Economic justice is core of social justice.

But some people are fine with just being closet libertarians and calling themselves Democrats.

During the sixties and seventies, the left in this country and the white working class went through a very bitter and messy divorce. The left largely abandoned economic issues in favor of liberations and life-style questions, while the white working class threw itself at an old actor who promised to settle the hash of those hippies and uppity Negroes and women, and did not care and did not notice he was taking them for every cent they had or ever would have while he struck those enticing patriotic and traditional poses that captivated them so.

We live in the emotional and economic wreckage of this broken home....

Put social issues on the back burner. I'm not saying they're not important, but economic issues are far more urgent now because the most important issue is to rein in runaway economic disparity ASAP. I say let's bring back the Old Left (FDR Democrats) in terms of economic issues.

If the left focuses primarily, if not exclusively, on economic justice for workers, lifting people out of poverty, and maintaining the middle class, even--or especially--if it means making enemies of billionaires, then the left will rise again and working-class whites will hopefully see the Tea Party as the fraud it is.

Without putting social issues on a back burner.

The old protestant white male voters are a dying demographic, and we can win without them. Working for more voter enfranchisement and inclusive social policies will grow our strength more and give us the leverage we need to promote economic justice and put an end to the republican party forever.

I feel throwing away either topic to focus exclusively on one or the other will only weaken as opposed to making us stronger. Letting the repugs take away the vote will only weaken our position. Standing up for social issues will help us grow a strong coalition that not only can let economic justice prevail, but allow us to win the culture war.

My fear of focusing on only economic issues means we will find ourselves back in the situation of the early part of the 20th century full of bigots who will do everything in their power to stop or stall all social change. I also strongly disagree with social issues being less important than economic. They are both important. The homosexual who is denied the right to be with their partner and the woman who is forced to go to a back street surgeon to get an abortion is just as important as the family that who lives paycheck to paycheck.

A large proportion of the white working class has internalized as tradition and custom the view that 'economic justice' is simply smarmy code for taking something from them and giving it to 'shiftless negroes' and 'mexicans who steal our jobs', and with the same force of tradition and custom, know that they would be fine and prosperous if it was not for all these free-loading brown people leeching off the hard work of white Americans. Obvious as the contradictions may be, looking in from outside, those afflicted with this orientation will not see them, and further, will bitterly resent their being pointed out, and deny straight-faced they even exist.

Some very fine and well communicated history in perspective, not only in this OP but another as well. It is highly appreciated.

economic issues.

Let's just put them on the back burner.

Gay rights and women issues....and Wall Street is laughing all the way to the bank...and millions are working 2 or 3 shitty jobs just to get by...
Why? because the 1% don't give a shit about those things..there is no money in it...but they give it to us a dribble at a time so we will stay busy fighting for each little thing while they steal us blinde...and it seems to be working.

Martin Luther King, Jr.!

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/memphis-v-mlk/

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_memphis_sanitation_workers_strike_1968/

http://www.afscme.org/union/history/mlk/ive-been-to-the-mountaintop-by-dr-martin-luther-king-jr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Sanitation_Strike

And no favorite of white union members at the time....

the "Reagan Democrats" were white collar workers or very well paid blue collar workers. Reagan's votes came from above the median income. He did not lure them by a promise to "settle the hash of hippies". Reagan lured them with $$$$. The further you were above the median income, the more you stood to gain from Reagan's tax plan. And some parts of the working class, thanks to their unions, were well above the median income.

Exit polls 1980 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_80.html

exit polls 1976
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_76.html

In 1976, the bottom 41% of voters by income went for Carter, the middle 35% was split 50-50.

In 1980, the bottom 27% went for Carter, the middle 30% dropped to 54-39 against.

In 1976 union households went for Carter 62-38. In 1980, they only went for Carter 48-45.

In 1980, median household income was $16,200. So those in the $15,000 - $25,000 range who went from 50-50 for Carter to 39-54 against were the tipping factor, and many of them were - above the median income drawn in by the lure of easy money.

In the period we are speaking of, 'low income' is not a good marker for the demographic 'white working class'.

That any union member voted for Reagan is a disgrace, and an illustration of my point.

I was there, I watched it happen.

in 1980 there were 6.2 million families officially designated as poor. 4.2 million of them were white. Whites made up a very solid majority of "low income workers". http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/families.html

Point is the factor that created the disgrace of voting for Reagan, was INCOME, and NOT race. And I was there too. I was 18 in 1980.

And white unionists voting for Reagan largely did so out of racial animus, and animus towards 'the counter-culture'.

the dividing line is the median income.

I still say the white unionists were counting the money, because they were generally well ABOVE the median income, expecting to do well with Reagan's tax cuts. And the "counter culture" was long passe by 1978, even in rural South Dakota.

The exit polling bears me out on the income factor. It was greed far more than racism. Simple greed. If they hated blacks and hippies so much then they should have voted for Ford in 1976, and they didn't.

No one, repeat no one who lives off a wage, is or can be upper class.

Ford was doomed by the damage to his party inflicted by the Watergate scandals, and to do him credit due, did not run an overtly racist and hippie baiting campaign, as Reagan did.

Well said, Sir!

The white working class of that time bought into the "Red Menace" and backed the various administrations that intervened in Vietnam.

I am sure that criticism of the TPP will be met with BUT DOMA!!!!!!!!

Leads to more people seeing the inequity between the classes and speaking out for greater economic egalitarianism and fairness.

Greater economic egalitarianism leads to more people seeing more social inequity and speaking out for greater social equality.

More of one does not make the other weaker, rather they enhance each other.

well maybe more fundamental rather than more important. That said, I tend to work on an issue by issue basis - if someone agrees with me on a social issue or economic issue or political issue or foreign policy issue well, let's work together on that one issue. Political purity means nothing to me; most people, including most DUers disagree with me on some issue or another.

I guess this by way of saying that I won't abandon my economic beliefs to work with a social liberal/economic libertarian, there are still plenty of ways we can work together that don't involve compromising my principals.

Bryant

I suppose that must be easy to think when your own equality isn't in question.

First economic issues and civil rights issues often walk hand in hand - what good is it to give minorities or woman access to jobs if there aren't any jobs to be had?

Secondly economic issues affect more people.

Thirdly the worse the economy is the more power the elites have - generally when the economy goes south it goes south for the middle class and the working class. The wealthy generally continue doing ok. The implications for civil rights are clear - yes the Elites can decide they want to grant equal rights but they can just as easily decide they don't want to grant equal rights.

Fourthly - I suppose it must be easy to care only about equal rites when you have a good job and don't have to worry where your next meal is coming from.

Bryant

Then what good are more jobs if you aren't allowed to apply for them? How can you ask for more economic equallity if you don't have the right to free speech, petition, protest, etc.

Economic issues affect more people? Depends on what scale you are talking about. If you are talking about reproductive rights versus raising the mimum wage reproductive rights affects more people. Further, this ignores severity. A homosexual couple having their child taken away from them like they are threatening to do is Russia is pretty severe.

What implications for civil rights? Good economy or bad african americans got the shaft during the time before the civil rights movement.

They are pretty important if you can't get a good job at all because your skin is the wrong color and you don't know where your next meal is coming from.

Again, social and economic equality are related. Both need to be supported.

I just think that economic issues are broader and have greater effects than most civil rights issues in 2013.

Bryant

My point was more that if someone is good on civil rights issues but bad on economic issues (like some libertarians (less than there used to be) - you should work with them. I'm less comfortable going the other way because to be bad on civil rights issues is generally immoral.

Bryant

then why are social issues less "important" than economic issues?

And because in 2013 in the United States of America, while they are bad and should be fixed, they probably effect people less severely than economic issues.

Bryant

the large majority of people are affected by these less "important" social issues.

There is no way to separate out the damaging effects of economic inequality and other forms of inequality. They're all intertwined.

caring as much about minorities and woman as you do. You've shamed me and shown me the error of my ways and I'll try to never make that kind of mistake away. I'd also like to thank Liberal Loner for making it abundantly clear what a bad insensitive person I am.

Thank you again for showing me the error of my ways. I'll think twice before expressing my opinion in the future.

Bryant

Saying the liberals made a huge mistake when they spent energy fighting over the years for civil and economic rights for women, people of color, people with disabilities, and gay and lesbian and transgender people.

That by doing so, we lost the only vote that matters....that of the older white male. And we must cater to the wishes of the older white male or we are surely doomed as a party.

We women, people of color, gay and lesbian people, are not a tiny minority of the nation whose rights should be ignored.

We are, in fact, the majority of the nation.

The racist, sexist, hyperreligious, homophobic older white males can sit on it and rotate as far as I am concerned. And as far as long range demographics are concerned, they are well screwed,too.

And it gets a little old when we women or people of color, etc. push back against assertions that we don't matter, and hear cries of "unfair, you are being mean!" In return.

I certainly don't advocate choosing economics over civil rights. That's a false choice. We are a big country and a big movement; we can do more than one thing at a time.

And as for civil rights costing us the white male vote; that's probably true, but so what? Civil Rights are a moral issue; you can't really back down on them. And, as you note, by protecting the voting rights of woman and minorities you can create a plurality of voters that trumps that segment of the white male vote that resents women and minorities.

Frankly looked at long term the most important issue is probably the environment as if we don't fix that theres a possibility that we all die.

I guess I'm also in favor of surveying big fields and cultivating small ones; knowing what is the most important to you while caring about the movement as a whole.

Bryant

Interesting though that you perceived it that way.

A white male has the luxury of entertaining.

That is a fairy tale for the chumps.

the third way is making a big mistake. When their TPP is passed and all the jobs go overseas they are gonna have a lot of people out of work & in the street ... and this country will firmly hold third-world nation status.

They view capitalism as freedom (which I think may be the most naive thing of all).

They're fairly liberal regarding social issues yet support and promote the current economic system. They'd rather have the Koch Brothers making decisions than anyone with a label of politician.

Of course, like you, I think Big Business and politics are now synonymous.

that it was us blacks who were taking shit away from them, so they became Reagan Democrats. Things haven't changed since. Now we have to convince an entire generation of DLC Democrats and other corporate Democrats--of ALL races who have bought into Reaganomics to a certain degree--that corporate economics is wrong and doesn't work. And though I love Barack Obama, I see that he has bought into this Clinton "Third Way" pro-corporate economics as well. It may work when the economy thrives, but as we've seen, that's only temporary and only works in certain local economies (Silicon Valley, for instance). It doesn't work across the board. Deregulatory economics has failed us, and it has failed us in the long run. Reaganomics and its Clinton "Third Way" distant cousin are not the way to go. It doesn't work. It has never worked.

The Reagan Democrats re-registered as Republicans.

Why, that's a massive change! Just ask the vapid reporters on TV. It indicates a massive movement of (insert dumb group name) towards Republican policies. Because they think misusing statistics makes them sound smart.

because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for the black guy. They're the same ones who think Chris Christie is likable. They love Christine Todd Whitman and other so-called "moderate" Republicans. They love John McCain when they were duped into thinking he was a moderate, and they also didn't think George "Dumbya" Bush would be that bad.

Yes, some of this is the fault of the Democrats who ran with their tail stuck between their legs. They were ashamed of the liberalism of the 60s. They thought we went too far with the "free love" shit and perhaps we knee-grows needed to understand our place; we pushed for civil rights too fast--perhaps we needed to slow that down a bit. Besides we lost the south, and I think there's a contingent of the Democratic Party is the South and midwest who never fully forgave blacks in the Democratic Party for that. They felt that they had to reach out more to Republicans in order to win back the South. They were wrong. They couldn't accept that the Democrats were going to lose the South and that was all there was to it. Rather than recrafting the message and harking back to traditional Democratic Party principles, the Democrats starting acting like Republicans and the rest, as they say, is history. Now here we are.

It was the Southern Democrats, the Reagan Democrats of the Industrial States (PA, OH, MI) who couldn't let go and pushed the party in this direction.

How we gonna get it back?

Tom Frank gave us a good explanation of how we got here in "What's the Matter With Kansas" but we have to figure out how to get Kansas back.

Where were they when inflation was almost 14%?
Interest was 21%

I don't know if that's an accurate or fair assertion to make.

I do know there is a lot of disgust towards both parties, cynicism about which side the government is really on, and justified anger towards Wall Street. Can you blame them?

Working class whites, believe it or not, are by no means one monolithic group. Lots of people who vote for both parties, and many more who don't vote at all. But I would bet that there are more Democrats than Republicans among them.

have lost a good number of them is not being particularly honest. There have been plenty of research about this--something that has baffled political scientists for several decades now.

"I blame working class whites because they succumbed to Reaganomics and bought into the idea that it was us blacks who were taking shit away from them, so they became Reagan Democrats"

I don't think it is being particularly honest to "blame working class whites" when the number that switched parties was a still just a fraction of the total number.

The assumption is that not ALL working class whites went Republican. That is obvious; I am not that stupid to assert the opposite.

"The assumption is that not ALL working class whites went Republican. That is obvious; I am not that stupid to assert the opposite."
"I blame working class whites because...."
Saying "I blame (Insert group of people) because..." IS blaming that whole group. Maybe we can get a DU English teacher to settle this.

you know what I wrote is truth and you can't handle it. You're not attacking the substance. You're fixated on race. Why? Can't handle it?

Welcome to ignore. Enjoy responding to yourself. I'm done with you.

And your response is repeatedly lying about what you said.

Keep your pathetic lies and ignorant comments about race to yourself.... Mutual Ignore.

I laugh.

It isn't clear the democratic party subscribes to conservative economic theories since so rarely have we had a prolonged democratically controlled congress and president. When we have there has been push back against it. But once again immediately corporations pour million (billions) to retain house districts. Republicans have used massive filibusters to prevent any push back to changing the economy. That they are willing to trade gays in the military for extended tax cuts should tell you everything you need to know about what conservatives value. Abortion, anti-gays etc... that is just window dressing for the masses. They really care about keeping the massive economy disparity. They will shut down the government, threaten war, bailout banks, cut food stamps, ultrasound women, repeal Obamacare 41 times, ban federal spending on abortion again and again... anything to prevent slightly less money flowing to people that don't need it, can't use it, and are creating jobs to make the country stronger.

That is why the economy is THE most important social issue these days. The democratic party needs to realize this and start pushing as hard as the Republican party is willing to hold on. And yes the 10-15% of elected democrats that are fiscally conservative doesn't help matters

But that only go on for so long and I believe that dynamic; due in large part to the Internet is changing for the better.

Esteem in the corporate media as an honest distributor and disseminater of information continues to plummet and I believe we are approaching a tipping point were their influence on shaping public opinion toward a corporate centric slant will all but vanish.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

for actual people and their views.

We are in a propaganda deluge. States that build surveillance architectures also build lying propaganda machines.

States that build surveillance architectures also build lying propaganda machines.

these issues are not getting fairly resolved. With Citizens United the election bribery got 1,000 times worse. Plain and simple, large donors and their Lobbyists get their way, whether the politicians are Republican or Democrat.
We need COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, including PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS! This would take much of the money and influence out and restore our Representative government. Of course it would be the Mother of all Battles to wrest control away from the 1%!

and maybe a communist. A thought experiment will tell you whether you're a liberal or a socialist. If it came down to a choice between a capitalist economic system under a fascist political system OR a worker's democracy (dictatorship of the proletariat) and they choose the capitalist option, then they are liberal. If they choose the worker's democracy they're socialist.

Wall Street reform bills, extending unemployment benefits, expanding Medicaid, etc etc are the ones you choose to attack? Ever place the blame on the opposition party who is the most backwards, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, obstructionists in US history?

will, among other things, allow U.S. military uniforms to be made in Viet Nam under conditions that the Military will be required to buy such uniforms.

If you are opposed to "the opposition party," you are more opposed than Obama.

The TPP is an FTA http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42344.pdf

gad. try using your own words. why do you think it's a good thing?

Poster the difference between writing bills and an FTA.

their economy, unions and income equality are all much better than ours.

Anyhoo, I'm sure we'll get another "why I don't attack Republicans" excuse riddled OP.

How can any politician favor any policy of transferring and keeping manufacturing jobs in foreign countries and yet be considered a liberal or progressive on social issues?

Pointing to anti-choice Republicans does not make such politicians more liberal or progressive.

Politicians don't decide which country manufacturing jobs will go to; manufacturers do that. Unfortunately, among the criteria they select on (not, thankfully, the only ones) are things like "are wages low?" and "are employment laws weak?". So politicians have to trade off quality vs quantity of jobs - if you don't want third-world working conditions in America, you're going to have to accept that many employers will choose to employ people in the third world in preference to America.

In theory, politicians do have one other set of weapons to encourage employers to create jobs in their country rather than others - subsidies and tariffs. But agricultural subsidies in the first world are a major contributing factor to poverty in the third, and are - quite rightly - extremely tightly restricted under international law, and if you want to see why protectionist trade barriers are almost usually a bad idea, look up the wonderfully-named Hawley-Smoot act (if you don't know about it already).

The current level of inequality of living standards between third and first worlds just isn't sustainable, I suspect.

The slight of hand... look over there!!!!! While they create trade agreements in secret that will give global corporations the ability to exist independently, ignoring the will of the majority and accountable to no one.

Sometimes it seems like media driven theater, they're just purposely creating distraction and division. Do the Koch bros really have a stake in gay people's right to marry who they choose? There's a percentage of God fearing Bible thumping Americans they can always count on to perform on cue.

Here's what I see happening.

So you want something economically? Then you'll need to give up something socially. And vice versa.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not what you wish to gain is worth what you're going to lose in return.

So we all must ask ourselves: Is it?

Trade-offs.

I'm not casting judgment upon what I see is happening, but I'm not going to deny it's what I'm seeing, either.

you don't explain why you have this bizarre belief that you have to give up something in the way of rights or proposed rights to gain some economic policies that don't hugely favor corporations and the wealthy. How are the two connected,? Do explain your theory.

word salad. just what DU doesn't need more of.

Advance your social issues by making concessions to economic classes (say, the "Aspirational 14%&quot that agree with them but oppose your economic stances. AKA what Clinton did.

I didn't say that I believed you had to give up something to have something else. I said that is what I see happening.

My observations of what I see happening and what I believe should happen are two different things.

Not in the sense of GDP perhaps but in the sense of living conditions and health/happiness/satisfaction of the overall population.

Having great quantities of money in just a few hands does not make for a vibrant economy, among other things it slows the velocity of money far too much.

were always inextricably intertwined because liberalism championed individual freedom, and economic freedom was a part of broad individual freedoms championed by liberalism.

The problem, of course, is that what passes for Capitalism today is not "The Wealth of Nations" but a marriage of Consumerism and Corporatism (neither of which are classic Capitalism of the Adam Smith variety).

The model envisioned by Adam Smith, and the way it was practiced between the end of WWII and the early 70's, is not what we have today. The right wing mania for deregulation (especially of large Corporate Business and Banks) has created a Plutocratic Oligarchy where power focused in the hands of moneyed interests has created a system that suppresses individual freedoms and even economic freedoms of the majority of people.

Economic freedom is the right to work at an occupation for a living wage or to seek opportunity to become as wealthy as one wants. Deregulation created a system where those who have money have become a form of nobility that control wealth and power. A relative few people manage to enter the ranks of the wealthy elite, but for the most part it remains a closed club.

Finally, liberalism as we know it was adopted slowly by the Democratic party that was once a Southern institution that did not champion liberalism in any way, shape, or form. The Republican party in its origins with the dissolution of the Whigs was, at the time, a progressive and relatively liberal party. The parties took their modern forms after WWII, beginning with Truman for the Democrats. The post War Republican Party created by Buckley with such leaders as Eisenhower is not at all what grew out Nixon's southern strategy and the Reagan Revolution. Today, someone espousing Reagan's beliefs and his achievements (Raised taxes, championed more taxes for the rich, and provided amnesty for undocumented workers) would be called a socialist by todays Republican Party.

But didn't the change of ideologies in the political parties actually date back to when Teddy Roosevelt created the Progressive Party and ran against Taft and Wilson. While Wilson's social views were horrible, his overall legacy is fairly progressive. I also feel that FDR is the point that the democratic party really embraced liberalism.

I also must disagree about Reagan. I feel Bill Maher has it right, he was the original Teabagger.

putting and end to it being the party of segregation, is, I think, a better point.


The real point is that parties change over time.

Especially when excoriating today's Democrats for praising Reagan.

"Yes, Reagan was transformative, but not for the better."

those who grew up in the 80s and 90s when union membership went downhill while conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh were on the rise, then in the 00s aka the Bush years and the rise of crazy right wing online media and history/critical thinking being stripped out of our schools thanks to No Child Left Behind aka "Teach Readin', 'Ritin', and 'Rithmetic to the Test". As a result they've got this false impression that economic freedom is in their best interest - even absurdly howling and screaming at the damn most basic rules of a civilized society like business licensing! Thom Hartmann explains how billionaire backed orgs like the "Foundation for Economic Education" are pushing this crap to our young folk. We're supposed to believe the Internet will assist democracy and advance real knowledge. Turns out the reverse is true.

When labor is discussed in the Business Section it's only to point out the high cost and Unions only come up as having outrageous demands that will lead to economic ruin.

Both parties brag about how good they are for business.

Team Clinton bragged that it raised more from corporations than the Republicans.

I don't get that.

At the rate they're going I fear the third-way ism may morph the party into one that represents the worst of both worlds, issues wise.

On all the great social issues of the day, the left has already won. We're just waiting for various legislative bodies to catch up with us.

It is the economic issues that differentiate us, and those who side with the wealthy few over the not-so-wealthy majority are not liberals, nor are they my political allies.

-Laelth

In one way or another.

That's why I can't buy the corp-controlled economic model that rapes the 99% in favor of the 1%.

Bake

A person can be fine with gay marriage, but still be out to screw working people.

What do they care who we have sex with or what color our skin is? They still get all our money. And they are trying to solidify the globalization of their power as we speak.

He was a popular President taking on a group of admittedly well paid workers whose actions were seen as a threat to public safety. Much of the country rallied around him on the issue and he parlayed that support into a war on unions and working people in general. The seeds of greedy unions ruining the country were planted. The Democrats didn't really fight back like they should have and it's been all downhill since.

so really, there's no point being "socially liberal, economically conservative" as people like to say, in my experience.

That is exactly how it is. And I don't believe there is any coming back from it. We've let the fox into the henhouse and he will feast until every last chicken is dead. We are well and truly fucked.

The fact of the matter is, the owners have sucked all the good stuff out of this country and they no longer need us. It's why they won't upgrade or even repair the infrastructure here. There are a couple of billion Asians to take our places as consumers and to exploit as workers. That's where the money is now and for the next twenty/thirty years until they form unions and demand better conditions and grow a little bit. Then it will be time to break those guys down and move to Africa.

I really hate to say it but it's over and the bad guys won.

thanks for articulating what should be simple and obvious. you rock!

cheers!
agony

It's an upper class mindset. It's really no different from every celebrity having an opinion on gay marriage and abortion but somehow contracting laryngitis when economic issues get raised.

connotes some kind of empathy for, and willingness to improve the lives of, those who are on the lower rungs of society. Subscribing to a neoliberal economic vision negates any supposedly "liberal" social views.