. There's always a first time for everything.

                Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 11:43:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nelson Mandela (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wader, moviemeister76
                  Everything is impossible until the moment that it happens.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Tue May 27, 2014 at 11:20:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think the actual quote is (0+ / 0-)

                    "It always seems impossible until the moment it is done." Which are words I have lived by for the past few years. Because so much stuff has happened in my life that I thought would never come to pass.

                    Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                    by moviemeister76 on Tue May 27, 2014 at 10:07:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  That was the crime of the so called American (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader

                Revolution.

                I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

                by a2nite on Tue May 27, 2014 at 03:47:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely NOT true (4+ / 0-)

                There are plenty of instances of where the ruling elite lost or were toppled.  The fact that those replacing the elite went on to become elites themselves just shows that the elites were not replaced ENOUGH.  But to say that there is no point in history were a ruling elite has not won is factually incorrect.  It's so incorrect that we might as well be saying the sky is green and grass is blue.  in fact ruling elites have lost in just about every damn country in the world in the last century.

                This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                by DisNoir36 on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:21:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Amen!!! See below. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wader

                  Battling psychiatric myths with sensible skepticism at www.makingsenseofpsychiatry.com

                  by candid psychiatrist on Tue May 27, 2014 at 06:48:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Except (3+ / 0-)

                  This one.

                  In America, it took a man FROM the ruling elite (Roosevelt) to push through the reforms in this country that reinforced real democracy AND builtx a true middle class.  It took a handful of committed elites (Kennedy, Johnson) to fight to strengthen his reforms.  And it only took one ambitious, Horatio-Alger believing kid from the middle class (Reagan) to start to topple them  

                  Many of us dreamed Obama would be the next Roosevelt.  Who knows if he'd done more in that line if he hadn't had the Republican Congress to contend with?  We'll never know, but it's been a resounding disappointment.

                  "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." - Bodhidharma

                  by hopesprings on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:33:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Even in America (0+ / 0-)

                    A man who grew up in a Log Cabin went on to become one of the most powerful politicians in the world.  He toppled a whole region of elites who wanted to undermine this country and take power all for themselves.  

                    The American Revolution was another classic example of ruling elites being toppled by people who had little to no power prior to them rising up.  Alexander Hamilton for example was a bastard who wasn't even born in the USA.  He was born in the West Indies.  

                    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                    by DisNoir36 on Tue May 27, 2014 at 08:41:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Name 1. (0+ / 0-)

                  I just did a quick scan of http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  and my own moderate knowledge of history and I cant think of one.

                  The closest came was the failed slave uprisings of ancient Rome

                  Even Toussaint L'Ouverture was likely royalty and educated.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  •  Oh good god. (0+ / 0-)

                    Portugal Carnation Revolution 1975.

                    There's your one.  Longest fascist dictatorship toppled without one shot fired.  Been a democracy ever since.  

                    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                    by DisNoir36 on Tue May 27, 2014 at 08:37:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The election of FDR refutes your contention (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bartcopfan, jrand, wader

                He demonized the rich to some degree, and "welcomed their hatred." He won four terms, and began a period of liberal Democratic dominance that lasted nearly fifty years. Meanwhile the United States prospered more than any nation in history.

                Your contention is simplistic and unfounded. The rich don't need to be eliminated, but can be beaten back in a democratic system.

                Battling psychiatric myths with sensible skepticism at www.makingsenseofpsychiatry.com

                by candid psychiatrist on Tue May 27, 2014 at 06:47:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you have any idea (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  hopesprings

                  who FDR was?

                  "Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882, in the Hudson Valley town of Hyde Park, New York to businessman James Roosevelt I (1828–1900) and Sara Ann Delano (1854–1941). His parents were sixth cousins[5] and both were from wealthy old New York families."

                  FDR was solidly part of the ruling elite since his birth. He was a great guy, dont get me wrong. But implying that he was part of some proletariat only uprising is a joke. The new deal, the man, and his political machine, were completely blue blood dominated.

                  •  That was in the day (0+ / 0-)

                    ...where 'noblesse oblige' still lingered in the souls of some of the ruling elite.  

                    Carnegie left libraries and universities as his legacy.  What legacies are the Bushes going to leave behind?  The Koches?  

                    "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." - Bodhidharma

                    by hopesprings on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:35:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There (0+ / 0-)

                      is a great discussion to be had about the strength of character between different generations of wealthy. But id like to reiterate that, that discussion fundamentally  can not counter the point that FDR was a blue blood.

                      Also to be honest, I actually think the Bush's current generation was less evil than Carnegie.

                  •  Of course I do!!! (0+ / 0-)

                    What are you hoping for here? The election of FDR was a sea change in the balance of political power--the economic elites were not destroyed, but their political power was tremendously diminished by his ascendance to the presidency. I'm not dreaming of a Marxist revolution, with the complete destruction of corporate America. Another FDR would be just fine by me.

                    I'm reconciled to the fact that figures from the economic elite, such as the Roosevelts and the Kennedys, have greater access to political power than people from the street. But the weight of the office sometimes compels the occupant to try to right our society's wrongs, with an eye on their historical legacy. I'm more hopeful than many here that Hillary Clinton may respond to such urges once she is elected, and be more progressive than many imagine.

                    Battling psychiatric myths with sensible skepticism at www.makingsenseofpsychiatry.com

                    by candid psychiatrist on Thu May 29, 2014 at 07:07:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  If that was the case, then we would never (0+ / 0-)

                have had a middle class in the USA.

                Note that I mentioned quite clearly that the better members of our "wealthy" ranks must be enlisted to influence and challenge their peers.  This is a multilateral possibility before us, but it starts with staking out a simple, public position that shows the upper classes have waged war against the struggling majority by virtue of the power they have purchased (and reinvested in).

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:49:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The great unifier should be our patriotic ideals (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian Reifowitz

            In the long run, the rich aren't going to be any better off if we don't address the problems of global warming, pollution, gun violence and a military industrial complex that has too much power over our society.

            Republicans are crazy, Democrats need to be useful and its up to us to save our democracy. Get to work.

            by Citizenpower on Mon May 26, 2014 at 09:35:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There's a problem with "class warfare" strategy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NewRomeIsBurning

            ...in that a) there are a significant amount of mega rich people who are consistently with at least the majority of points in the progressive agenda and
            b) This is America.  The majority of people in this country (or even those who come to this country seeking riches) have Horatio Alger in their genes.  There is the persistent magical thinking belief that someday, "Me too!" - everyone in the USA has a shot at great wealth.  That central capitalistic meme is not going away any time soon, sadly.  

            It's b) that evil geniuses in the Republican party use to exploit and convince non-wealthy Americans to vote against their own vital interests.  Someone making $70,000 a year dreams of making $700,000 a year, and the Republicans convince voters that Democratic "socialism" (yeah right) will get in the way of doing so .  That's not mega wealth, but it sure feels like mega wealth to most of us, doesn't it?  

            I've always wondered why there isn't a concerted progressive campaign to move significant numbers of educated liberals of all ethnic and gender preference & persuasions to the south, in an attempt at balancing the voting numbers.  I had the opportunity to live in a semi - conservative Southern city for work for 5 months and was blown away by the innate kindness of the people, as well as the significantly lower cost of living and the laid back lifestyle.  These people had the beliefs they'd grown up with, but they were decent and more open-minded than I'd expected.  Since the possibilities of working virtually have exploded, and since lowered costs of living can be an advantage, especially to both younger and retiring people, inundating the persistently republican southern states and districts with an educated liberal population (particularly if they are bringing businesses and jobs into the area with them) could definitely tip the balance.  We already have enough liberals in New York and LA.  What would need to happen for the democratic party to create such a campaign?  

            "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." - Bodhidharma

            by hopesprings on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:26:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Should Tom Steyer be demonized? (5+ / 0-)

        when he's giving millions for the planet?

        The wealthy are evil only if like the Kochs they advocate policies that increase their wealth at the expense of the poorest and neediest.

        The wealthy who advocate policies against their interest are not evil.

        Plus, to have the power to alter anything you have to be in the 0.1 percent, not the 1%.

        Steve Gilliard Lives.

        by Bethesda 1971 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:23:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  People on the left (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skyye, TrueBlueDem, WednesdaysChilde

          often fail to realize the influence money buys on both sides of all issues.

          They seem to think that their random sit in on a forest clear cutting project really matters, but fail to realize that the real successful liberal policy initiatives were backed by specific wealthy, influential liberals.  

          This is not a good, nor bad thing itself. The problem is the failure of the left to recognize this has resulted in an often ineffectual lobbying/governing processes.

          This understanding is one of the few advantages the republican party has.

          •  Interesting point (0+ / 0-)

            Something to think about.  Thanks for sharing.

            Understanding is limited by perspective. Perspective is limited by experience. America is a great place to live but it limits our ability to understand.

            by CindyV on Tue May 27, 2014 at 02:53:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  In my experience (13+ / 0-)

      A lot of people actually have no problem with the 1%. Sure, they recognize they are thieves, but they don't see any problem with being insanely wealthy. Because they themselves aspire to that.

      Plus, race is so intertwined with wealth in the way it gets discussed, so that many whites I know actually believe that the attacks against the 1% are just about giving more stuff to "lazy" people.

      And that's why I don't think using hate and fear works. You can't always predict how people will react to those emotions. Many times, they react in the opposite way you would wish.

      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

      by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:34:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take The Emotion Out of FDR and Martin Luther (10+ / 0-)

        King and see what you have left.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:47:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say no emotion (7+ / 0-)

          I said hate and fear. In fact, both FDR and MLK were quite specific about using hope and positive emotions to motivate people. Which is exactly what I support.

          Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

          by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:51:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What positive emotions (6+ / 0-)

            are still possible?  Hope?  Seriously?

            222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

            by happymisanthropy on Mon May 26, 2014 at 08:15:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, seriously (3+ / 0-)

              We have come so far. There has been so much amazing change just in the past decade, let alone across my entire life. And I'm only 37. For folks far older than me, there's been even greater change. We've got members here who lived through Jim Crow. Who lived when women weren't allowed to have their own bank accounts without a man co-signing for them. Crime is way down. It looks like marijuana is on the path to legalization. We've finally got some in the media discussing the disparities in our justice system.

              We might make some temporary slips back, but I firmly believe we continue to press forward.

              Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

              by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 09:24:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Social issues, all. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrand, happymisanthropy

                They are quite willing to let us believe those are the most important issues, because while we are celebrating those very real accomplishments--that they let us win, imho--they have been making sure that no matter how victorious we all are on that side of things, the march to serfdom for these same people (and everyone else not rich) continues apace.
                As I said when DADT was being repealed, why are we celebrating the ability for LGBTQ people to be killed?

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Tue May 27, 2014 at 08:23:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I cannot cosign your comment (0+ / 0-)

                  When my grandmother was finally legally allowed to open her own bank account separate from her husband, it had massive economic ramifications for her life and the life of her family. It has allowed countless women the economic means with which to leave their abusive boyfriends and husbands.

                  Social change leads to economic change. Racism is an economics issue. Abortion rights is an economic issue. Women's rights is an economic issue. LGBT rights are an economic issue. Trying to dismiss them as just "social issues" is to not understand how oppression actually works.

                  Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                  by moviemeister76 on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:13:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'm with you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                moviemeister76

                I've seen some great progress over the past 50 years.

                To those who say "It's not enough; the 1% (or .01%) is widening the gap", I say that if I had to choose between rampant racism (as we had not too long ago) and the widening economic gap, I'd take the gap.

                Hope is still valid - something we should continue to hold on to as we continue the push for progress.

                Understanding is limited by perspective. Perspective is limited by experience. America is a great place to live but it limits our ability to understand.

                by CindyV on Tue May 27, 2014 at 03:05:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  When did MLK and FDR preach hate? (7+ / 0-)

          I don't recall that.

    •  Dangerous... (13+ / 0-)

      Our elites have a nasty habit of resorting to political violence when challenged.  The political balance is different today.  Bad actions can be captured easily and cheaply on cell phone cameras and uploaded to youtube.  Imagine what would have happened during the labor unrest in the 1870s with cheap easy access to upload the abuses of Pinkertons?

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:36:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm gonna stick my neck out here (15+ / 0-)

      and ask: what's the difference between hating "the 1%" and hating, say, "blacks" or "gays" or what have you? Is the point of the progressive movement to make sure we all hate the right types of people instead of the wrong types of people?

      Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho

      by DocDawg on Mon May 26, 2014 at 04:32:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ever heard of "chickens coming home to roost"? (7+ / 0-)

      Once you unleash hate, you never know where it will lead, and indeed, it may end up turning back on you.  Your chickens come back to roost in your own garden.

      Your idea is counterproductive.
      It's populist, to be sure, but it's an example of why populism has so often failed in its aims throughout history, precisely because it's too often based on hate and resentment rather than sound policy.  If the hate unleashed doesn't turn back on those that unleashed it, then it typically leads to totalitarian dictatorships headed by the once well-intentioned leader of the populist movement that is no longer so well-intentioned once he's dictator.

      Besides that, I know some rich people and like them.  I don't think they're 1%, but even if they were, I'm not going to hate them.  Sorry, "Homey don't play that."

    •  You nailed it. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Volt3930, MHB, bryduck

      The Republican Party has one central purpose: To give total control to the rich. It is their core imperative and it overrides every other issue they claim to care about.

      Destroying government and giving total control to the 1% is job number one. It unites them. It is their soul. This long-time central focus is a strength of the Republicans that too few Democrats properly appreciate.

      And so we must have a central purpose of our own. A purpose that overrides all others. A purpose that, yes, is even more important to us than issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, guns, or religion. That central purpose must be to destroy the power of the 1% and to give control of this country back to the majority. That's it. Everything else pales in comparison to the importance of that one goal. Without that, you can't stop climate change. Without that, we will all become slaves.

      Trust me, that message will appeal to white people.

  •  Absolutely, Ian (13+ / 0-)

    Dangerous is correct. Of course, I have to point out that there's one group of Americans -- of all races and religions and ethnicities -- that isn't quite as American as the rest of you and won't be until ENDA is signed into law. That's why the big deal sign in the Castro as we celebrated the end of Prop 8 and the Windsor decision said "We are More American."

    This is not to indicate disagreement with ANY of the rest of your analysis.

    Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall

    by Dave in Northridge on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:11:43 PM PDT

  •  In the Jim Crow south (16+ / 0-)

    The worst counties for blacks were the counties in which blacks were in the majority.  The white majority made sure blacks didn't vote.  Jim Crow was relatively relaxed in areas where whites were in the majority.

    "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

    by Navy Vet Terp on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:11:54 PM PDT

  •  Operation Chaos/ No! Operation Mason Jar... (5+ / 0-)

    Check out this from CD1 GA Just wrote this.

  •  it is GOTV in all forms: voter registration and (28+ / 0-)

    messaging against false consciousness in all forms

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:19:35 PM PDT

  •  Another option... (5+ / 0-)

    is to have most non-whites check "white" (on tax forms, or census forms, or whatever forms are used in collecting demographic data). This would result (1) in "whites" maintaining "their" significant majority and (2) in much less "white" anxiety about becoming a minority anytime in the near future. Less "white" anxiety would undermine the GOP Southern strategy.

    "Woe unto ye beetles of South America." -- Charles Darwin, about to sail on The Beagle, 1831

    by Katakana on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:20:47 PM PDT

  •  Issues, issues, issues, issues ... (10+ / 0-)

    I think we need to look at states, where the Republican Party has completely no chance of winning and analyze how things work there.
    Some examples would be the NE states of the Pacific NW States of Oregon/Washington. The big difference I see between those states and the Southern States are historical and the grip of the Religious Right.
    As long as the Thugs are using the Church to vote for them, it will be very difficult to beat them in the South.

  •  The 300,000 white southerners who joined the (17+ / 0-)

    Union army during the civil war were motivated in large part by class antagonism toward wealthy slave-holding plantation owners. This resentment was widely shared among non slave-owning whites in the southern civilian population leading in some instances to armed resistance to the confederacy within confederate state.

    Unfortunately, playing the class card in American politics tends to dry up campaign funding.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:29:34 PM PDT

  •  The Horton ad was especially misleading, (13+ / 0-)

    as well as racist: the "furlough" policy ascribed to Gov. Dukakis was actually the brainchild of his Republican predecessor.

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:29:40 PM PDT

  •  "negrophobes" interesting neologism given the (8+ / 0-)

    madness of Birtherism

    The real problems still stem from 2010's debacle

    http://www.bloomberg.com/...

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

    •  Negrophobe whites? Oh, wait ... (5+ / 0-)

      He meant RACIST whites.

      The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are.
      So, Mr. Republican, what you're blatantly admitting here is that Republicans were actively courting RACISTS.  

      Republicans weren't condemning racism.  They were consciously and purposefully trying to nurture it for their own cynical political purposes.

      I wonder if any modern Republicans have looked back on that admitted strategy of their own party and acknowledged it as wrong?  

      [crickets]

    •  I've often thought Democrats need to focus STRONG (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrand, OleHippieChick

      on getting elected during census years to control districting. 2020 is a good ways off, but it's not to far away to start planning and organizing in preparation. We can wax and wain all we want how gerrymandering is a rotten deal and it is, but it's a political reality and one ignored far to long now. If 2010 taught us anything it should have been to win BIG in 2020.

      Jesus only performs miracles for people with enough time on their hands to make that crap up.

      by KneecapBuster on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:57:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not only anxiety it's identity (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz, Gooserock, opinionated

    Simply raising the racial consciousness of whites is going to work against Democrats.  I'm white, where do I find the white party?  I mean if THAT is what you want whites thinking about when they go to the polls, oh my, you are not going to like the results.

    •  I might like the results actually. nt (5+ / 0-)
    •  Where do you find the white party? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, a2nite

      Try the GOP. If they're not white enough for you, I hear the American Nazi Party is pretty inflexible about the whole white thing.

      Maybe you can look into it and see whether you'd be happier there.  I know those parties certainly share your views on white privilege.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:50:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can we seriously stop this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      What is up with the attempts at black mail from some white folks I've seen at this site? Are you actually arguing that you are going to vote for the GOP or not vote if we don't shut up about race? It amazes me as I never hear that from black folks here. Ever. And some of them have been viciously attacked multiple times at this site. But I never hear any of them say, "Keep saying white privilege is BS white folks. See if I actually show up to vote in the next election."

      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

      by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't *think* that was the point (0+ / 0-)

        I think the claim — which makes some sense given what I know about social psychology — is that increasing the salience of whites' self-identification as whites tends to move their politics to the right, even if nothing is said about 'outgroups.'

        My guess would be that the outgroups do have to be at least obliquely evoked. For instance, the diary cites studies that indicate that simply providing information about demographic trends tends to move whites to the right — but that information includes outgroups.

        Regardless, the message shouldn't be that we must never talk about white privilege for fear of alienating whites. And, yes, I've seen comments to that effect here, but I didn't think greenbell's was among them. (I think it's legitimate to think about how not to alienate people, but I find it embarrassing when some people have waaaaaay too many opinions about what other people should never say.)

        "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

        by HudsonValleyMark on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:39:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Many, if not most, whites do not see themselves (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          the autonomist, jrand

          as privileged but they do see that POC are discriminated against in all kinds of ways.  The word "privilege" is a problem because:

          1.  it implies that whites have things that they should give up rather than that POC should also have those things.
          2.  it ignores and dismisses all of the ways in which whites also experience discrimination such as by being LGBT, disabled, poor, female, etc.
          3.  it implies that whites have something that they don't deserve rather than that POC are unfairly denied that something.

          Let me put it this way - if you told blacks that they are privileged by the fact that they were born in the US rather than in some of the African countries where there is widespread starvation, inadequate drinking water, civil unrest, etc etc, they would be defensive because they suffer from so much unfairness here in the US.  In the same regard, whites who struggle financially and/or face discrimination due to other factors are not going to accept the idea that they are privileged.  

          A foreign student who my sons met while in college told them that the thing about the US that impressed him most was the clear water in our toilets - he had never seen such clear water coming from a spigot much less in a toilet.  Most people of any color in the US have clear water in their toilets but do any think of that as a "privilege", do they?  In fact, in many areas, all americans are privileged when compared to many parts of the world.

          Yes, whites have it better in tons of ways that they are not aware of and don't think about just as most americans don't think about how lucky we are to have clean water in our toilets but it is far more productive to discuss it in terms of the unfairness to POC when it comes to gaining white support.

  •  My first suggestion would be to make sure white (7+ / 0-)

    men don't read Dailykos.
        After a couple of weeks of reading the various white male bashing posts, white privilege posts, and religion bashing posts, many white folks are going to think long and hard before they vote for the anti-white party.
        For years I've wondered why white working class people were voting Republican. That seemed to be so contrary to their economic interests.
        But when the message is getting out there that the Dems represent people who hate them, I can see why whites vote the way they do.

    •  It appears to me... (11+ / 0-)

      ...you may be succumbing to the very weakness of argument of which you accuse DK and its commentators.

      You've interpreted individual indictments of racism, sexism or privilege - none of which can reasonably be denied exist (and how did "religion" find its way in there?) - as applying to the "white male" in general, and identifying all who object to their practice as not only "anti-white" - and Dems, to boot - but actually guilty of "hate" towards all white people.

      In short, your defense of...well, I'm not sure  what, exactly... rather goes off the rails from an overweight of extrapolation.

         

      •  Wait what? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, jrand, AlexDrew, MHB

        There were 4 different highly rec'ed diaries here YESTERDAY that were ONLY about the evils of white males.  You can't swing a dead cat here an not read an anti-Christinity diary.  It would be interesting to do a word cloud from Kos that showed what is associated with white male.  Rape, murder, bigotry, sexism, discrimination and Tea Party would be prominent.  

        Jimmy Carter - white, male, southern, Christian, military - and a better Democrat than 99% of Dems in office today.

        Lyndon Johnson - See above.  It makes me sick that we have given up on the Great Society.  it would make Johnson raging mad.  

        Tip O'Neill - White, male, Roman Catholic - Yikes!  Things have gotten a little better with the new Pope but before that….goodness there was not a bigger dog whistle here than Roman Catholic

        Huey Long - White, male, southern, Christian.  Want lessons on how to take on the 1%?  Read about Huey.

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:53:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You really can't distinguish between (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          waterstreet2013

          the indictment of a culture and the indictment of EVERY SINGLE PERSON who belongs to said culture?

          A list of decent white men.  Cool, so what?  Slavery still happened, Manifest destiny still happened, every single brutal act white men ever perpetrated upon not white people STILL HAPPENED.

          The progeny of the survivors of all that brutality still have to live with the long term effects of the evil shit that white men did.

          But you've probably stopped reading already, so go enjoy the fact that you probably won't be murdered by a cop cause you reached for your phone.  Go enjoy the fact that you probably won't be sexually assaulted as you go about your day.

          And while you're about it, shut the fuck up about the plight of the white man.  You're making me look bad.

          May you always find water and shade.

          by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:15:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Decent Democrats (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrand, MHB

            who happened to be men
            who happened to be white
            who happened to be Christians

            Decent Democrats who would have to explain why they should be listened to because they are white, male, and Christian.

            Funny I am watching "Restrepo" right now and reliving my frustrations in Afghanistan and Iraq.  One of the biggest was dealing with grievances.  Not from things I did.  Not from things my predecessor did.  No, those were easy.  The hard ones were "the British in 18 blah blah blah"  WTF?  Why in the hell are you holding ME responsible for something a Brit did before my great great great grandfather was even born???  Compared to that, holding me responsible for everything every white died has ever done is pretty tame.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:24:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Doesn't it occur to you... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Whimsical Rapscallion, a2nite

              ...that the very examples you cite expose the folly of interpreting any criticism of the acts of some white males as applying to all of them?

            •  Never happened (0+ / 0-)
              Why in the hell are you holding ME responsible for something a Brit did before my great great great grandfather was even born???  
              Never.  

              Consider the difference between culpability (The actual slavers, rapists, etc.) And responsibility (People in a position of privilege because of the slavery, rape, etc.)

              We have a responsibility to correct the evils of our ancestors. Period.  Full stop.

              May you always find water and shade.

              by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:44:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrand, happymisanthropy, MHB

                So you are telling me I didnt really hear complaints from Afghans and Iraqis about the Brits.  I suppose you were there and I just didnt notice you?  Would have been nice if you had spoken up, nicer if you had helped out.  2003 was a shitty year and it was more shitty going it alone.

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:59:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not what I said and you know it. (0+ / 0-)

                  Consider the difference between culpability (The actual slavers, rapists, etc.) And responsibility (People in a position of privilege because of the slavery, rape, etc.)

                  We have a responsibility to correct the evils of our ancestors. Period.  Full stop.

                  May you always find water and shade.

                  by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:08:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What you said was "never happened" (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jrand, happymisanthropy, MHB

                    and then repeated "never."

                    were I in a bad mood I would think you were calling me a liar.  And since you were not on my team in Afghanistan and you were not part of my Army of One in Iraq there is no possible way you know what my conversations with Afghan or Iraqis revolved around.  

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  When you said "you" (0+ / 0-)

                      I thought you meant "me"  It's just that simple.

                      but for a third time

                      Consider the difference between culpability (The actual slavers, rapists, etc.) And responsibility (People in a position of privilege because of the slavery, rape, etc.)

                      We have a responsibility to correct the evils of our ancestors. Period.  Full stop.

                      Agree?

                      May you always find water and shade.

                      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:23:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You are taking what was said too literally. (0+ / 0-)

                      What Whimsical Rapscallion is saying is that when people said "the Brits in 18xx etc", they were explaining the context of their situation, not trying to hold YOU personally responsible.  You perceived it as holding you responsible but it is a classic example of a misunderstanding.  So when he said "never happened", he meant that what you perceived was not what the speaker intended and thus "never happened".  

                      This is pretty much a constant in any discussion of groups, be it race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.  Anything said about a group can be perceived as a grievance against an individual of that group when it is not meant to be.  It is human nature on both sides and happens all the time - just read back through the posts on this one page to see many examples!

                      I hope that helps.

                      •  Yeah no (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        jrand, happymisanthropy, MHB

                        This was no perception.  They no kidding wanted me to explain and fix something that was done hundreds of years ago.  Just like the blood feuds  -

                        Me - why did you kill that man?  
                        Iraqi - Because his third cousin twice removed killed my third cousin 4 times removed.  
                        Me - When?  
                        Iraqi - In 1919.  
                        Me - Head explodes.  

                        I have heard the King of Saudi Arabia lecture a VERY senior US Senator on the US not keeping its promises.  What promises you ask?  Ones made by President Roosevelt on the deck of the USS Quincy.  Because HE WAS THERE and heard what Roosevelt said and thinks it reasonable that promises made in 1945 should be kept (I happen to agree).  Just because we have a short view of time doesn't mean everyone does.  

                        Here is the problem with not letting go - you do things like avenge a murder of someone you never knew and died 80 years before you were born.  Saying that because I am a white male I am RESPONSIBLE for slavery is not helpful.  Carried to its logical extreme, we would go back to ONE person who committed a violent act and lay it all on him/her…..oh wait, that is exactly what extremest across multiple religions do.

                        I am responsible for my own actions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

                        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                        by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:47:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course. The examples are legion. (2+ / 0-)

                          I live near where the Hatfields and McCoys killed each other.  The Jews stand witness over the centuries. And on and on it goes.

                          You are responsible for your own actions, yes.  However, we do not live in a vacuum but in a society.  If you believe that "all men are created equal" and should have equal opportunities and you recognize that the society you are part of systemically discriminates against some groups while you belong to the group that benefits from that system, don't you think you should support changing it so that all have equal opportunities and rights?  Utilize your right to vote etc to support a more moral and just society?

                          •  No (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MHB, dallasdunlap, ksuwildkat

                            The middle class, no matter what color or gender they are, do not need to sacrifice their own advantages in order to elevate historically oppressed groups. The only people who need to sacrifice are the one who have stolen all the economic gains of the past 40 years, and you will find very few of them posting on Daily Kos.

                          •  Wait what? (0+ / 0-)

                            What advantages exactly do you think anyone here is asking the white middle class to give up?

                            Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                            by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 09:09:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm certainly not saying that the middle class (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jrand

                            needs to sacrifice anything.  Tax loopholes for corporations and the rich need to be closed, taxes on them need to be raised and social programs for the disadvantaged need to be expanded which will increase demand for goods in our economy and benefit all.  Being arrested for walking or driving while black, excessive police focus on people of color and the tilt of the courts against POC need to be changed so that our justice system is actually just.  Pay should be equal for equal work period.  These are the things I am talking about - truly equal rights and equal opportunities for all.  Fixing a rigged system.

                          •  Absolutely! (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jrand, MHB, dallasdunlap

                            In fact I get angry when we don't do enough on the social justice front.  But here is the thing - don't appeal to me (white male) as some sort of guilt trip or penance for past crimes.  Thats an almost sure fire way to make people defensive.  Instead appeal to me as you just did - because its the right thing to do.

                            Do you believe in equality?  Yes.

                            This is equal, that is not.  Um…I go with equal.

                            Contrast that with "because 200 years ago your 9th cousin 4 times removed was a slave owner you are part of the problem and have a responsibility to fix it by voting for this equality measure."  Yeah, not going to respond well to that.

                            Someone else posted a graphic of the religious demographics of the country and the point was the south was solidly Baptist and therefore was going to be hard to win over.  Why?  Followers of Jesus should have no problem with most social programs.  Most of their own churches have almost identical programs.  They should WANT these.  But we don't speak to them in language they understand.  Jesus said feed to poor - sounds like food stamps.  Jesus said love thy neighbor - sounds like marriage equality.  Jesus said turn the other cheek - sounds like gun control.  I know some very devout christians who agree with almost every social safety net program there is and vote straight Republican because we can't figure out how to speak their language.  

                            When was the last time we ASKED white male christians to vote for us?  Not demanded out of guilt for past misdeeds but asked?  Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Maybe its time to start asking for votes instead of demanding them.  

                            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                            by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 08:48:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree with what you are saying about semantics (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ksuwildkat, jrand

                            and the way that things are worded.  The whole "white privilege" thing is a matter of whether you view the glass as half full or half empty.   Most whites, I believe, will say that certainly POC are treated much worse by our justice system, our educational system, etc etc but they will also say that they do not see themselves as privileged.  Something else that is often forgotten when speaking of white privilege is that lots of those white people have plenty of experience with discrimination - as LGBT, disabled, women or other groups.  The idea of white privilege marginalizes and/or dismisses those experiences.  I fully agree that it is far more productive to focus on the infringement of rights, social injustice, etc. that POC experience rather than talk of "white privilege".  Those words cause defensiveness and imply that whites should indeed sacrifice personally for what is a systemic, societal problem.

                            That is one thing that Republicans are way better at than Democrats - gaining control over words and phrases and using them to support their views or twisting them into different meanings.  

                          •  Its in implementing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ksuwildkat, jrand

                            Remedies where the problems begin. You realize that the vast majority of white people live paycheck to paycheck. You actually
                            think they are going to be receptive to any kind of system
                            that remotely gives a group an advantage over them?

                          •  I agree and my reply to you is in my response to (0+ / 0-)

                            ksuwildcat above.  

          •  For example, post-9/11: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            moviemeister76, a2nite

            She belongs on our Front Page for Memorial Days.

            What else?

            "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

            by waterstreet2013 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:34:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Can you? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ksuwildkat

            In much the same way that not every anti Israel comment  is racist.
            Not every comment about whites and males, racial/gender politics is sexist.

            But in both cases some are.

            Around here there is some decent discussion about said topics, but often enough outright racist and sexist comments get enough support that renouncing them is worthwhile.

            In a world where white, men are an influential minority do you really think that  no one is bigoted towards them? That of the ~75% of the American population who do not fit in that minority, that no one has an ax to grid and against them?

            Where do you think the unstable with too much time on their hands go?

            There are clear outlets on the right, but there are of course some outlets on the left.

            Unfortunately some of the most vapid, and enthusiastic end up here.

            By either complicit support, or uniformed acceptance(such as perhaps yourself) hate speech gets some talking room here. As long as its the right kind of hate speech.  

            •  ok (0+ / 0-)

              acknowledging slavery and brutal conquest = hate speech.  got it.

              acknowledging that white privilege is a thing = hate speech.  Got it

              I've wandered into a goddamn klan meeting.

              I'm getting the fuck out of this diary.

              May you always find water and shade.

              by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue May 27, 2014 at 07:00:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your childlike hyperbole is not an informed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrand

                argument.

                No one is arguing your first two bullet points. They are  CLEAR examples of strawmen.  

                To use your own format to try and get passed your nearly impenetrable anti-nuance wall.

                Acknowledging the Holocaust is not anti German hate speech (its a rather informed thing to do). This normal realization does not stop anti-german bigots from joining the conversation and spouting anti-german racist filth.

                During a good discussion, all informed parties would denounce any racist anti-german garbage for what it is. Afterwards they would continue to have a good conversation.

                What your doing is running around yelling that there is no such thing as anti-german hate speech

                •  Horseshit. (0+ / 0-)

                  I acknowledged the existence of white privilege and slavery.  You responded by calling it hate speech.

                  Hyperbole indeed.

                  May you always find water and shade.

                  by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:06:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  . (0+ / 0-)

                    ksuwildkat's post ( they can correct me if I am wrong) basically said "hey there is some bias against white males here"

                    Your responding/starting  with your post "You really can't distinguish between" basically were implying "No there is not. There was no bias in those conversations cited OMGZ YOUR SO WRONG"

                    You either responded 1)Without knowing or addressing the original posters message or 2) Were trying to counter that point that the original author made .

                    To be fair both are possibilities.

        •  I very likely... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          ...read those same diaries (and/or whichever ones dallasdunlap has in mind), but without knowing to which either of you refers - or more to the point, without specific "anti-white male" citations therefrom - it's difficult to accede to your (or his) point of view.

          Mine is this: I didn't read any that I was able to interpret in the same way either of you have. And I'm a white male, too; as one who avoids slipping into mindsets of racism, sexism or privilege, I just don't take indictments of those who do personally. If the shoe fits and so forth.  

          P.S. I'm leaving aside the matter of "religion bashing" - of which I've seen as much as anyone else - because it's a separate matter entirely, and simply doesn't relate to the topic at hand.

          •  Try these (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrand, MHB

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            An otherwise non-racial discussion of mental illness and access to guns

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            First one  of the day was pretty angry.  And most of the "facts" were off.  Even people who tried to point out that he wasn't white got hammered.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            Never mind the guy's connection to Mens Rights and Pick Up Artists would have been that he is what they preach against.  Kinda like saying a member of Kos was connected to Bundy Ranch because they wrote a things about BLM not doing their job.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            Yup, no way there is any anti-male stuff going on here….

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            This poor guy attempted a rebuttal saying basically "not all men are psycho" - he is in time out now.

            Check out the Hidden comments form the last 24 hours.

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:50:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Emotion (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ksuwildkat

              The emotional unleashed across the internet this weekend wasn't always pointed in the right direction but you have to admit a chorus of rage has a tremendous amount of power. We can all use that power, and we can use it to topple more than the patriarchy. We can use it to take down the 1%.

              •  Rage is hard to control (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrand

                I have seen first hand what happens when you allow rage.  You are right, what these diaries represent is raw emotion, a reaction to a feeling of impotence to stop the insanity.

                I think it was lost on these diarists that they were displaying the same rage, the same need to strike out that the killer did.  Because he was mentally ill he thought a reasonable outlet for his rage was killing.  Because the posters were not mentally ill, they wrote angry words.  

                Venting rage like that is a dangerous path.  Its a drug.  it feels good.  But each time you need a bigger dose.  More rage.  More harm in your strike.  Its hard to back off it.  

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:33:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It can be harnessed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ksuwildkat

                  It sounds like we agree that the feminist movement is right to have the rage they have, and while we don't always agree with how they use it I do think they're on the right track to achieve something.

                  The broader struggle for economic justice on Earth can use that same rage. And I think we can learn to harness it, to control it, by deciding who our enemies are. That's really where the feminists are vulnerable - they risk offending a lot of potential allies, and men on the sidelines, by pressing too hard to change the behaviors of 50% of the population, in small and not-so-small ways.

                  But the beautiful clarity of the Occupy movement was to define the enemy as the truly tiny slice of the population they really are. Our rage cannot be easily deflected onto this group or that group as long as we remember this simple truth:  we are the 99%.

                  •  Agree (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jrand, MHB, WednesdaysChilde

                    The 1% and the 10%.

                    We always talk about 10% of your soldiers requiring 90% of your time.  10% never get the message.  10% never arrive with all their stuff.  10% think buying a drink means "we are having sex."

                    28% of Americans won't agree with ANYTHING a Democrat says or does.  I base that on the 28% who couldn't give president Obama props for killing Bin Laden.  Here is a guy that just about the entire world said needed to meet his maker and yet 28% couldn't even agree with that.  OK, write them off.  Thats ok because an almost equal number of Americans feel the same way about Republicans.  As much as I disliked President Bush what he did for AIDs prevention in Africa was exceptional.  Dude gets no credit from the most hardcore Dems even for that.

                    Ok so 56% of the population is either unreachable or in your camp.  How do you go after the remaining 44%?  Well by my math it is actually only 33% because you do it by going after the other 11%.

                    1% on pure economics
                    10% on social justice, civil rights, equality, reasonable gun laws, pay equity, personal safety, affordable education, affordable and universal health care, elder care, social safety net, etc.

                    Bill Clinton is the master of personalizing an issue.  Its not about social security, its about ___ (inset name) who worked all her life and raised 3 great kids who are here with me today.  Now she did what she was supposed to and played by the rules but House Republicans want her to have to sell her house instead of asking guys like me to pay a few extra dollars.

                    I can't come close to what Big Dog does but we all know someone like her and we don't think that is right.    We need to do that as a party.  Its not welfare, its food for babies.  Taxes are not about wealth distribution, its about roads and bridges.  We need to personalize all these issues.  All politics is local.  make it local.  Hit the 11% and we will win the 33%

                    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                    by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 08:32:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

                      Clinton was and is a political genius. Even now he's already starting to talk about income and wealth inequality because he and Hillary know which way the wind is blowing. They had damn well better know it, too.

                      The 11% thing is interesting. I think you've got exactly the right idea. What I think you're underestimating is how many hardcore Republicans will switch sides the split second they start to believe we really are going to overrun the elites and lift up the middle class - including the white, male Christian middle class - in their place.

            •  Yup; read 'em all. (3+ / 0-)

              And I just don't have the same interpretation thereof. In order:

              -  JoanMar was very specific in her comments, with regard to a particular reporter, the criminal in question and news coverage in general about such events. And I don't see how there can be any denial of the concept of "white privilege," either in this context or otherwise.

              -  chaunceydevega's comments were equally specific; the concepts addressed there apply to those who exhibit them rather than to me or most others I personally know, so in that context, even the closing remarks about "what shall we do with the white people" clearly reference only that subset.

              -  Again: specific. How can you summarily dismiss the point of the comments by saying "Never mind the guy's connection" to that very point?

              - And once again, specificity; triciawyse's first paragraph concludes with these words (in both bold and italic): "The following is to ANY person who believes in the MRA movement."

              - I'm puzzled as to your inclusion of Hepburn's rant, as it's nothing more than an extreme version of dallasdunlap's complaint.

              As a gay man, I'm very familiar with, and sensitive to, the practice of "tarring with the same brush," but I react to it only when appropriate. If someone complains about the exhibitions they see in coverage of a Pride parade and leave it at that, I figure, "That's their problem. Don't like it? Don't look." But when they use that as a justification for denying all gay people their rights, that's when I get up on my hind legs.

              At no point in any of these writings did I mistake the sentiments or criticisms therein as meant to apply to all white males. As I suggested, none of those particular shoes happen to fit me.

              Don't know what else to tell ya.

    •  I'm a white man. (7+ / 0-)

      I read DailyKos. I have no problem with it. A few articles I find amusingly naïve are not going to turn me Republican.

      Obi Ben Ghazi to House Republicans: "Use the Farce."

      by edg on Mon May 26, 2014 at 04:45:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or alternatively (9+ / 0-)

      So many white people have experienced decades of cultural training telling them that white people are being attacked by the "other" that they see it everywhere. Even when it's not there.

      Just like so many men (not to mention women) have experienced decades of cultural training telling them that feminists are harpies and shrews and trying to do nothing but bash men that they see it everywhere. Even when it's not there.

      I find it very curious that you think this is an anti-white site considering the fact that the vast majority of people here are white and don't actually appear to hate their race and are working for the betterment of everyone.

      Unfortunately I suspect for you and others who've been so angry the past few days (and years), part of working for the betterment of everyone means detailing what is precisely wrong. As it turns out, there's a lot of stuff wrong and a lot of it doesn't really have any impact on the lives of white people, or men, in an obvious way (though there are many, many subtle ways they do have an impact).

      The fact we still got folks at this site, a supposedly progressive site, saying the Southern Strategy is a "myth" and the fact that we still got people at this site who don't actually appear to understand what rape is means we have a long, long way to go. It means we need to keep talking about race and gender.

      And it means whites and men need to do their part and stop being so defensive. Stop with the "It's not all men" and "It's not all whites." I assure you. We all know that. We also understand that people who start an argument with one of those phrases is merely being defensive. And that derailing of conversations needs to stop because it wastes a ton of time better spent moving forward.

      We all have so much more in common than not.

      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

      by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 04:47:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or, it could be that commenters on Dailykos (7+ / 0-)

        blame all the world's problems on whites in general or white men in particular. Or, sometimes they narrow it to "old white males."
           For example, the white male bashing that followed the California murders. The guy was another "entitled white male." What? He was half Asian? Doesn't matter. His white half was entitled.
           Or Chauncey deVega's diatribe about whites men and mass murder, ignoring the fact that white men commit about 70% of the mass murders but whites are 72% of the population. (Or that other categories of murder are disproportionately committed by nonwhites.)
           In another diary today (about a Florida prisoner being scalded to death) the comment thread rapidly degenerated to a contention that this kind of cruelty was brought to the Americas by the Europeans. (Apparently the commenters are unfamiliar with the peculiar religious rituals of the Mayans and Aztecs, or the fire related tortures practiced by other native American peoples.)
           From there, the thread gets down to denouncing Christians and the Christian religion.
           And, of course there's the "white privilege" BS that seems to have taken over the site. Good luck convincing the guy hoping he can get enough hours at his Walmart job to make his trailer payment that he's "privileged."
           Of course, there are the daily invitations for this or that Southern state to go ahead and leave the Union.
          Here's a typical Kossack comment from another diary today: "Fucking Florida (11+ / 0-) It seems like a surplus of evil just drains to that place."
           Now, here are some facts:
           1.) A lot of white people are having a tough time these days and just aren't going to buy into the idea that they're a privileged class by virtue of their race.
           (I know that some white kossacks buy into the white privilege construct, but I'm talking about the people the diarist wants to win over.)
           2.) People in the South are more likely to be religious than Northerners. Christian bashing isn't going to win you any votes.
           3.) The graveyards of the South are full of the remains of people who fought for this country. The South has sent a disproportionate number of people to fight in the nation's wars. Whatever else you may think, Southerners are patriotic.
          I suspect that, if you say you want to kick Florida or Texas or Alabama out of the Union, the people of those states might not vote for you.
           Moviemeister76 begins his comment with the claim that, even though Dailykos comment threads  have contained language directed at whites that would be considered hate speech if directed at any other group, the problem is that whites have been brainwashed to attack "the other."
           IOW, nobody who disagrees with him has a legitimate opinion. They're just the product of "decades of cultural training." And they should shut up and quit being "defensive" when he denounces them.
           I'd like to see progressive victories in the South. But how do you propose to get there when your attitude is so full of condescension and hostility?
           The Democrats have to hope that the stuff said in Dailykos doesn't get a broader circulation.

        •  Wow (4+ / 0-)

          First of all, there was no "white male bashing." There was bashing of white supremacy and misogyny and patriarchy and rape culture. The fact that you are apparently incapable of telling the difference, and the fact that you actually think white privilege is "BS", lets me know that you have a massive blind spot when it comes to racial and gender issues. Which is destructive not only to those of us who keep getting derailed by your comments, it also seems to be pretty destructive to you in how angry it's making you.

          But I'm not even sure how to deal with folks like you who are in such deep denial except to work around you. Can't argue with folks who refuse to see reality.

          Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

          by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:46:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, moviemeister, I'm not particularly angry (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrand, greenbell, MHB

            But I will vigorously defend my position. As for you being "derailed:" Tough.
               You are trying to sell a toxic viewpoint, that the males of a particular race are responsible for all the problems of the world. And you dress up your bigotry in officious terms: "rape culture." "White privilege." "Patriarchy."
               You apparently have adopted an ideology (which is a way of making sense of the world) and mistake it for reality.
               But to the extent that there is a systemic problem in the US, it is not that whites are in power, it is that those in power happen to be white.
               Most whites exist in the same relationship with TPTB that everyone else does. IOW they're more or less comfortable peasants.
               And although you claim that you don't mean every white man when you loose your venom, you don't make any distinction.
               What I have done is try to show you how your rhetoric will be perceived by almost anyone who hears it. But you are so engrossed in your ideology that you're tone deaf.

            •  Oh that's right (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP, Whimsical Rapscallion, a2nite

              I forgot that the people pointing out racism and sexism are the true racists and sexists.

              Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

              by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:10:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I used to make those arguments. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                moviemeister76, a2nite

                Just as vehemently, and it was because the shame of being part of a historically oppressive group was so big I couldn't handle it.  So I hid under "reverse racism" and "I'm poor so I don't have white privilege" and (cringe) "not ALL men"

                The truth is though, when I finally faced that shame, I wasn't crushed by it.  I was empowered.  I realized there were things I could do for the good.  That the quickest route to equality is privileged people calling out privileged people until we collectively relinquish our privilege.

                these people aren't going to get it today.  probably not tomorrow.  It didn't happen overnight for me either.  If you go back far enough in my comment history, you'll see things I'm now woefully embarrassed by.

                But I can say this without equivocation: Acknowledging my privilege hurt WAY less than denying it.

                May you always find water and shade.

                by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:49:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Whimsical Rapscallion, bryduck

                  I will flat out admit that I used to be quite similar. I definitely had moments where a black person would try to describe something as racist, and I would just completely deny it. It wasn't until I heard the concept of white privilege that I understood what I was doing. It probably helped that I had had experience with men telling me that I was being too sensitive when it came to things I thought were sexist, or just flat out wrong, but this obviously does not help a lot of white women who never look at how they get treated by some men and relate that to racism.

                  And when someone actually told me about white privilege, it was the most freeing thing ever. Suddenly, I wasn't scared or embarrassed to talk about race anymore. Admitting that I was probably going to say some dumb stuff about it because I'm a white person who didn't grow up thinking too much about race gave me the confidence I needed to discuss it at all. Plus, it was like reality went from that weird sepia color that the beginning and ending of The Wizard of Oz have to a reality that was bright and sharp. It was amazing. I feel like white people who refuse to admit it are missing out big time. The world looks so much better when you can actually see more of it.

                  Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                  by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:57:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  YGBFKM (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              moviemeister76
              But to the extent that there is a systemic problem in the US, it is not that whites are in power, it is that those in power happen to be white.
              Which has nothing to do with thousands of years of  white people oppressing, assimilating, or outright destroying every single other culture.

              just so happens.

              May you always find water and shade.

              by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:32:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You have to admit (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Whimsical Rapscallion

                It is kind of magical how the people in charge just happen to be white.

                Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:47:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Especially when you consider (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  moviemeister76

                  just how aggrieved the white man is these days

                  May you always find water and shade.

                  by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:50:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  movuemeister76 - You're getting close to idiocy (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  O112358, MHB, jrand

                  here. Right now about 72% of the population is white, and a few years ago it was 80% plus. Of course the ruling class is white.
                    As for YGBFKM and his thousands and thousands of years of white people oppressing, etc...Serious bullshit there.
                  Until a number of fortuitous inventions came along, around the end of the 15th Century, white people were pretty much stuck in Europe.
                    Meanwhile, all those other cultures were no slouches at oppressing, assimilating, and outright destroying each other.
                     What do you think would have happened if, say, the Aztecs had been developed enough to get to Europe?
                  Do you think they would have been kindler or gentler than Cortez?

                     

          •  lolz (0+ / 0-)

            Your absolutist statements are the exact kind of log headed crap that prevents real discussion on the issue.  

            No matter what community you are part of, you are going to find white people who are racist, and minorities who are racist(against eachother and white people).

            People are imperfect and they have their biases. Its reality.

            As such anyone running around on either side screaming about how their fellow supporters are 100% pure is blindly partisan. (No sides supporters are ever 100%)

            This claim of sanctity is an impossible higher hurtle. By making that proclamation you just prove yourself an uniformed bigot unable to contribute to a sensitive nuanced discussion.

            See Obama's cited quotes for an example of an argument which is a little more refined then yours or likely mine :).

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              I suppose there is a sense of irony and humor in someone using absolutes when complaining about someone using absolutes. So at least your comment is entertaining.

              Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

              by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 11:48:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP
          blame all the world's problems on whites in general or white men in particular.
          have you even SEEN a history book?

          May you always find water and shade.

          by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:21:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think (0+ / 0-)

            you are suffering from the same white centered world view that you seem to claim to oppose.

            Why do history books focus on the achievements by white people? Mostly white people wrote them and its an easily accessible part of their history.

            Why do history books focus on the wrong doings of white people?  Mostly white people wrote them and its an easily accessible part of their history.

            Bothering to research the history of any non white culture you see a common threat. Humanities unquestionable thirst for power and blood.  

            If any ethnic background was truly more violent, they would certainty would have a  a real evolutionary advantage.

            •  This sounds like the *opposite* of (0+ / 0-)

              a book which would be written by a person with "white-colored glasses":

              Why do history books focus on the wrong doings of white people?  Mostly white people wrote them and its an easily accessible part of their history.
              If your point is that white historians are covering "both sides" of history, you are only correct if you forget/ignore the first few hundred years of historiography. It is only since the 1960s that any historians of European descent have been writing about "the wrong doings of white people." Heck, the 1920s through 1940s saw the pinnacle of mainstream historical defense of the "tragedy" of Reconstruction--because it went too far, that is.

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Tue May 27, 2014 at 08:41:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It takes a more refined (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Skyye

                society to look at their own faults instead of just their own accomplishments.

                However, it takes a much more engaged and interested group of people to analyze less accessible sets of experiences.

                For the point of this conversation ill accept your 1960's date.

                So we started down the road to the first bullet-point  in the 1960's and we have not, and maybe never will as a society get to the second.

                •  Whoa. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Skyye

                  Your first line is truly bordering on offensive, given our context here--it is as if you are saying that European descendants are "refined", begging the question, "Who isn't?"
                  The second sentence, as far as historical research goes, is pretty much a non sequitur. Until the advent of computers, analyzing "less accessible" evidence was impossible in any coherent fashion; while diaries and letters have been collated and published for centuries, non-written evidence was impossible to assess without machine tabulation. It had nothing to do with engagement or interest on the part of historians, but instead everything to do with technological advances.

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:23:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  . (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Skyye

                    No need to inject your own bias towards making up racial issues.

                    The clear implication was within the same culture

                    pre 1960's (using your own date) = less refined
                    post 1960's = more refined.

                    To the second half I was referring more towards societies understanding of the issue, which is both limited by technology and will.  

                    Historian's now have the technology (your statment).

                    Our society, according to my postulation  and exemplified by my observation of "Whimsical Rapscallion"'s statement, still  lacks the will.  

    •   dallasdunlap (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz, jrand
      white male bashing posts
      I do not share your view about this sight , but I would like to say that prejudice will never be a one way street , it does not just come from white republicans , imo people just have to accept that in order to deal with life , or deal with this issue

      The Posts you are referring to should be confronted , a lot of times I take it as people on a rant or venting , or looking for a pie fight

      Lets just put it this way , if white guy me walked into any democratic organized event , and I was met by some bashing haters , I am thinking the crowd will run them out of there

      Just look at Martin Luther King , he told people who faced jim crow for 100 years that they must stand up to these people , but not fight back , that took a lot of guts , my side of that coin is not nearly as hard to deal with , but it can look ugly

       dallasdunlap , To be clear , I am not correcting you or talking down to your comment , I enjoy reading your posts on here and can understand where you are coming from , for me this is just an exchange of views

      Peace

      Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

      by Patango on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:22:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Martin Luther King and his organization (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrand, MHB

        were pretty welcoming to whites. (I was a little too young to be involved in the main part of the civil rights movement but I did go to some rallies and demos in college.)
           I don't think that he would have tried to blame whites as a race for the difficulties faced by African Americans of that period. He saw segregation as one problem but he clearly saw poverty as the next big problem, and that was a problem for poor blacks and poor whites.  
           

        •  And yet (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, a2nite, Whimsical Rapscallion

          Most whites at the time hated MLK and thought he was blaming white people and pushing things too far. The fact that you are actually trying to say we should be more like MLK when most white people in the 1950s and 1960s responded to him the way you are responding to discussions about race now is amazing.

          Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

          by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:52:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know moviemeister (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrand, Ian Reifowitz

            MLK's poll numbers were not that bad overall , considering the times , also ,  congress passing The Civil Rights Act was definitely an approval of MLK

            slate

            Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

            by Patango on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:28:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Considering the times" (3+ / 0-)

              The time period is important. And look at those numbers. Whites began to loathe him once legislation started getting passed. White people everywhere praise him today, even Republicans. But when the shift began to change in the federal government towards a greater equality, a whole lot of white people got really angry. Hell, less than half of the folks polled ever even liked him at any point. Which is why he was not only assassinated, but there was no real desire among white people to find the folks who murdered him.

              This is why there was a horrific backlash against black people by many whites in this country in the late 60s, 70s and 80s. A whole lot of whites who identified themselves as liberal turned their backs on black people after 1968 because they couldn't realize that they were still quite racist. And we are still dealing with the fallout of that today.

              But the overall point is that far too often, some white people like to hold up MLK as a talismen, as a way to say they aren't actually racist or privileged because they support MLK's way of doing things. In reality, how is what Ian wrote in this diary, or what Denise talks about in the diaries she writes on race, any different from what MLK wrote about. The only difference, in my eyes, is that Ian and Denise are pushing for even more progress. Something MLK can no longer do.

              Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

              by moviemeister76 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:45:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yep , white people can suck (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ian Reifowitz

                that is for sure

                And I hold Denise in high regards along with MLK , with a balance of the power of equality , over all

                I am not that familiar with Ian , I have been taught to love everyone equally tho , so it is all good  , not that I have perfected that by any means

                Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

                by Patango on Mon May 26, 2014 at 08:13:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't hate MLK and neither did most people I (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrand

            knew. In fact, there was a great deal of sympathy among whites for the civil rights movement. We were all appalled by things like the Birmingham church bombing and the brutality directed at the civil rights marchers and the freedom riders.
               There would have been no civil rights laws had not the majority of the population supported the civil rights movement. And, there would have been civil rights laws much earlier had not a handful of Southerners dominated the Congress.
               BTW, I still have a bullet hole in my wall because back in the early 70s, some of the good old boys thought that I was a n***r lover.
               That's because, at the time, some of us got together with blacks of our acquaintance and went to the bars and restaurants, which at that time were still segregated although the civil rights act had been passed years earlier.
                  But most whites in the area supported us and, when the owners called the police, the deputies always agreed that we were right.
               And customers kept coming to the places, even if they were integrated.
               If, moviemeister, 76 is the year of your birth you are simply too young to have an accurate view of that period in history.
              What I object to is not a discussion about race. I object to the demonization of whites per se.
               I think that African Americans have been systematically disadvantaged in this country, in modern times, in ways that are fixable.
               The "white privilege" you espouse, along with your espousal of hereditary grievances, works to divide people and prevent any progress from being made.

        •  dallasdunlap (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, Ian Reifowitz
          Actually, Martin Luther King and his organization

          were pretty welcoming to whites.

          Well  , imo , the majority of Women are welcoming to men here , and the majority of Black Kos are welcoming to white people here  

          Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

          by Patango on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:03:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  White men need some bashing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PrefersaPension

      An Iota or two of perspective would be healthy for us.  Maybe it would lead to introspection, and then maybe we would stop oppressing other folks.

      Now pretend like that means every white man everywhere PERSONALLY oppresses people.

      Now vociferously defend yourself from responsibility.

      Now tell the grandchildren of the people our grandfathers raped, murdered, and enslaved that they should take it down a notch.

      Rinse, Repeat.

      May you always find water and shade.

      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:01:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, come on now... (0+ / 0-)

      Boo, hoo. Can't take a serious conversation now and then? Think outside yourself and maybe you will really learn something...

      "Vy are der so many more horse's asses than der is horses?"

      by PrefersaPension on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:51:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice idea, here's the problem (8+ / 0-)

    Democrats who, over and over, once elected, cozy up to the 1% themselves and do nothing concrete for the white working class.  There is a profound current of populist resentment in this country - it runs through all of our history.  The natural and correct target of that resentment ought to be the super rich at the top who run things.  But since the Democrats have been unwilling to take up that banner and lead, it has left the field wide open for the Republicans to turn that resentment against people of color, immigrants, people on welfare, and "liberal elites".  If the Democrats actually cared about courting those voters we would have seen a whole lot of banksters put in jail in Obama's first term.  Instead, they have been rewarded and their representatives given continued control of the economy.  Reaching out and building community are fine things - but the road to the hearts of those angry and resentful voters is concrete action to make their lives better - and a willingness to take down and lock up some of those who have made their lives worse.

    "Wouldn't you rather vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want - and get it?" Eugene Debs. "Le courage, c'est de chercher la verité et de la dire" Jean Jaures

    by Chico David RN on Mon May 26, 2014 at 03:57:55 PM PDT

    •  Just as Tea Partiers have moved the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moviemeister76, jrand, AlexDrew

      to the right, we have to move Democrats to the left.

    •  Not one (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango, bryduck

      Not one banker in jail
      Not one war liar brought to trial
      Not one significant change to tax policy
      Not one union buster stopped
      Not one

      Lyndon Johnson would not recognize who we call Democrats

      It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

      by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:31:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're not correct on tax policy. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrand, AlexDrew, artmartin, TomP

        Tax policy has changed. The tax rates on the top 1-2% have increased via income tax changes and Obamacare-related changes. Just one point, but an important one.

        •  at what cost? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          we traded that for making TRILLIONS of temporary cuts permanent.  The Bush cuts should never have been allowed to stand.  Why do we still call hedge fund fees "carried interest" instead of income?  Thats an administrative change that would take no congressional vote.  Why can those same hedge fund asshole still put $5500 of "shares" that they can make nearly worthless into a Roth and then make them worth millions?  Another administrative change that could be done over night.

          We - as in the mass of Democrats - rail about the 1% but our eldership not named Warren sit back and laugh.  This administration made a mockery out of fighting the 1%.

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:30:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok you tell me now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian Reifowitz

            with the votes the Democrats had, how any of those things could have come to pass.  I want vote totals.  You tell me how you would have gotten a single Republican vote for any of those things.  I want you to tell me how the prosecutions you were calling for, at a time when we were on the precipice of a complete financial collapse, would not have created enough of a political distraction fueled by a corrupt media that could have pushed us over.  

            No administrative change could have accomplished what you wanted.  It required legislation, the stuff of FDR's era but he had the luxury of large legislative majorities.  

            •  You are giving too big a pass (0+ / 0-)

              HSBC ADMITTED they laundered drug money…..no one goes to jail:

              http://www.rollingstone.com/...

              If you and I accidentally did business with a drug dealer we would have our assets seized and be threatened with a long jail term to plead out and accept the seizure.  

              Would not have taken a single vote in congress.

              There has not even been an ATTEMPT to put a banker in jail:

              http://www.pbs.org/...

              We walked back from the edge a longtime ago.  

              No votes are needed to change IRS rules on classifying types of income or what is allowable as a contribution to a Roth.  

              Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith should have been put on trial on day one of the Obama administration - no votes needed.  

              And don't forget, for two years Dems owned the White House AND Congress and not one significant progressive program other than Obamacare got passed.  

              Don't set the bar so low.  Expect more.

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 08:05:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And so all those prosecutions (0+ / 0-)

                would just occur without a fight?  Without the media jumping all over a new President besieged with pre-Depression conditions rivaling the 1920's and accusing him of dividing the country and imposing an authoritarian dictatorship over American businesses?  I fucking agree with you on the guilt of all of those people.  That's not the point.  The point is that Republicans were drooling for some distraction from the triage we were in that would allow us to slip fully into economic ruin and they'd waltz in and steal the remaining assets.  

                This was a brand new justice department with tons of vacancies and leftovers from previous administrations, resources severely restrained.  We were just beginning to see what horrific tactics the right and their benefactors were waging and the depth of their finances they were willing to throw behind every issue.  

                The vast majority of voters had no clue of the culpability of all those people you mentioned and explaining the economics behind their sins was complex for most American's political and financial knowledge.  While there are those of us here that would be fully behind the actions, to believe that it would spur this populist backing in this age of media corruption seems a bit naive.

              •  I'm sorry but (0+ / 0-)

                I just read this part

                "And don't forget, for two years Dems owned the White House AND Congress and not one significant progressive program other than Obamacare got passed."

                Were you asleep?  We did not own Congress.  We had a brief and tiny time when we actually had the votes to override a Republican filibuster in the Senate, after Al Franken was sworn in and before Ted Kennedy died.  And those numbers included Joe Lieberman and a few Blue Dogs that wanted things watered down.  The House passed amazing legislation, the President was ready to sign every piece of it but they all hit that Senate wall and died.  A few weeks is all they had and even those bills had to be compromised.  

                That sentence of yours IS A LIE and no honest Democrat should ever spout that crap.

    •  While there are certainly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrand, Ian Reifowitz

      Democratic leaders that cozy up gladly to the 1%, the large majority of them that appear to cozy up are doing it for political survival.  I've heard some people that I greatly respect and trust with insider information into the Washington elite tell me that many in Congress despise the fund raising they have to do but to not do it means they'd be sent packing as their opponents simply bury them.  The barometer we can use to determine true corruption by that money is:

      1.  Does the money come from large single donations where the ideology behind that money is for the benefit of that single donor or is the politician getting many much smaller donations.  A case in point would be a donation coming from the Heritage Foundation (where the source of the money is from people like the Koch Brothers) and the leader votes almost exclusively for legislation that benefit those large contributors compared to a Democrat getting a large donation from a major labor union which is lobbying for all of its members and no single individual in the union leadership directly profits from the successful lobbying.  Or let's say the contribution comes from someone like Warren Buffet who pushes for stuff that strengthens the middle class.  He could be far wealthier employing the tactics of the Koch Brothers but has a sense of civic responsibility.  

      2.  How do the legislators that receive the the campaign cash vote?  Huge sums of money flooded into Democratic House members during Obama's first term in office but the legislation coming out of that House (even though it was largely blocked in the Senate) was truly progressive and did not match the agenda of the 1%.  So yes, those Democrats were playing the game and taking money but they didn't seem to be beholden to the elite.  

      Let's also remember that huge corporate donors are going to throw cash at the opposing side to a lesser amount to maintain the illusion that all the politicians are corrupt and hopefully suppress voting because of apathy and a sense of powerlessness.  Republicans win with low voter turnout.  Should the Democrats not take the money and lose?  It's this fine line they have to walk.  

  •  Another reason not to moderate policy (8+ / 0-)

    "In no way am I suggesting progressives moderate or alter their policy positions, in particular on issues like the fight for racial justice and equality or comprehensive immigration reform. We believe what we believe, because those beliefs flow from our morality as well as our conviction that they are right for our country"

    These policies have the benefit of having been proven to work.  In addition, when you can separate a policy from spin,  The American People overwhelmingly agree with the "Liberal" position (i.e, tax hikes vs. Social Security cuts).

  •  Several good points (6+ / 0-)

    1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you go to the White House website and you are just a white straight male, there is no option for you to select about yourself.

    2) We have indeed become the "minoritarian" party. In theory, our "minorities" -- the young, women, people of color, gays, secularists, progressives is probably a "majority" collectively -- if we all make it a point to vote.

    3) As I write this on a lazy afternoon, I could be wrong about this as well, but I can't think of a single significant pillar of our platform that relates to the concerns of white people. Yes, there are economic "opportunity" planks, but whites don't perceive themselves collectively as being either under/privileged or in need of extra opportunity.

    4) All things considered, it would seem to me to be a situation easily corrected if the Democratic party were to adopt one. A glaring example to me would be a significant program for retraining the long-term unemployed. Many of the people who lost their jobs over the last 6 years are older and whiter, just the demographic we need to pry away from the GOP.  It would be especially sweet if the GOP were to come out as being against the plan.

    5) Politics doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. That's the game of the GOP -- to make it appear so.

    6) A thought I have had for some time is that many of the people so disdainful of government are the descendants of those who government has helped significantly -- and now feel there is nothing government does for them. Remember that land in the plains states was practically given away by the government, and the government cleared the way for them to settle and raise food. We're STILL supporting agriculture there, but as agriculture has shifted to mega-corporations the average person doesn't feel the love.

    7) Finally, it would also be helpful if more of us (Democrats) could/would embrace some of the more "iconic" American images. Our iconography tends to be abstract and future oriented, which is good, but we're leaving a whole lot of past behind that is cherished by those we wish to enlist.

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Mon May 26, 2014 at 04:19:26 PM PDT

    •  Plus, the administration has supported things (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, jrand, happymisanthropy, equern

      that will harm working people, such as chained CPI and the Catfood Commission.
        The administration has been AWOL on unemployment and everyone knows it.
         Democrats need some policies aimed at improving things for everyone across the board.

      •  True enough, but... (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure how many people on the street are aware of either CPI or the Catfood Commission.

        WE are, but our noses sniff the cleaning fluid in the halls of government.

        But I agree 100% that we need some policies that are aimed at improving things for EVERYONE. It's a big job, but is the glue that can cobble our collection of minorities together into a cohesive whole.

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Tue May 27, 2014 at 11:01:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nixon never relied only on the Southern strategy (9+ / 0-)

    He also preached to what he called the "silent majority". Those were the 1960'a and 70's Americans who saw race riots in the cities, women in the streets getting news coverage by burning their bras, and long-haired hippies spreading out from San Francisco with their drugs and peace symbols. And people cringed; they just could not take the pace of the changes.

    Nixon's political genius was to remake the Republican party as the place for "normal" people. And twisted as he was, he really was a political genius; he was re-elected in 1972 with 49 states and 520 electoral votes.

    You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger.

    by mstep on Mon May 26, 2014 at 04:29:00 PM PDT

  •  Make Republican Politicians DisOwn Their Voters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz

    For Republicans to win elections they depend on a spectrum of voters including an essential few per cent of overt White Supremacists.  Rather than implying that Republicans like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich or even Susan Collins are personally racist we need to challenge them to explicitly  renounce the votes of White Supremacists like the KKK, League of the South and Cliven Bundy-types.  Let them vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party.  (Democrats should renounce them too).  If Republicans offend even 2% of their support they will forfeit all their close victories and be vulnerable in a lot of other elections.
    Republican candidates should be held responsible for the voters they appeal to and depend on.

  •  So perhaps we have defined the Conservative (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patango, Ian Reifowitz, jrand

    Party demographics wrong. Either they are high income earners, more educated, and therefore statistically less likely to engage in discrimination based on traditional cultural prejudices,.. or.. they are less educated, low income earners, more prone to engage in cultural prejudices. If Democrats want to win, we better decipher the oppositions demographics. We can't win playing on both sides of the fence.

    •  Democrats win these voters in MN and I expect (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ian Reifowitz, jrand

      in New England.  Not all of them but lots of them.  Take MN-01 held by a Democrat.  It's a district full of prosperous farmers and the Mayo Clinic.  The AA population is 1%.   People are not racists but they are white and they VALUE their privilege whether it is the land they inherited to farm or the educational and professional excellence that has them working at The Mayo.  

      high income earners, more educated, and therefore statistically less likely to engage in discrimination based on traditional cultural prejudices,..
      •  In truth (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian Reifowitz

        the Conservative party may be led by top earning educated elites, but they have spent the last thirty years recruiting the ill educated, low income earners by telling them that their woes in life are due to Big Government' interference in their lives, which of course is an outright falsehood, but seems to have resonated with this demographic.

  •  The good thing is that many states like VA, NJ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moviemeister76, Ian Reifowitz, a2nite

    went through a white backlash era and have now seemed to move beyond it (VA in the 00's, NJ in the 90's). I think the white backlash era outside the deep South is winding down...

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:35:21 PM PDT

  •  that flag will WIN votes in much of the South (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian Reifowitz, jrand

    Assume you mean that flag as an insult or joke, but in much of the South that flag would reinforce a positive connection to the Republican Party, not that most white Southerners are in any doubt about that.

  •  More diverse? Less white? Halle-f**king-lujah! (3+ / 0-)

    The sooner we fully enfranchise, empower and elect minorities, POC's (and women), the better. May I live long enough to see judicial, executive and legislative branches in the federal and my state governments!

    Truly, the white male dominated oligarchy has done its worst and now we desperately need new ideas, new points of view, new people to lead us from the valley of the shadow of evil in which we've walked my adult life.

    President Obama was a good start. Hillary Clinton will be a good continuation and 40-50 more of same will be the saving of the American dream.

    Meanwhile, I quite agree with Ian that pissing off the white population is a terrible strategy and unjust to the white middle and lower incomes. The more voices we have, the more diverse we are, the stronger. Please. One time.

    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

    by TerryDarc on Mon May 26, 2014 at 05:51:19 PM PDT

  •  Goodnight, folks! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlexDrew, TomP, artmartin, moviemeister76

    I'll read and reply to new comments in the AM. Thanks for stopping by.

  •  I wasn't aware of my high crime (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrand, MHB, Ian Reifowitz

    of being born to two white hetrosexual people,  one man and one woman by the way and having been born without a vagina. I never attended church and still don't,  but have plenty of friends who do.
    I've voted Democrat most of my adult life, but some of you seem to ptetend I have no business being a Democrat.
    When did this all start?
    I hate to say it, but the touchy feely bunch of purists don't exactly endear themselves to the rest of us.
    I'm not anti women,  not racist, not anywhere near the 1%, not homophobic, am a white older male who believes in real justice instead of the bullshit justice of "tough on crime" and quick executions.
    The southern strategy worked not because of white power resentment, but an irrational fear of the same irrational fear we see today, crime. Crime rates have dropped like a stone and yet more people than ever are buying guns in areas where there is almost no crime at all. Perhaps we need to focus on the fact that we've become an armed camp with very little crime except for the mass shootings perpetuated largely by people who are plain nuts and we have a 24 hour news cycle that's quick to blow it out of proportion to tell everyone to buy guns because the boogieman is after you.

    Jesus only performs miracles for people with enough time on their hands to make that crap up.

    by KneecapBuster on Mon May 26, 2014 at 07:23:16 PM PDT

  •  Rev.W. Barber"Not Right and Left: Right and Wrong" (6+ / 0-)

    This diary presents the need to cut through all the partisan noise and find our common ground if we are to realize our progressive goals. Thanks Ian, for a thorough exploration of the idea of a shared community.

    Yesterday I listened to Rev. William Barber speak of how he has created coalitions he never thought possible through conversations about our common aspirations. As many here probably already know, he is the North Carolina NAACP President, and the leader of the Moral Mondays movement in NC.

    He spoke at "The New Populism Conference", some of the other speakers included Keith Ellison, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Revrand Barber's talk lasted a bit more then 1 hour, (he apologized several times for that) saying he had so much to say and how important the topic was.

    Not Right and Left: Right and Wrong is his speech. It does run a bit long but IMO he doesn't waste any words.

    Thank you Ian for this diary. Obama, Rev Barber, and Ian Reifowitz, great minds think alike!

    "Things happen in a democracy because we either make them happen, or because we allow them to happen. There is no third alternative" - Charles P. Pierce 2/19/14

    by bcat on Mon May 26, 2014 at 09:11:46 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for those kind words. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bcat

      I'm honored to be put in the same breath with Rev. Barber. From everything I know of him, he's a terrific leader and progressive.

      •  Rev Barber is an inspiring speaker (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian Reifowitz

        I had heard of Rev. Barber through his campaign in NC but had only heard him speak in soundbites on TV.

        In this speech he really gives a history lesson on politics and possibilities, starting with the Reconstruction period after the Civil War. He suggests we are now in the 3rd Reconstruction period with voter suppression, etc going on today.

        He ties together the tactics of the Republicans today with the tactics of the segregationists of 150 years ago and how lessons from the past can be used to overcome the problems we face today.

        I would highly recommend his speech to anyone interested in defeating the tactics of the Republicans of today.

        "Things happen in a democracy because we either make them happen, or because we allow them to happen. There is no third alternative" - Charles P. Pierce 2/19/14

        by bcat on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:03:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tips for winning (0+ / 0-)

    We are all one, black, white, brown and yellow except for the 1%. We must let as many people as possible, including the old white guys and gals who are not part of the 1% know that we will only succeed when we all stand together against the 1% and every politician who supports the 1%.

    Divisive or not, that is what we need to do to win. Love our brothers and sisters who are in fear and distress and help them see that we join them in our efforts to end the inequality that they hate and despise.

    Populists of the left and right, the progressives and libertarians have far more in common than in dispute. We can join in supporting the policies we believe in and leave the policies that we may disagree upon till the policies we believe in are settled in our mutual favor.

    •  Not sure I can agree with much of what (0+ / 0-)

      you've written (especially the part about populists of the left and right having more in common than in dispute), but the underlying sentiment about standing in solidarity with all working folks is a solid foundation.

      Thanks for joining the dk conversation.

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Tue May 27, 2014 at 07:27:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have said for a while now (0+ / 0-)

    the greatest political challenge facing us in this century is convincing the poor and middle class white person that he has more in common than the poor and middle class black person than he has with the rich white person.

    It's true, of course, but in places like South Carolina, where I grew up, a racist old codger is more apt to think that rap music creates more of a gap than the economic chasm between him and the CEO of Company X.

    Convince those white folks of that, and you can change the world. Problem is it's a lot harder than it sounds.

    "We forward in this generation, triumphantly."

    by Grizzard on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 01:22:49 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site