Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stellar

(5,644 posts)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:08 PM Apr 2016

No, Mr. President, We Do Not Need to Learn How to Compromise



At a youth town hall in London, England on Saturday, April 23, 2016, President Obama said that activists — specifically Black Lives Matter activists — need to be willing to compromise. He also claimed that the tone of some activism can turn people off to its message.

“You have a responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable,” Obama told the crowd.

But achievable by whom, and in whose eyes?

People wonder why I’m no fan of this POTUS. Where would the Marriage Equality movement be in this country if we in the struggle to achieve marriage equality in all 50 states “learned to compromise”? Some may recall the amicus curiae brief Obama’s DOJ filed in Windsor v. United States, which advocated for a ruling in favor of Edie Windsor but limiting the scope to that particular plaintiff — a breadcrumb, if you will.

That brief further argued that each state should make up its own mind on the issue of marriage equality. Indeed, had the Supreme Court followed that line of thought, we’d be battling it out in the states for the next fifty or so years — or more — a piecemeal approach, to be certain.

Anyone who has studied progressive social justice movements knows that “compromise” is a way for the power elite and the establishment to maintain their power and to prevent real reform from reshaping the power structure. It’s a means for those in power to remain in power, giving people just barely enough to keep them from launching a full-on revolt.


HuffPo
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No, Mr. President, We Do Not Need to Learn How to Compromise (Original Post) Stellar Apr 2016 OP
I'm with you RobertEarl Apr 2016 #1
this makes no sense, the issue black people deal with would affect him and those related to him JI7 Apr 2016 #2
Every single rights group, every rights mission has had to learn to compromise Number23 Apr 2016 #3
+1000 JustAnotherGen Apr 2016 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2016 #5
There's always something in the fine print. Black folks know that better than anyone Number23 Apr 2016 #6
Obama needs ot stop making statements like this. He didn't say compromise to gays or latinoes. craigmatic Apr 2016 #7
Gawd...I couldn't have said it better!!! Stellar Apr 2016 #8
I'm jaded and disapointed. I don't know if I will vote in November. Nobody cares about us craigmatic Apr 2016 #9
Politicians and activists to a degree will always disagree on the La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2016 #10
Another BSer riding BLM's jock. I'm shocked! SSDD. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2016 #11
Me, too. Kind of Blue Apr 2016 #12
Sorry, at least half of the country is conservative Kind of Blue Apr 2016 #13
Well, that would be nice... Stellar Apr 2016 #14
What makes you think that poor people support Bernie? kwassa Apr 2016 #15
I was repeating what Sanders said. Stellar Apr 2016 #16
Good link but the article refutes what Sanders says in its title. Kind of Blue Apr 2016 #18
Thanks for refuting the nonsense KOB. Another instance where a BSer fell for a bumpersticker. nt Tarheel_Dem Apr 2016 #19
Ha! My favorite word this cycle has been optics Kind of Blue Apr 2016 #20
+1 Jamaal510 Apr 2016 #17
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
1. I'm with you
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:44 PM
Apr 2016

Obama, however, is in power. And we are not at the table and he hasn't set one up.... yet.

If you are invited to the table, then yes, have an agenda. Since we are not at any table, yet, all we have is the street. On the street it is quite clear what our agenda is: Justice.

Obama needs to set up a table and bring both sides to it then we can go from there.

JI7

(89,252 posts)
2. this makes no sense, the issue black people deal with would affect him and those related to him
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:41 PM
Apr 2016

he isn't apart from the rest of the black population in dealing with racism.

but this is claiming his words have something to do with maintaining some power structure which makes no sense .

Number23

(24,544 posts)
3. Every single rights group, every rights mission has had to learn to compromise
Tue Apr 26, 2016, 01:35 AM
Apr 2016

But having said that, I have no idea why Obama would say this to BLM activists. Compromise on what?

And I love the Bernie Sanders high five in the piece. Bernie has "called" for a lot of stuff in his time, I'm sure. Delivering on it is an entirely separate issue.

JustAnotherGen

(31,828 posts)
4. +1000
Tue Apr 26, 2016, 07:18 AM
Apr 2016

Voting and Civil Rights legislation came about - but the trade off was no reparations and the Vietnam War.

Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #4)

Number23

(24,544 posts)
6. There's always something in the fine print. Black folks know that better than anyone
Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:08 PM
Apr 2016

But we are smart/realistic/practical enough not to toss out the whole shabam because we're not getting everything we want on Day 1.

 

craigmatic

(4,510 posts)
7. Obama needs ot stop making statements like this. He didn't say compromise to gays or latinoes.
Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:31 PM
Apr 2016

Jesse Jackson was right when he said that this administration likes to talk down to black people. He does this because he knows we're not organized and don't use our money to bribe the politicians so on some level he doesn't respect us. We're still getting killed by cops in the streets but Obama is more likely to say something positive about transsexuals getting to use the bathroom of their choice than say anything positive about dealing with racial injustice.

 

craigmatic

(4,510 posts)
9. I'm jaded and disapointed. I don't know if I will vote in November. Nobody cares about us
Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:42 PM
Apr 2016

or respects us in either party. Liberals use us as mules for everyone else's causes but offer us nothing in return and republicans at best ignore us and at worst encourage people to violate our rights.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
10. Politicians and activists to a degree will always disagree on the
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:36 AM
Apr 2016

Best form of activism. politicians constantly criticized gay activists but had we not pushed, we'd never get anywhere.

Kind of Blue

(8,709 posts)
13. Sorry, at least half of the country is conservative
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:05 AM
Apr 2016

so maybe if we turn out in equal numbers for congressional races as we do for POTUS, then we won't have to to reason much with the unreasonable. Otherwise have fun storming the castle and fall to the wayside of so many revolutions that give the masses so little in return or left us worse off.

Stellar

(5,644 posts)
14. Well, that would be nice...
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 07:52 PM
Apr 2016

and we've been saying that for many, many years. It would really help if they voted.

Sunday, Bernie Sanders offered host Chuck Todd a simple explanation for his having lost 16 of the 17 states with the highest levels of income inequality.

"Poor people don't vote," he said. "I mean, that's just a fact. That's a sad reality of American society."
WaPo


Stellar

(5,644 posts)
16. I was repeating what Sanders said.
Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:10 PM
Apr 2016

Maybe they all support Hillary. I don't care one way or the other.

Kind of Blue

(8,709 posts)
18. Good link but the article refutes what Sanders says in its title.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:36 AM
Apr 2016
Bernie Sanders’s losses aren’t because ‘poor people don’t vote’ enough
The less income inequality, the better he did.That can't be explained as "poor people voting against their self-interest" unless you're also willing to say that wealthy people voted against theirs, too."

But let's connect the dots a little better than Sanders does. Every study on voter turnout I've read concludes that low turnout among the poor is not just because people are poor and don't want to, millions of people simply can't.

The system is overly bureaucratic with unnecessarily restrictive registration procedures, which work to dissuade people from voting. Something as simple and common as moving within the same state jeopardizes voter eligibility due to registration requirements. Studies show that people of color, young people, and lower-income people move more often, leaving them more vulnerable to not being properly registered to vote.http://www.demos.org/data-byte/voter-turnout-income-2008-us-presidential-election

But even in states where politicians are not actively working to distort their electorate, our current system of voter registration creates barriers to voting that serve no significant purpose for democracy while excluding tens of millions of potential voters from the political process.

Fortunately, there is a solution. Starting with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and continuing through the lesser-known National Voter Registration Act, federal policy has enabled significant progress in fostering a more inclusive electorate. In the following report, Dēmos lays out a detailed policy blueprint for the next, overdue reform in our democracy: universal registration through an automatic registration system, where the government registers eligible citizens to vote after confirming their eligibility based on information it is already receiving.

Demos’ legal strategists have been working with over a dozen state governments to optimize enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act in the places where lower-income citizens are more likely to interact with the government: public assistance agencies and health insurance exchanges (and not just Departments of Motor Vehicles). Demos’ policy blueprint for Automatic Voter Registration builds on our and our partners’ experience of state NVRA implementation. The potential is huge: if every state followed the lead of Oregon, which has established the first automatic voter registration system in the country, Demos calculates that approximately 27 million people would immediately gain access to elections.
http://www.demos.org/publication/automatic-voter-registration-finding-americas-missing-voters

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that is not only the poor who do not vote. By validating survey data (comparing what an individual says about voting to their actual voter file) and analyzing a massive database of voter files, the authors are able to give the clearest picture of turnout that has ever been documented. Their findings are rather stunning: they suggest that turnout may well be even more stratified by income, race and gender than previously suspected.http://www.demos.org/blog/12/11/15/demographic-divides-voter-turnout

There is a lot to unpack on this issue that goes much further than Sanders' excuse for losing. Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted. In other words, if more poor people voted, Bernie would lose more ground to Hillary.http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-blames-losses-on-poor-people-not-voting/



Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»African American»No, Mr. President, We Do ...