The Democratic Party Left Me Behind

[myDeaconmyhand]

And that was being changed...

RJ you seem to be misunderstanding me and combining two disparate arguments

1. I greatly appreciate and applaud political activism, especially in regards to civil rights. My point is that political activism isnt effective. At least not as effective as it was in the past. MLK Jrs entire theory of non-violent protest was based on his belief that when racist cruelty was publicized, it would be condemned. Now the civil rights marches would be called fake news and we'd forget them in a week.

2. The federal right to same sex marriage was not decided by activism, or legislation. It was decided by the supreme court. The vast majority of states that have voted on the matter have condemned it.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

During the ACA repeal efforts there were literally handicapped people in wheelchairs being arrested for occupying congress offices. Maybe 1 vote swung.

 

[MHBDemon]

This will probably be a rather controversial position, so I tread carefully, especially as an ally with just limited experience reading about LGBT history, but there is a position that gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, and hate crime legislation are "neoliberal" reforms that don't confront state violence or other forms of gender oppression. They do not have a "transformative justice" solution to the problems that exist for the community.

From a reading in Captive Genders:

Despite the rhetoric of an “LGBT community,” transgender and gender-non-conforming people are repeatedly abandoned and marginalized in the agendas and priorities of our “lead” organizations—most recently in the 2007 gutting of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of gender identity protections. And as the rate of people (particularly poor queer and trans people of color) without steady jobs, housing, or healthcare continues to rise, and health and social services continue to be cut, those dubbed the leaders of the “LGBT movement” insist that marriage rights are the way to redress the inequalities in our communities.

The most well-publicized and well-funded LGB organizations have notoriously marginalized low-income people and people of Color, and framed political agendas that have reflected concern for economic opportunity and family recognition for well-resourced and disproportionately white LGB populations. Low income people, people of Color, and gender-transgressive people have been notoriously underrepresented from leadership and decision-making power in this movement.

 

[Shooshmoo]

that's the history of all governments for all times, brother

Wrong -- Themyscira, bitch:

 

[deactherunner]

RJ you seem to be misunderstanding me and combining two disparate arguments

1. I greatly appreciate and applaud political activism, especially in regards to civil rights. My point is that political activism isnt effective. At least not as effective as it was in the past. MLK Jrs entire theory of non-violent protest was based on his belief that when racist cruelty was publicized, it would be condemned. Now the civil rights marches would be called fake news and we'd forget them in a week.

2. The federal right to same sex marriage was not decided by activism, or legislation. It was decided by the supreme court. The vast majority of states that have voted on the matter have condemned it.

Disagree. The sit-ins would be an "uncivil" act of trespassing that the store owners/cops had a right to protect against, while the cops using fire hoses would be defended as self defense.

 

[ConnorEl]

Everyone should read this: Transcript: Obama's Speech At The 2018 Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture

 

[Strickland33]

Everyone should read this: Transcript: Obama's Speech At The 2018 Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture

I appreciate Obama's rhetoric (and always have), but I feel like that dude forgets that he was President of the United States for 8 years. (Or, he thinks that we're too dumb to remember that he was President of the United States for 8 years.)

Disasters like Trump don't just materialize ahistorically, out of thin air. A lot of his policy is built on the foundation of Obama-era programs (e.g., immigration).

 

[Strickland33]

This will probably be a rather controversial position, so I tread carefully, especially as an ally with just limited experience reading about LGBT history, but there is a position that gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, and hate crime legislation are "neoliberal" reforms that don't confront state violence or other forms of gender oppression. They do not have a "transformative justice" solution to the problems that exist for the community.

From a reading in Captive Genders:

I'm not sure that this is too controversial. A lot of LGBTQ groups and activists who were doing work in the 80s (like ACT UP) are on record saying stuff like this.

 

[PhDeac]

I'm not sure that this is too controversial. A lot of LGBTQ groups and activists who were doing work in the 80s (like ACT UP) are on record saying stuff like this.

Yeah. It’s not controversial. I think you can make the case middle class white gay men have worked hard to hoard privilege and get their rights while leaving others behind. Worrying about marriage equality over job discrimination and other rights is problematic.

 

[ConnorEl]

I appreciate Obama's rhetoric (and always have), but I feel like that dude forgets that he was President of the United States for 8 years. (Or, he thinks that we're too dumb to remember that he was President of the United States for 8 years.)

Disasters like Trump don't just materialize ahistorically, out of thin air. A lot of his policy is built on the foundation of Obama-era programs (e.g., immigration).

What? No, I don't think either of these are true in the least. What an odd thing to believe, especially since he references his time in office at least several times during the linked address.

Of cours Trump didn't materialize out of thin air. He mostly arose from the cesspool of lies and intentional fear mongering that became the Republican party--particularly while Obama was in office. But not, IMO, due to Obama's actions or words as much as the despicable leadership of the Republican party.

 

[PhDeac]

Yeah. The problem wasn’t Obama. The problem was that liberals generally believed Obama had it covered and didn’t mount a resistance to the ugly Republican politics.

 

[Highland Deac]

Yeah. The problem wasn’t Obama. The problem was that liberals generally believed Obama had it covered and didn’t mount a resistance to the ugly Republican politics.

Agreed. Many liberals, since Bill Clinton's first election in 92, seem to have developed the odd and very inaccurate belief that, as long as a LibDem sits in the White House everything is OK, even if the Democrats are taking a beating elsewhere. Democrats consistently turn out in lower percentages than Republicans in off-year elections. The result is that under Clinton and Obama the party as a whole suffered historic losses, yet relatively few Democrats seemed to notice or care, because their party held the executive branch, so everything was fine. The problem with that belief is that if you screw up and lose a presidential election, as in 2016, then you have nothing, because you're already the minority party virtually everywhere else. And, being in such a weak position in Congress and governorships and state legislatures makes it almost impossible to accomplish much, as the Senate GOP blocking Obama's nomination of Garland proves. I've been hoping that 2016 is the wake-up call liberals needed - that you need more than just controlling the Presidency to be an effective national party. The great liberal activity at the grassroots since Trump's election is one of the most hopeful signs for the party's future, imo.

 

[PhDeac]

Agreed. Lots of talent rising to the surface in organizing and running for office.

 

[ConnorEl]

Yep

 

[MHBDemon]

I disagree. I admittedly fell for the cult of personality with Obama, but i think a disillusionment with his policy and legacy is a big part of what is driving interest in DSA. Younger generations that have only known Clinton and Obama administrations are like "yeah, fuck this." That goes for a wide range of issues, and he is definitely fair game for criticism. It is also fine to question the appropriateness of someone who had pretty poor track record with regard to Dakota Access/BLM protests/and his views towards those kinds of protest/direct action, to give this speech. Also, there is the fact that we dropped 550 drones strikes in Libya.

Obama promised to not displace residents with his library in Chicago. Then he refused to sign a community benefits agreement and agree to any requirements for hiring people from within the community or to provide affordable housing elsewhere in the city. He is literally gentrifying a community against the wishes of its residents. He doesn't give a fuck about poor people.

 

[MHBDemon]

Agreed. Many liberals, since Bill Clinton's first election in 92, seem to have developed the odd and very inaccurate belief that, as long as a LibDem sits in the White House everything is OK, even if the Democrats are taking a beating elsewhere. Democrats consistently turn out in lower percentages than Republicans in off-year elections. The result is that under Clinton and Obama the party as a whole suffered historic losses, yet relatively few Democrats seemed to notice or care, because their party held the executive branch, so everything was fine. The problem with that belief is that if you screw up and lose a presidential election, as in 2016, then you have nothing, because you're already the minority party virtually everywhere else. And, being in such a weak position in Congress and governorships and state legislatures makes it almost impossible to accomplish much, as the Senate GOP blocking Obama's nomination of Garland proves. I've been hoping that 2016 is the wake-up call liberals needed - that you need more than just controlling the Presidency to be an effective national party. The great liberal activity at the grassroots since Trump's election is one of the most hopeful signs for the party's future, imo.

This kind of answer, i think, is too close to the "ground game" argument that liberals just need to pound pavement harder. It kind of denies that low turnout can be a function of bad ideology/governance as opposed to just a lackadaisical approach to politics.

 

[ConnorEl]

Yea, or maybe reality is just a shade more difficult and complex than fantasy.

 

[Strickland33]

I disagree. I admittedly fell for the cult of personality with Obama, but i think a disillusionment with his policy and legacy is a big part of what is driving interest in DSA. Younger generations that have only known Clinton and Obama administrations are like "yeah, fuck this." That goes for a wide range of issues, and he is definitely fair game for criticism. It is also fine to question the appropriateness of someone who had pretty poor track record with regard to Dakota Access/BLM protests/and his views towards those kinds of protest/direct action, to give this speech. Also, there is the fact that we dropped 550 drones strikes in Libya.

Obama promised to not displace residents with his library in Chicago. Then he refused to sign a community benefits agreement and agree to any requirements for hiring people from within the community or to provide affordable housing elsewhere in the city. He is literally gentrifying a community against the wishes of its residents. He doesn't give a fuck about poor people.

This. And it’s okay that he doesn’t care. Most people in this country don’t appear to care about poor people and they’re still revered as good and decent. Obama represented our country well and was an inspiration to millions of young and old people alike. I think he was a good person and I’m glad he was our president. I can’t say that many of his policies re: immigration, drone war fare, and surveillance were really my cup of tea. There really wasn’t much economic justice for the poor, either. The status quo was maintained at best. The Obama Administration set the table for many of the horrifying abuses that we are seeing by the Trump regime. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement. Hagiography doesn’t really get us anywhere.

 

[ConnorEl]

I agree, it’s too bad he didn’t wield a magic wand.

 

[Strickland33]

He didn't have to wield a magic wand. Again, hagiography doesn't get us anywhere. None of our heroes are or were perfect people. I have found that a really rewarding part of adulthood for me is realizing that and still managing to respect imperfect people (myself very much included).