i would +1 this post, but i cannot. Bluenorthwest gave me permission to post this as an OP.

[seabeyond]

Bluenorthwest (35,781 posts)

133. The first time I took part in a 'gay political event' that event was demonstrating against health

insurance companies, calling for universal health care and action on AIDS, this event was organized by ACT UP, a group that started in NYC. Their first action ever took part on Wall Street targeting the financial, insurance and especially pharmaceutical industries, the posters said 'No More Business As Usual' and the day ended with mass arrests, but not nearly as many as there were on subsequent, yearly Wall St demonstrations.

So what it is you think you are teaching me here today? You need to take this message to your 'populist' cohort on DU, they are very confused people. In addition, any valid progressive populism will very actively include all people and avoid all hint of right wing populism, progressive populists do not need to be coaxed into supporting 'social issues' they come with those issues leading, if only to make sure everyone knows they are not just Mike Huckabee on a field trip to DU. The actual history of populism in the US creates a context in which progressive populism must define itself as progressive without reservation. If they do not, they will not gain the trust of minority voters. It's that simple, and without the minority voters, they don't have a movement. Deny the history at your own peril. It is white straight progressive populists who need the rest of us. The rest of us have each other and do not really need y'all. We want you to join up, but we will not be taking the back seats for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026673874#post133

[F4lconF16]

1. This is why I find populist rhetoric so ironic.

The biggest populists in history have for the most part not been ones that openly embraced and celebrated the causes of minorities. Those who do have always been the radicals, because most of the solutions proposed to address the core of of these entangled problems are not sympathetic to our current system. And even then, many of those radical movements have abandoned the less privileged.

It isn't just openly radicals, though--it is the combined actions over time by a huge number of people that accumulate and then break and change things. The radicals simply tend to be at the fore of these movements. Martin Luther King Jr. is always an excellent example for everything, including this: he was an incredible man in his own right, but he is also only one of the millions who came together during the civil rights movement.

The populist movement has never integrated social rights as intensely and intrinsically as have the big social movements and radical left.

[ismnotwasm]

7. I know!

That's what is so infuriating, it's not like the history isn't right there for all to see

[cali]

19. who are you thinking of? Are you referring to American history?

do you distinguish at all between right wing populism and left wing populism? And if we're looking at the populist in the dem primary, it's clear that Sanders has embraced and celebrated minorities throughout his life far, far more comprehensively than Hillary.

From his running for HS class presidency on a platform to help South Korean war orphans, to organizing a sit in to protest segregated dorms at U.of Chicago and being a student organizer for SNCC and marching in the 1963 March on Washington to his early embrace of marriage equality- 20 years before Hillary, to his record in the House and Senate.

[seabeyond]

21. you are not getting this conversation is not about sanders vs clinton. you cannot get off that.

you only battle that.

it changes the conversation we are having!

[BainsBane]

28. the Longs

The problem with populism is left and right are not so easily distinguished. It was the original third way. It seeks to co-opt the frustrations of those below without offering structural change. The Longs, in Latin America Getulio Vargas and Juan Peron, for example. It has often emerged as an alternative to socialist and anarchist movements, drew from their support and undermined the revolutionary potential of the working class or agrarian poor, co-opting it in ways that focused on a charismatic individual--WJ Bryan, the Longs, Vargas, Peron, Lazaro Cardenas, even FDR--and as such helped maintain the capitalist social order and economy.

[seabeyond]

48. excellent point. thanks for explaining this. nt

[seabeyond]

24. people, mostly men, point the finger at radical fems. not an insult. basically,

the women on the front lines being heard, discussing.... what?

the patriarchy. a know and established fact and our reality.

that is it

too radical

man....

interesting post. thank. appreciate

[truebluegreen]

29. If you want to communicate clearly

can you ditch the stream of consciousness posting? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[BainsBane]

30. I know. I went from radical feminist to corporate sell out and Third Way

in record time, with absolutely no change in my views. At essence is my failure to support both patriarchy and the great and noble struggle of the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent.

[seabeyond]

32. reminds me of the 'virgin, lesbian, slut' version i went thru with one particular man. lol. nt

[seabeyond]

2. kicking for exposure

as i will probably continue to kick for explosure. so, whether there are replies or not, at least people can read thru anothers eyes.

[etherealtruth]

3. Thanks to both you and Blue Northwest

[seabeyond]

18. it is an excellent conversation to be had. for sure.....

[bvar22]

4. A couple of paragraphs of jumbled nonsense and unsupported claims.

UnRec.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Ah snark when unable to refute. Good for you.

It's hard for me to see what troubles you so about suggesting a proactive inclusion of minorities be high priority for any progressive populist movement. How is that offensive to you? How is that nonsense? Would it break your heart to extend a welcoming hand instead of a shaking fist?

[seabeyond]

10. perfectly said. and ya... all too damn obvious. nt

[BainsBane]

27. I think the hostility is all too revealing

I see a clear politics of exclusion going on.

[seabeyond]

33. I see a clear politics of exclusion going on.

yes. me, too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I see the clear politics of ...

the recognition of the lose of privilege.


Wait ... it's the same thing!

[DonCoquixote]

35. people are trying to turn "progressive"

Into some new form of left that does not have the baggage of "radical." Frankly, that is a mistake, as for all the baggage that being a leftist has, it alone is responsible for most of the rights we used to take for granted, but are now slipping away. The Radicals were also the ones that made it a point, and still make it a point, to include minorities, whereas many of these fake artifical sweeteners sustitutes for the left, be they libertarians or Third Wayers or even a lot of the "progressives" that yell without speaking, still have demographics that might as well BE Republican. You can smell the Starbucks Latte.

However, there is a problem where those that say they are Democrats actually, when the chips are down, favor the right. Be it the TPP, or Fracking, war in Syria or Outsourcing, many people see what used to be Democratic psition and go WTF? Pressure is what forces polticio to do the right thing, be it not giving wall street everything it wants, or, like our president "evolving" on social issues. It has to be a varied mass, not because of any morality, or even some ideal, it is because if we pin our hopes on any man or woman, the existign stritcutre will swarm that one person, however taltented and sincere that person may be, and co opt them, the same way weeds grow over a ruin. Only a diverse mass can resist that.

[NuclearDem]

16. But of course...

[NCTraveler]

36. "jumbled nonsense "

Your reply doesn't make much sense with respect to the op. I can think of two reasons.

1) Reading comprehension
2) You thought sea wrote the op, and without reading it you just went with one of the lowest of low attacks on sea. Seen it before. Not impressed.

[seabeyond]

37. number two. lol lol. hadnt even registered that. you are so fuckin'ly funny. what a hoot.

i am outta here.

thanks for the smile.

when i first read the reply i really did flash, hey.... they only talk about me that way. never heard blue accused of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Did my questions scare you? Why can't you stand up and respond? You sure were free with the snark

and personal insults but when asked to clarify your remarks you go tellingly silent. People who post insults but refuse to answer actual questions have too much in common with Republicans for my taste.

I think nonsense is the crap some divisive straight people on DU are pulling. The LGBT community has been a leading driver in the opposition to TPP, but you would not know that from the endless fucking posts crafted to paint us as a bunch of rich white men concerned only with fashion and marriage. The ignorance on display is hard to fathom, it has to be aggressively maintained to be so fully devoid of knowledge about current events, LGBT priorities, organized labor in relation to LGBT politics (I can tell you are not a Union member from your rhetoric, by the way) y'all can't even put two and two together to figure out why the LGBT community is so very focused on patent law in regard to medicines, a huge part of the TPP and of course a central element to LGBT opposition to that agreement. Not to mention Brunei which is party to TPP executes gay people.
It's offensive that you won't even stand up and discuss these things. It's hard to believe you care about the TPP at all considering you won't discuss the actual politics and want instead to make divisions out of unity.

[sheshe2]

5. KnR...right there with you sea.

I love Bluenorthwest's response.

The actual history of populism in the US creates a context in which progressive populism must define itself as progressive without reservation. If they do not, they will not gain the trust of minority voters. It's that simple, and without the minority voters, they don't have a movement.

They want economic justice first. Then I guess they believe that will trickle down to social justice. I am not buying that. The issues must go hand in hand.

Thanks for posting this, I love you, woman. ( lol about that other post, you know what I mean)

[seabeyond]

17. They want economic justice first. Then I guess they believe that will trickle down to social justice

that is how i see it. too clear. they provided the dots to connect. any moran can see it, including you and i.

i mean

what else does it mean.

shore up upper middle, middle class and whites and men.

meh...

and we will get ours.

how else can one see it.

[ismnotwasm]

6. K&R

[Number23]

8. This has been shown a million times in a million different ways

It's that simple, and without the minority voters, they don't have a movement...It is white straight progressive populists who need the rest of us.

Every "leftist" agenda that doesn't involve a rock solid, concrete, GENUINE commitment of involving and incorporating the individual and unique struggle of minorities is doomed to fail as has been proven over and over and over and over again.

[seabeyond]

15. this is for you. this path has the same feel i experienced the last 3 yrs with the lesbian/black

feminists argument to us middle class white women.

i have spent three years listening and discussing, but mostly listening and processing. this is what it felt like immediately. when clinton first declared. conversations were triggering what i heard from lesbian and black women about white middle class women over the decades.

most of the women i listened to and was educated by, were very patient and i learned to shut up quickly. (those angry at me, still, three years later, will not see or recognize. but, it is a fact).

i have learned a lot listening to and respecting strong black man.

hillary announces. i read and learn about populist group on du. i am being told to shut up

all about the same time.

then i am listening while sanders declares.

and i start hearing i am minor, insignificant and that it is middle/upper middle income, white and mens time.

i mean. as progressive. shouldnt we have this very basic conversation? we are talking to the logical, able man of our party, mostly. he should be able to grasp the pragmatic. i mean, we should not be arguing simple demographics. there is a mathematics to politics.

it seems like we should be able to have a pretty easy conversation here. yet there is so much..... hm. mmmmmm.... emotion? in the conversation that really has little to do with the logistics.

so, this is one i would like your perspective on. if you feel the same. and this is what you and others are telling us.

[Number23]

50. Yes, yes and yes. Absolutely yes

it seems like we should be able to have a pretty easy conversation here. yet there is so much..... hm. mmmmmm.... emotion? in the conversation that really has little to do with the logistics.


So many black posters here have noted the open, non disguised hostility that alot of us face for supporting this president and the Democrats. It is straight up ANGER. And just like upthread, where one of the "populists" here comes into a thread posted by a woman and written by a gay man and just dismisses the ever loving fuck out of it and won't even explain why. This is exactly the kind of shit that posters of color, gays and women have been seeing and talking about for a very, very long time.

And of course, we get the willfully clueless demanding links as "proof" when we talk about the open hostility that alot of minorities feel here. And of course when presented with those links, the same folks scream how we "just don't understand" what we're looking at as if they're brand of dog whistling or outright racial insensitivity is something new that we've never seen before.

And we are accused of "trolling" and tossing the race/gender card - and usually by either the most openly stupid posters here or those who are actually engaging in the very behavior that they are pretending to have never seen here. This is exactly why so many black posters have left and so many of the ones that remain have stopped engaging. In other thread a few months ago, I actually fussed at 1SBM about engaging with a well known corrosive force here. He didn't listen and I think he opened a few people's eyes to this person's divisive and insulting presence here. I mean, a few folks other than his fans of course who have developed really EXCELLENT skills at pretending not to be able to see what's in front of their faces.

and i start hearing i am minor, insignificant and that it is middle/upper middle income, white and mens time.

Shit, when HASN'T it been their time???! How dare the rest of us ask when the hell is it going to be OUR time???!

[stevenleser]

11. It's very hard to reach people who are determined not to hear you and who will use

every defense mechanism and logical fallacy available rather than take in very straightforward arguments.

I use Republicans as an example because I always try working on my pundit friends on the right to show them that supply side economics simply doesnt work. There are alternative explanations for why it seemed to work under Reagan, but the 12 years of Republican Presidents since Reagan who all adhered to that kind of economic policy all provided bad economic results. That's obvious. That's straightforward, but they resist the obvious conclusion with everything that they have.

Democracies rarely change in leaps and bounds but in incremental steps. This is particularly true when you have a sharply divided populace and legislature. I get all kinds of flailing responses when I say to folks who are supporting Bernie, exactly what do you think he can get passed with a Republican House and Senate? And if he can't get anything particularly transformative passed or different than any other Democrat would in that situatoin, what is the reason to try on Bernie's behalf to tear down Hillary who is currently leading all Republicans in the polling?

Oh the angry, ad hominem, off topic responses I get.

[seabeyond]

13. i see the excitement with sanders. i ponder the illusions. contradictions. the obvious.

I say to folks who are supporting Bernie, exactly what do you think he can get passed with a Republican House and Senate?

and i am all for sanders being prez. with an understanding. that i am here, too. and quit/dont suggest otherwise. cause then you will be hearing from me.

i read something about sanders being economic prophet. really? and perusal of thread, i saw no one laughing at the 'prophet'.

sigh

but, i had that conversation with myself. and ya, i come back to it, with the pollyanna argument. LOOK what sanders will do for me!

obama has been doing lighter versions. and even with lighter, of all sanders supporters attribute to only sanders, obama has gotten them passed and with repug supreme, house and senate, had the bills "lightened".

what will he be able to accomplish and do. now.... i like the idea of conversation. i am also adult, aware, realistic and pragmatic.

[DonCoquixote]

41. I cannot speak for all bernie supporters, but

forme it is not about
I get all kinds of flailing responses when I say to folks who are supporting Bernie, exactly what do you think he can get passed with a Republican House and Senate?

Suppose he passes NOTHING, not one single thing, period. At the very least, I know what also will NOT be passed: Chained CPI, The TPP, and anything else the Republican want passed. The problem we have is that this gridlock only goes one way, towards thingas the GOP does nto want. If the GOP wants drilling in the arctic, or cuts to medicare, it GETS those things, with a brutal grace, despite the fact that they are whinign to the top of their lungs that us mean ole liberals are nto getting them everything they want fast enough. That is why bringing up the whole question of "what can he do" is not as releveant, we know that we are voting more for what will NOT be done: not picking another Scalia acolyte on the Supremes, not allowing chained CPI or Medicare cuts, NOT going to war in Syria. I would love to vote FOR someone who said they would be FOR doing things, but the fact is, in DC now, it is easier to destroy and monketwrench and move forward, and I will vote for whoever can stop the GOP machine long enough to finally crash, or at least before it runs over those of us tied to the tracks.

Now, again, if Hillary wins the NOM, I will vote for her. I am not one of those people that sing hymns to St.Ralph Nader, and frankly, neither is Bernie. However, the very pressure by some on here is to stop puttign pressure on Hillary to go left, to get in line already. What is funny is, this is not coming from Hillay herself. Maybe she realizes that a fight with Bernie will do exactly for her with her fight with Obama did for him, make sure she hits the ring warmed up and ready to throw haymakers at the GOP. However, this is the time, and the one realu outlet, we have to place pressure on her to coutneract the pressure that the Right wing of our party damned well as alrerady placing on her. Do you think the Rahm Emmanuels and Evan Bayhs and Lloyd Blankfleds, aka those who have caused our party some of our worst losses,are not putting pressure on her to lean right? It's part of the game, and the most we have is the fact that Bernie can and will force a long needed discussion about what beign a liberal is. If Hillary can beat the GOP, she will have no problem adjusting, evolving, and adapting to thoseof us on the left, and it will only make her stronger next Novermber. The worst thing her supporters can do is to bark at those of us who they will also need come november, by calling us enemies; THAT w2ill play into the GOP hands better than anything else, because it would reveal that when all thuings are said and done, some never wanted us in the big tent anyway, despite the fact we bent over backwards fitting ex GOP arses in when the GOP threw them overboard.

[stevenleser]

45. Actually, no, you don't know what won't be passed. That's my point.

You think Bernie won't negotiate at all and thus nothing will escape his desk that will upset you? First of all, you're wrong, but let's assume for a moment that you are right.

Great. He won't pass anything. If he doesn't offer to give something, Republicans won't work with him at all. Republicans will claim they tried to negotiate and he refused. And they will have the truth on their side. His popularity will plummet. Democrats in the House and Senate will likely turn their backs on him and offer to work with Republicans to get compromise legislation passed over his vetoes.

In the midterms, the Republicans will run against Bernie not working with them, and get veto-proof majorities that allow them to pass anything they want over his vetoes.

This academic discussion of what a Liberal is or isn't is only interesting to about 1% of the population. The rest doesn't care about that.

[DonCoquixote]

53. with all due respect

Great. He won't pass anything. If he doesn't offer to give something, Republicans won't work with him at all. Republicans will claim they tried to negotiate and he refused. And they will have the truth on their side. His popularity will plummet. Democrats in the House and Senate will likely turn their backs on him and offer to work with Republicans to get compromise legislation passed over his vetoes.

In the midterms, the Republicans will run against Bernie not working with them, and get veto-proof majorities that allow them to pass anything they want over his vetoes.


Do you honestly think they will NOT do that to Hillary? That is the GOP battleplan all along. Ronal Reagan could get elected and they will bleat this. Asfar as the truth. on their side, if the truth mattered to them and fox news, we would be in a different world.

In the midterms, the Republicans will run against Bernie not working with them, and get veto-proof majorities that allow them to pass anything they want over his vetoes.

Again, what makes you think they do not plan this with Hillary, especially since she is exactly the sort of person that Fox news knows how to explouit? If you think Hillary has some scarecorw like power to frighten away crows fat on Koch funds, and ferarful of losing those funds, you are still living in the 90s.

[geek tragedy]

12. it is rather rich to see people talking about how the Democratic party has traded economic

progressivism in for 'social issues'

No, the truth of the matter is that supporting civil rights is the true litmus test of any progressive, and any Democrat really. Necessary, but not sufficient. Democrats have always been heterodox on economic issues, largely because they represent different regions with different economic interests.

[seabeyond]

14. a couple threads made me realize yesterday. sj is not conversation for dems, but the nation, firstly

and that is what i count on the dems to do for me. start the conversation. repeatedly have these conversations. so the nation is having the conversation. we do not do this without a nation. not only dems.

second. why i really like this post, as the others that copied and pasted.

it is not about US joining with progressive. it is about the populist joining US.

for me, that was VERY bold.

can you tell. i love the bold.

and another point you made. after all this listening and discussing. one of the reasons i listen and discussed.

the party seems to be fighting a mentality of progressive vs populist. and i do mean a fighting within the party. like the .... teabagger. exactly like the OP i read in populist group. be the teabagger to the dems, that they were with the repugs.

i really find the ironic of using the trickle down economic part of the argument.

fascinating.

so, a lot has happened in a month of listening, discussing, processing.

[cali]

20. they are both vital and both inextricably entwined.

[seabeyond]

22. then let us, too, sit at the table and have a voice.

[geek tragedy]

23. yes and no--yes they are both vital but the economic issues are not necessarily intertwined

with the civil rights/justice issues.

From the 1880's until the 1960's or so, the Democratic party explicitly opposed civil rights for African Americans while pursuing economic policies that seem especially progressive by today's standards. That's how they kept the Dixiecrats in their coalition to pass populist economic measures. The Dixiecrats themselves--e.g. Maddox and Wallace--themselves drifted to the left on economics even while being repulsive racists.


Of course, the catch to that was that blacks didn't get to benefit from those policies.

[seabeyond]

25. i find the dynamics fascinating and so doable. i see the strong demand of the economic and

i see nothing but plus for social to elbow our way up to the table, and speak as one.

we have to understand. economic alone gives us nothing. if that is what we are after, at least, recognize the fact.

call it what it is.

[el_bryanto]

26. Necessary but not sufficient - that's completely right. nt

[NCTraveler]

31. Thanks for posting. I would have missed it if you wouldn't have shared.

There is one extremely popular op today that has me scratching my head wondering why lgbtq folks even post here. At the same time, I have watched and supported the movement for a long time. The people advocating for equal rights are some of the best and most relentless people you will find. They fight daily for incremental steps. Setback after setback and victory after victory they keep marching on. Meanwhile, their efforts are making the US a more compassionate and understanding country. They fight for friends, family, and complete strangers. They have enhanced the lives of all of us. The person you are using in the op is one of them.

[seabeyond]

34. +1. i feel the same. thanks nc... always. nt

[dawg]

38. I see this differently.

I see this as a choice between someone who will support social justice and someone who will support *both* social and economic justice.

Social justice comes easier to today's Democratic Party. It doesn't cost their wealthy donors any money.

[gollygee]

39. The Democratic Party has a history

for instance in the 30s, and the 50s, of working for economic justice but deliberately not extending it to members of oppressed groups. If not for that history, I might agree with you.

[dawg]

40. If you want to go back that far, we might as well all vote Republican.

Ending slavery and all.

Things changed in the 60's. All "those" Democrats became Republicans. Most of them were from the South.

[gollygee]

42. Liberals, including progressives and union organizers and leaders

did this. Both Republicans and Democrats fought economic justice for people of color and women, even as progressives fought for economic justice for white people. And the LGBT community has been hurt by members of both political parties until very recently, and even then the support from progressives seems shallow sometimes. There is no reason for people from any of those groups to believe anyone is on their side because of a desire for economic justice. We need social justice issues pushed every bit as strongly. We can not assume social justice issues are on anyone's radar, or that they have the same beliefs. I live in a state with a great number of anti-abortion liberals, since a lot of Catholics in Michigan have historically been pro-labor AND anti-abortion. And anti-LGBT rights as well. I make no assumptions as far as social justice issues go based on someone's political party.

[seabeyond]

44. for the last decade women say, you take our vote then walk away. with economic populist

it is being said before they get our vote.

a new one.

you said this well. thanks.

[dawg]

46. Which candidate in which election is walking away from women's issues?

Who is walking away from LGBT issues? Who is walking away from issues of racial equality?

No one as far as I can see.

The only issues I see candidates turning their backs on are economic issues. The whole "eat your peas" thing.

[closeupready]

47. No offense, seabeyond - love you for what you do here - but I don't get it.

I'm as queer as a 3 dollar bill, and the one you quote too often finds ways to make isolated topics about HIM and his gayness. I find that counterproductive.

I don't believe in taking this forum, DU, and dividing it into segments. We should all be working together here to not only make friends, but to support each other in pushing for progress on liberal and Democratic issues.

[seabeyond]

55. populist already/has been dividing. it is the rest of us asking, please allow us to be part of 2016

election.

i say ask... humbly. but the reality is we do not need permission, and we are not being shoved aside.

i agree. we should be working together. which is our whole point. and will continue to be.

i like you too....

it has been interesting. i find myself standing across the street holding up my signs, while a whole lot of my friends that i respect are on the other side of the street. i want to be on the same side of the street, all of us, shoulder to shoulder.

[closeupready]

56. Me too.

[seabeyond]

57. hey....

sigh

i will say this again. i have said it so many times, to so many people.

this is what scares too many opposing me and others.

i come from the heart. (watch, the same ole will jump in and roll their eyes, ridicule, scorn and mock. maybe even start a thread, specifically calling me out. and using that thread to say whatever nasty thing their heart, content). i find this period a HUGE opportunity in progression forward. the arguments are defined and clear to so many of us.

we know how to do this.

i come from the place of faith and confidence.

that is always a good place to be, for me. powerful!

we have clinton. we have sanders. two excellent places to be. both are professional, respectful, smart, capable, able and on the money. i enjoy listening to both. we have a bernie socialist. we have a clinton, woman. and you do not think that is not huge, in and of itself? so wrong. and watch.

i am in a good place for the next year and a half.

[Jamaal510]

49. K&R

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Damnnnnn ...

BNW just straight brought it!

It is white straight progressive populists who need the rest of us. The rest of us have each other and do not really need y'all. We want you to join up, but we will not be taking the back seats for you.

And the angst you smell is the clawing of some recognizing that the privilege that has served them so well is evaporating before their eyes.

Thank you for posting this ... I had been avoiding that thread.

[betsuni]

54. K&R