Where did the idea come from that support for a second New Deal means support for Jim Crow?

[Ken Burch]

Yes, Jim Crow was in place in the New Deal era.

No, no one who wants New Deal measures today is cool with that historical fact.

Due to the political and social conditions of America at that time, the original New Deal left out women and people of color and, like everything else in this country, discriminated horribly against LGBTQ people. All of us on the left know that. All of us condemn that. We all agree that that shouldn't have happened.

But there is no way that New Deal measures introduced today would be run like that.

We now have we civil rights laws(signed by Lyndon Johnson, a New Deal Dem)in place that would keep that from happening. The passage of New Deal-type economic and employment policies would not cause those laws to be repealed-that sort of devil's bargain simply isn't in the realm of human possibility anymore.

And it goes without saying that no one who wants a second New Deal would ever even want that to happen. There's no such thing as a left-of-center segregationist.

It's not as though FDR invented Jim Crow, or that Jim Crow could have been ended in the Thirties if only the New Deal hadn't been proposed, or that nominating someone more conservative than FDR would somehow led to the passage of a civil rights bill in 1933.

So can the idea that wanting a second New Deal somehow equates to wanting EVERYTHING from the 1930s back finally be put to rest?

[Voltaire2]

1. It is an attempt to poison a revival of progressivism in the Democratic Party

by dividing people by race. It's pretty vile.

[MrScorpio]

2. No, it's the truth... The Democratic Party changed under LBJ when he passed civil & voting rights

And the Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party because of that.

[Voltaire2]

5. first, LBJ was part of the New Deal era Democratic Party

that held power nationally from the 1930's until the end of the 60s. LBJ could not have passed the civil rights act in 1964 without the massive political victories of Roosevelt in the 30's.

Second the Dixicrats abandoned the Democratic Party in 1948 as New Deal president Truman initiated civil rights reforms. For the next 16 years New Deal Democrats struggled to end segregation in the courts and in congress and in the streets. Did you think it was perhaps Republicans who were doing this?

[Jim Lane]

16. That process of change also included Truman, Humphrey, and Kennedy

It was Truman who desegregated the armed forces in 1948. He was pushed further on the issue when the civil rights forces, with a young Hubert Humphrey as their leader, secured a strong civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, spurring the Dixiecrat walkout.

The party's support for civil rights caused the erosion and then collapse of what had been the "Solid South":

In the 1960 election, the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy, continued his party's tradition of selecting a Southerner as the vice presidential candidate (in this case, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas). Kennedy and Johnson, however, both supported civil rights. In October 1960, when Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia, Kennedy placed a sympathetic phone call to King's wife, Coretta Scott King, and Robert Kennedy helped secure King's release. King expressed his appreciation for these calls. Although King made no endorsement, his father, who had previously endorsed Republican Richard Nixon, switched his support to Kennedy.

Because of these and other events, the Democrats lost ground with white voters in the South, as those same voters increasingly lost control over what was once a whites-only Democratic Party in much of the South. The 1960 election was the first in which a Republican presidential candidate received electoral votes in the South while losing nationally. Nixon carried Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida. Though Kennedy also won Alabama and Mississippi, slates of unpledged electors, representing Democratic segregationists, would award those states’ electoral votes to Harry Byrd.

The parties' positions on civil rights continued to evolve in the run up to the 1964 election. The Democratic candidate, Johnson, who had become president after Kennedy's assassination, spared no effort to win passage of a strong Civil Rights Act of 1964. After signing the landmark legislation, Johnson said to his aide, Bill Moyers: “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.”[30]

In fact, although the OP is correct in generalizing that the New Deal left racial discrimination in place, even FDR played a role in the Democratic Party's shift. He signed an executive order "banning discriminatory employment practices by Federal agencies and all unions and companies engaged in war-related work," and he created the Fair Employment Practice Committee to enforce the order.

I'm absolutely not belittling LBJ's role in signing the Civil Rights Act, along with the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Nevertheless, other Democratic leaders deserve to share in the credit for the change.

[Blue_true]

35. Actually, it started to change big under Truman.

Truman integrated the military and forced inclusion of Blacks in programs that benefitted GI's like home loans, educational assistance. The first school equality efforts started under Truman and continued forward.

[Ken Burch]

41. Yes, but LBJ's anti-poverty programs were New Deal-like

And we didn't become less racist because our party became more fiscally and economically conservative.

[Voltaire2]

150. they were an extension of and the end of the New Deal Era.

His Great Society programs were the last major reform of the era.

[melman]

3. Yes

and yes.

[m-lekktor]

9. yep. They needed something to go after Bernie on during the primary. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

151. I didn't realized Sanders had already declared

His candidacy. Interesting.

[HughBeaumont]

20. Yes.

Apparently, Bernie supporters are enablers of racism. Or something.

[heaven05]

131. BS may not be a racist

yet the "enablers" were/are obvious from recent days gone past....no argument there on truth of that matter

[QC]

26. Bingo! This thread is finished. n/t

[elleng]

128. Yes it is.

[leftstreet]

135. +1

[melman]

4. Here's the thing

The people who try to push that shit are fundamentally dishonest. They know it's bullshit. So what's the use in trying to reason?

[Lee-Lee]

6. It's the common strategy of picking one thing to demonize

It's kind of a hybrid of the straw man fallacy and the boogeyman fallacy tactics.

If there was segregation during the New Deal and you can't attack the idea of what people are actually proposing you just pick the worst thing you can possibly associate with it and say that's what they must mean, trying to poison the idea by associating it with the most extreme bad thing even when you know that's not at all what people intent.

If someone wants to attack the idea of a new New Deal but can't argue the merits they just associate the idea with the worst possible thing then can tie to it and then shift the debate.

You see it all the time, sadly from our side of gen aisle as much as the other sometimes.


It's like people who oppose single payer health care immediately rushing to point at rationing in single payer systems or so-called "death panels" and shifting the debate only to that, ignoring all the other positive aspects. Then they make the debate all about that one thing.

Or what you see on here with the gun Prohibitionist crowd, if a person says they support concealed carry the anti-gun crowd immediately make the entire debate about George Zimmerman, 15,000,000+ people with CCW permits in the country and they reduce the debate to one dude because he's the easy target and they can easily demonize him instead of arguing the actual merits of the laws and policies.

[ehrnst]

13. Pointing out the shortcomings in an historical era doesn't "Poisoning" everything in that era.

That's the whole reaction to the Confederate Monument defense: You're trying to poison anything that southerners want to remember about that era with SLAVERY!

And no, I am not comparing The New Deal with Confederate monuments - let's kill that straw man before it starts...

I'm comparing the outsized responses of two groups who think that pointing out the very real aspects of discrimination of that era are "poisoning" it.

And if people are pointing those things out every time you bring up the subject, maybe it's you that needs to point out the shortcoming when you say, "Well, how could anyone possibly have a problem with the idea of repeating the New Deal?"

[melman]

14. "And no, I am not comparing The New Deal with Confederate monuments"

Except where you actually did.

[ehrnst]

17. Yep, and you did just what I said someone would who didn't get it.

[Lee-Lee]

24. Except they are not just pointing out shortcoming of the past

What they are doing is claiming that people who want to repeat the good ideas and success of the past are also, that somehow you can separate what was good and what worked from what was bad so that anyone who wants a modern New Deal somehow must want Jim Crow and segregation.

It's a dishonest way to attack the concept of a modern New Deal.

[ehrnst]

28. Can you provide a link to one of those posts? (nt)

[emulatorloo]

29. Link?

I have not seen this trend Ken is talking about.

[LanternWaste]

67. You'll of course, support your allegation with evidence and provide a link

You'll of course, support your allegation with evidence and provide a link that (even if creatively) illustrates your premise, yes?

Otherwise, one may be led to believe your post is a dishonest method of discussion.

[Ken Burch]

58. But nobody is denying the shortcomings of the Thirties.

It's just that, when people call for a second New Deal today, they would make sure those shortcomings wouldn't recur.

It's of historical importance, to make sure it doesn't recur, but it's not something anyone deserves to be accused of trying to replicate or being, and as a practical matter, there is no scenario in which any significant number of Congressmembers would vote for a second New Deal, but ONLY if those same exclusions occurred again. The type of politician that would do that-the Southern Democrat who wanted relief but only for the white people in his district or state-doesn't exist anymore.

It goes without saying that that wouldn't happen.

[ehrnst]

76. No, it doesn't go without saying that wouldn't happen.

Have you been watching the news lately?

a bi-racial kid got lynched.

Women's reproductive rights are being rolled back, state by state, and Dems are talking backing off protecting them, because "white male voters in the rust belt."

[Ken Burch]

108. That's horrible about the kid. And we need to protect choice But we have federal civil right laws.

Those laws cover any federal program.

It's not like those laws would be repealed.

We need to be vigilant about any possibility of the return of legal segregation.

That possibility doesn't exist within the realm of any future federal legislation, though-that's the difference.

[dsc]

114. we sure don't have those laws for gays

[Ken Burch]

119. And we need them. AFAIK, nobody on our side of the spectrum is minimizing the need for them.

We can't just hold off on any and all economic justice measures until ALL forms of social oppression are completely and permanently extinguished.

You're acting like there's a dispute, and there isn't one.

[dsc]

122. you made the claim that we don't have to worry about government programs discriminating

since we have civil rights laws. In point of fact, for the LGBT population we don't, and as recently as 2000 we had so called progressives with horrible records on gay rights (one example Kucinich). Frankly, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that we could see a fairly large number of legislators with fairly progressive views on economics but retrograde ones on especially abortion. I think in the health care realm in particular it is fair to be concerned with just what would and wouldn't be covered in those plans. In the UK, it is still impossible for many gay men to get Prep since the NHS won't provide it. But all of that said, the issue isn't that people are conflating progressive economics with Jim Crow but there is an issue with a not insubstantial number of people who seem to feel that if we have economic justice, social justice will just magically happen. FDR shows that is non sense.

[Ken Burch]

123. I take your point with regards to antidiscrmination measures for the LGBTQ community.

I was referring to people of color and women when I referenced the civil rights laws. Obviously federal LGBTQ measures are urgently needed. I never meant to imply that LGBTQ people are currently protected and I'm sorry I made it look like I was saying that. My bad.

And I think the overwhelming majority of people who back economic justice policies recognize that establishing economic justice doesn't, by itself, establish social justice-the "all will be taken care of come the revolution" type are not in a position to impose their delusions on the matter.

[Ken Burch]

106. Excellent analysis.

n/t.

[ms liberty]

7. K&R. n/t

[kentuck]

8. WTF?

[Lee Adama]

10. You CANNOT have economic justice until you establish Social Justice.

It's really self evident.

[ehrnst]

12. +1000 (nt)

[leftofcool]

15. Exactly!

[loyalsister]

43. We aleggedly have had both

Or maybe not so much. The line of think that drives the division that benefits the oligarchy and oppresses people economically is rooted in slavery. Poor whites simulatneously held elevated and oppressed status. They were told then, as they are now, that people of color would take their jobs if slavery ended. The message that people of color will take what belongs to them sends the message that their rightful superior status is compromised. Not by wealthy white people, but by people of color. Say, blacks and whites come together. Is there really a belief that income inequality will be instantly eliminated? If everyone is doing okay financially does centuries worth of racial resentment disappear?

Ending social injustice does not end economic injustice any more than the reverse. They are intrinsically related, and if we abandon one for the other get neither. Neither the New Deal, nor the Civil Rights Act fixed everything. We're still having a backlash against both. But, there are white people who will accept being poor and treated like crap by other white people as long as they are viewed as superior to someone. That's how LGBT get into the mix. Notice how the strategy is to convince people that transsexuals cost more money. Attacking medicaid has always been about the money. White middle class people have practically been trained to believe that the majority of recipients are people of color. And, there is propaganda claiming that immigrants are eligible for social services.

[guillaumeb]

62. An excellent response.

It would also be an excellent stand alone post.

[heaven05]

132. this

[Ken Burch]

139. Wonderful post.

n/t.

[clu]

52. in all honesty

keep in mind that I could probably think of at least three concrete examples of current social injustice - what are the biggest examples of social injustice experienced by POC? note that the most competent member on my team at work (somewhat technical) was a Kenyan woman. what this implies to me is that there is some measure of equality between both race and gender in some white and black populations.

[KitSileya]

81. Or maybe she would be your boss if she wasn't Kenyan or a woman.

Ever thought about that?

[clu]

88. no my boss for a time there was also black

he's in a different department now - he gave me a few good raises he's a good guy

edit- i don't think she wanted to work management though - she works at another tech company. is there anything else you'd like to assume?

[KitSileya]

130. I'm not assuming anything. You are presuming lots, though.

For example, it is typical for women to claim not to want to leadership positions because of the extra work women have to do to get half the respect mediocre men get by default, not to mention the fact that women usually have lots of extra work at home, both household chores and emotional labor. You assume she didn't want to work management - did you ask her?

[Ken Burch]

138. Perhaps. And don't assume clu doesn't see an injustice in that fact.

n/t.

[KitSileya]

146. There was not a hint of that in the post, Ken.

Don't you go assuming things not in evidence.

[Ken Burch]

59. We can't totally establish social justice first, in complete isolation from economic justice.

We all agree we need both-but they need to go together.

And there's not going to be people in Congress who'd vote for what YOU would call social justice but not economic justice.

And economic justice, today, would never be whites-only.

[Lee Adama]

60. "And economic justice, today, would never be whites-only. "

I completely disagree.

[Ken Burch]

64. The reason that happened in the Thirties was that the Democratic congressional leadership

of that era were segregationists.

We don't have any segregationists in our congressional leadership today-nobody would be taking the position that they'd let economic justice measures pass, but only if people of color were excluded from them.

And the civil rights laws that exist now and didn't exist in the Thirties would make it essentially impossible to exclude people of color from any federal program.

Also, a Congress that would pass New Deal measures would also pass any anti-discrimination legislation anyone introduced, and probably pass it earlier than the economic justice legislation.

[Lee Adama]

70. "We don't have any segregationists in our congressional leadership today"

Baloney. The entire Republican leadership is segregationist bigoted assholes. Eery last one, and THEY control what comes to a vote and what doesn't

[Ken Burch]

73. I meant the Democratic congressional leadership

I wasn't letting the GOP off the hook on that.

They are the Party of Spencer now.

Nothing Democrats want would pass THIS congress, and I never meant to imply that anything would.

[Lee Adama]

74. And that brings us back to the fact that there can be NO Economic Justice without Social Justice

Thank you for bringing us directly back to the exact point I was making.

[ehrnst]

92. Social justice issue drive economic justice for those who aren't white straight men

You think that economic justice came with desegregation?

Think again.

[Lee Adama]

99. Since there has never been true desegregation

there can never be true economic justice.

[Ken Burch]

109. There's no difference between doing both at at the same time, which we would do

And doing the social justice stuff first-or at least the timid, essentially conservative version of the term "social justice" we have now-in the past it always included social spending and programs rather than nothing besides rights legislation. Putting it all through at the same time would be the same thing.

Nobody who backs economic justice is saying we shouldn't pass social justice measures, or only pass them after the economic justice measures.

All of on the Left are for passing any antidiscrimination and antirepression measures that were introduced, and quickly.

[Lee Adama]

113. The only candidate I have ever heard that from is Hillary Clinton.

I suspect Gillibrand or Harris will be up on using social justice to achieve economic justice in 2020.

Doesn't seem to me that you and I will ever agree on how to achieve both.

[Ken Burch]

124. We both want both. And Bernie wanted both as much as Hillary.

And we need to put the Hillary V. Bernie thing in the past. It shouldn't matter anymore which side folks were on in that.

And if there were people in Congress who wouldn't vote for antiracist measures, they wouldn't vote for economic justice programs anyway.

I agree that we need social justice-and NOW. We need economic justice, too-and NOW. As I see it, they are distinct, but they are related(as the concept of "intersectionality" teaches). One of the reasons I've emphasized economic justice as a condition for social justice is that, in my experience, backlash against social justice is caused, as often as anything else, by the fear that gains for people helped by social justice measures somehow mean losses for those who weren't historically oppressed. I just felt that if we had both kinds of justice measures in place, the fear of falling into want that drives a lot of the backlash would vanish. It wouldn't end all of it, but it would make a major difference.

Without social democratic measures, without a right to a basically decent standard of living, people will always be played off against each other by race.

But while you think we disagree on priorities, I hope you can accept that we seek the same goal: justice for all.

[Lee Adama]

125. That's not what I get from Sanders. He is all about economic justice & nothing about social justice

That continues to be his stance from where I sit..

[ehrnst]

143. Tell that to those who are yelling at anyone who won't sponsor "Medicare for all." (nt)

[ehrnst]

80. Again... have you seen the news? Dems are waffling on whether women's health care

is worth fighting for when it comes to funding candidates.

[JI7]

89. Womens health clinics are being shut down

Hispanics deported. Muslims banned . blacks shot and shooters set free by jury.

[ehrnst]

94. Until women have Choice, there is no economic justice for them.st

No matter what the minimum wage is - if your boss is allowed to fire you, or prohibit you from taking maternity leave, or get coverage for childbearing, there is no economic justice for you.

No, economic justice for some often comes at the cost of social justice for others.

In Europe, there is homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, islamophobia - even in countries with universal health care and wage equity. I don't trust anyone who says, "Social justice always comes hand in hand with economic justice." We don't get fooled again.

[Ken Burch]

97. A tiny handful are waffling. But choice, at this point, isn't covered by federal civil rights laws

Those laws would make it impossible to create whites-only economic justice programs.

And everyone advocating such programs is antiracist, so who'd even try to do anything like that?

[ehrnst]

144. A very public and vocal group is advocating for waffling. One of whom is the most vocal of all.

Not a Democrat, mind you, but one who feels that he should be directing Democratic strategy. He's been saying it for years, and is at the forefront of the "economic justice will make those identity politics moot."

Which is directly contradicted in US history and current events in Europe where wage equity and universal health coverage exists.

What programs are you talking about when you say, "And everyone advocating such programs is antiracist, so who'd even try to do anything like that?"

Can you clarify?

[ehrnst]

93. Reps were racist because people electing them were racist - not vice versa. (nt)

[Ken Burch]

100. There was a lot of racism-but if it hadn't been for the Southern committee chairs

FDR wouldn't have excluded blacks and women from the New Deal bills.

And it goes without saying that no Democratic president or congress would exclude women from such legislation now.

The civil rights legislation we now have in place would make that impossible.

And anyone in OUR party who proposed such legislation would be committed to preventing exclusions based on race or gender or any other identity-based factor.

[ehrnst]

79. You mean economic justice for white working class men.

Because when it happens to them, then EVERYBODY thinks there's a problem.

Is that what you mean?

Or are you saying that keeping health care specific to women, or adding LGBTQs as a class of people protected from workplace harassment can't be established without a specific guaranteed $15 minimum wage at the same time?

Tell me that these men would have totes gotten economic justice waiting around for whatever the term "economic justice" means to straight white men, who were in the golden age of labor, and had "economic justice" as defined by those who say unions were the source of economic justice.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_sanitation_strike

As long as social issues drive economic issues, we will not wait for so-called economic justice for white straight men as some sort of green light.


If women, gays and people of color are legally discriminated against, there is no economic justice forthcoming, even if there is a strong labor movement for white men. The crap that the only universal issues are those that affect white straight men needs to be called out for what it is.

[Ken Burch]

101. I mean economic justice for ALL-I've never meant it exclusively for white men.

And I've never tolerated women, gays and people of color being discriminated against.

You make it sound like there's this large number of people saying that women, people of color and gays should shut up and wait.

Nobody's saying that.

I meant do both things at once.

[ehrnst]

142. So now you understand that people can indeed say that the New Deal was made smoother by

Jim Crow and segregation, and limiting the programs to exclude women and people of color without saying that the New Deal was = to Jim Crow...


Besides, "economic issues" are driven by social justice issues when you are not a man, and often you must deal with the social justice issues before economic issues can be addressed.

No $15 minimum wage will help out a woman who can't get parental leave to care for her newborn and recover.

[heaven05]

105. BS

period

[heaven05]

133. they WON'T go together

Last edited Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

this is an ameriKKKa that won't let go of it's white privilege and entitlement and that still treats those AA who are well off as n******s and have been for generations. Black post civil war farmers who were well off did not stay that way for long and most ended up at the end of a klan rope. People who think racism will be ended by a combination of BS inspired words based on economic and social parity are deluded.

"RACISM IS AS AMERIkkkAN as apple pie" and NO amount of economic equality will ever get rid of it. And anyone who believes that is not being truthful to themselves.....racism must go before any level of equality can be gained economically. Economic justice is always a given for most whites and always has been IF they choose to take advantage of it. No amount of money stops a racist person from hating. And if that black person has more than them in ameriKKKa he/she is hated and feared just that much more. This economic parity talk in helping to end racism is just self-serving BS.

Synopsis: easy for you and the others to say...you still wouldn't be able to live as an AA in ameriKKKa after your "pie in the sky" illusions somehow become reality....period

[Fresh_Start]

78. +1000 nt

nt

[DemocraticWing]

145. How in the hell are these two things separate?

I'm queer and I'm struggling to figure out how social justice for people like me can be addressed in a non-economic way. If I'm discriminated against in the workplace or the housing market, I am fundamentally a victim of an economic process. Passing laws is *good* but it hasn't solved the problem, people still face discrimination and the government finds it difficult to investigate. You know what helps queer people defend ourselves? Institutions like labor unions and tenant's unions!

Marginalized people make less money than privileged people. How are we gonna fix that? We should pass laws, yes, but how are we going to disempower bigots? By transferring the ownership of workplaces, housing, common good, public services, etc. into the hands of workers and the community. Medicare for All is but one part of a program that would immensely help queer people like me, you ever hear that my community has worse health outcomes than straight people? It's true, at least partially because we are poorer and also because of discrimination, and free healthcare would help a whole hell of a lot!

I can keep going. Free college would be huge for queer kids who want to escape their homophobic families but can't pay for college without their parents support.

This idea that some forms of Justice are separate from another is so disingenuous! It's meant to sell a weak form of "social justice" that means diversifying the ruling class. Social justice for the bourgeoisie and nothing at all for the rest of us. None of us are free until we are all free.

[ehrnst]

11. It's not an actual idea, it's a huge misunderstanding of the point that is made that

the New Deal did indeed involve segregation in programs, and didn't include women and POC in many of the training for trades. To remind people of that when they wax nostalgic about previous eras where white men got the vast majority of any job assistance isn't equating "The New Deal" with "Jim Crow."

A "New New Deal" would have to significantly deal with a labor force that is much larger, much more diverse, and that would mean it would be more complicated. It's another way of saying that throwing around the term "New Deal" doesn't conjure up halcyon images of those WPA murals for everyone.

Same goes for the golden age of labor, when we had strong labor Unions. Pointing out that Unions in that era kept women and POC out of the best jobs, isn't saying that support for strengthening labor in 2017 means support for discriminatory practices.

I hope that clarifies things.

[FakeNoose]

18. +1

The New Deal of the 1930's is long gone, but it did have its purpose and it did achieve good things during its time.

If there is ever a need for another economic recovery program in the scale of the New Deal, I believe the Democratic Party will step up to the task. However I believe that any 21st century "New Deal" program (if it should be needed) would look vastly different from the old one.

It's not helpful that people are going around shooting the idea down before it has even been proposed.

[melanctha]

45. New Democrats Different Deal.

When Obama circled the country twice asking for support for jobs and infrastructure bills, people on these boards were still obsessing about Snowden, TARP, Single Payer and any number of petty issues that had been resolved or should have been ignored (Snowden). Now when all of these choices are out of the foreseeable future because of the debacle that was the last election, some want to argue New Deal. The New Deal was rooted in discrimination and racism in its' politics. The New Deal became part of America's original sin. In order for FDR to push his plan forward, he did as our founding fathers did when writing the constitution and discussing slavery, he promised to deliberately keep blacks out of its' successes and progress for votes and party unity. So to call for New Deal politics for a jobs and infrastructure bill and to keep claiming FDR pulled American workers out of poverty is at best tone deaf. To call Bernie Sanders an FDR Democrat is dismissive of black and women workers. Add that to Bernie's insistence that somehow white working and rural men have been neglected by the Democratic party thereby ignoring the natural ascendence of blacks and women within the party and reducing it to identity politics. White men abandoned the party because of civil rights legislation. They were not expelled and no one wanted them to leave. Johnson and Nixon both understood the significance of that split. Nixon developed the "Southern Strategy" which was based on agitating, animating and empowering white racism. Claiming to be a New Deal Democrat sticks in the craw of a lot of Democrats. Democrats are no longer an exclusive white male party that void has been filled. Any jobs bill now has to express New Democrats. No one has to dismiss FDR just don't glorify the New Deal and insist on pushing it in the faces of what is now the Democratic party. New Democrats are most importantly inclusive. I, as a Democrat, greatly admire FDR and the New Deal theoretically, but I am very clear about whom he felt he had to sacrifice for the New Deal's passage. Jobs bills are great and all Democrats and their platforms call for them but there is a reason it is not labeled or compared to FDR's New Deal.

[clu]

54. have you seen killer mike's monologue on bernie sanders?

in all honestly focusing any more on race will turn some americans off - believe that. and no, just because they're turned off does not mean they're racist.

[melanctha]

83. Not focusing on race but blacks and women make up large part of the democratic party.

Those focusing on race are those who resent their presence and leadership positions. I remember that young woman who interrupted Hillary. She was asked to let Hillary speak. That is a perfect example of taking something out context and spinning a false narrative. I am black and Killer Mike is ignorant and ahistorical. He knows nothing. Hillary was working for black people when Bernie was in Vermont chasing white flight and not civil rights. He was not embedded in the south, he was at the University of Chicago fighting to desegregate dorms. He didn't do years in the movement. Hillary has been a fixture at black events, churches and colleges and universities over the years. Listen to her Wellesley valedictory speech. She has been a presence in black communities and a witness to their struggle, not Bernie.

My point was not that. My point is that the hegemony and the general makeup of the democratic party has changed. There is an historical struggle in this country against racism and misogyny with blacks and women at the helm dating back to early American history and abolition. We are comrades in that struggle. There were always free thinking white males in and as leaders in that struggle. The party is no longer a white male hegemony and we are not going backwards. We would welcome a larger white male presence but we will not pander to white racists. We are here get use to it.

[clu]

85. so he moved to vermont

but his participation in the civil rights protest is meaningless? again, as a non-black POC, maybe i don't see racism as often as others. i worth with a lot of blacks. i know it still exists but i know a few successful blacks so i'm not aware of any aspects of the govt that require legislation to change in order to bring about more social justice. that's fine if the democratic demographic has changed - big deal. tell me what other social justice legislation is needed? post#10 here says economic justice is secondary to social justice.

[melanctha]

95. Historical context American history

I was responding to a reply to my comment. It is not about social justice other than any new New Deal would be inclusive and that would be baked in any jobs bill under dems. I was putting things in historical context. This struggle began with the county's founding. You don't have to be black American to see or understand racism. I haven't lived a life dominated with racial epithets. I grew up well off so that is not the point. Racist have plenty to go around, I am sure there are some nasty words for your ethnic group.

[JHan]

32. Excellent post erhnst, can't recommend it enough.

[Ken Burch]

66. And all of us agree with you on that.

Nobody is claiming the New Deal era was flawless, and any New Deal measures introduced today would have to comply with federal civil rights legislation and anti-discrimination guidelines.

What would it take to reassure everyone who raises this issue that the exclusion of people of color and women would not recur?

And that nobody who supports such measures wants those exclusions to recur?

[ehrnst]

82. Nobody is claiming that the same 1930s Jim Crow laws will come back in the

Last edited Tue Sep 12, 2017, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

form they took the minute that the legislation is announced.....

I think we can all agree on that.

It's like the discussions of renaming a library or high school after someone that in the current day is remembered for segregation.

Nobody thinks that keeping the name will mean that students will be excluded because of color. No one would need to be re-assured of that.

People who think that those past issues have no impact on today might argue to keep the school name.

The reminders about the New Deal are in response to posts that ask, "Who on earth would be opposed to New Deal programs - because they were so popular in the 30's, that means the would likely be just as popular."

And yes, many people would wonder at job programs that would put many of the "white working class rust belt" demographic under the perview of a woman or a person of color, let alone an openly gay man or a woman in a Hijab - who was working for the government - which would *never* have been an issue in a segregated WPA workforce. Yes, the 30's had ways of keeping the racists away from all the other people who would now need to be in the mix with the white working class men. That would need some real re-working and planning.

The segregationists policies that helped to make it go more smoothly - if less effectively for POC - would not return, but as we have seen in the news, much of the racial and misogynistic feelings are still there to have to deal with.

And the hatred of "big Government" by those working class white rust belt men is way deeper than it was in the 1930's.

Pointing out the differences and similarities in the culture of then and now is a very neccessary part of the discussion.

[Ken Burch]

103. It's not just white men who work in the Rust Belt

Plenty of people of color, including the majority of people of color who are women, have been screwn over by the post-1981 economic changes. They would benefit from economic justice program, too.

Also, it's really demagogic to imply that a working-class white person is going to be driven by racism more than anything else. How does it help to work from that assumption? What chance does assuming that give us of ever breaking the backlash cycle? How do we ever end social oppression if we DON'T break that cycle?

I agree that we always need to be vigilant about anything that could exclude historically oppressed communities-but how does acting like no one who proposes economic justice programs can ever be trusted not to be indifferent to racism and sexism aid in that goal? What good comes of basically just saying "you're NOT on our side!" to anyone who talks about income inequality, mass layoffs, outsourcing, or corporate greed? Is there no way to be vigilant but still give people at least some benefit of the doubt, and at least not acting like none of the have listened to what's been said so far and incorporated the critiques in what they propose?

And do rank-and-file economic justice advocates-not talking about Bernie on this, but the kind of folks who organized against TPP and were part of Occupy truly deserve to continually be told "you STILL don't get it!" in response to issues like this?

Finally, with the federal civil rights laws we have, how would it even be possible to create federal economic justice policies that were white males-only?

[HughBeaumont]

19. I always thought Libertarians and AnCaps were the group of FDR Revisionists.

Guess it's nice to expand that pseudo-history in our party.

[disillusioned73]

21. It's a distraction..

plain & simple, disengenious detractors of FDR.. they want to get into the weeds in order to not discuss single payer( among other fundemental Democratic principles started under FDR) and championed by other honorable Dems as stated by many here..

[Demsrule86]

23. We should discuss the health care we can get now...the ACA with a public option down the road. The

single payer hysteria is foolish...it will turn some against us and make others angry when we fail to get it which we most certainly will for the next few years.

[disillusioned73]

25. All things have a starting point..

representatives have to feel compelled by their constituents to do the right thing - that is what is happening, & it is glorious to see.

When things are dismissed as "pie-in-the-sky", most uninformed voters just take it at face value.. that idea has runs it's coarse at this point, even the ill or uninformed are waking up to the con job that has been run on us..

[Demsrule86]

27. When there is no chance of getting it for the foreseeable future and every chance that support for

it is weak in red states and especially in states where the gerrymander is slipping in some districts... where the ACA is familiar and well liked. It is stupid to introduce it now. We could lose our ability to retake the House.

[disillusioned73]

30. I don't intend to be rude..

but it's your prevailing attitude that slows down progress, all big ideas seem impossible at first.. the monumental task of pushing this country to a single payer (or whatever one wants to call it) system is not going to happen over night.. yes, this bill will be shelfed/ destroyed by the Repubs in power.. but isn't that the point of politics sometimes?? to show the American people that the one party has a plan & the other doesn't.. it's why the ACA "repeal & replace" effort failed - their lack of a fundemental & realistic plan, the ACA was a rightwing wet dream that they could never get passed on their own (once upon a time).. they really don't want to change a thing, they want things to stay as is or get worse..

Contrast for the 2018 & 2020 elections are needed, this is a huuuge contrast to a fundemental issue and if Dems want a surge in new voters that may have sat it out in 2016 this may be one of the driving forces going forward..

[Demsrule86]

96. There is no chance for progress as the GOP won't even bring it to the floor...

If we had it all, I still think it would be a heavy lift and if f you want to see what can happen, read up on Hillarycare...The ACA is all we have now...all we may have for a long time...fix it or we have nothing...you will need a super majority...Democrats can't pass them now and I don't mean to be rude but that is a fact. Give me a reasonable scenario of how this bill makes it in the House and the Senate.

[Demsrule86]

22. I read these threads, and no one said that. However, the idea that the 'new deal' was the be all

end all is false. We need to find our own solutions...and to tout economics at the expense of social justice is wrong and would be detrimental to our party...it is also just plain immoral. Roosevelt did in fact lack the courage to attack Jim Crow...that is a historical fact. Eleanor was better on this issue. This idolization of Roosevelt is foolish ...different time and different circumstances. And it wasn't just the Jim crow aspect...but consider the Japanese interment in camps during the war, and the fact their property was stolen...truly awful...so while the new deal did in fact save the country, and I admire Roosevelt for the good things he did ,no man is perfect. He was a flawed individual, but as often happen despite his shortcomings, He changed the country for the better.

[DBoon]

31. organized labor supported The Democratic Party during the New Deal decades

The progressive unions of the CIO provided the funding and manpower for the party from the 1930s through the 1970s.

When unions seriously declined in the 1980s finance stepped into the void and replaced labor.

The new financial backers don't want to see a return to the regulations and taxes of the New Deal supported by a new generation of ptogressives.

[Expecting Rain]

33. Were did the idea that isolationism-nativism-populism-protectionism-and anti-capitalism...

all positions explicitly rejected by FDR (and embraced by his opponents) should serve as some sort of "legitimate" basis for a New New Deal come from?

FDR thoroughly rejected this agenda during his day.

Now people who have picked up the mantle of FDRs opponents (people FDR considered dangerous demagogues) want to cast their movement as somehow an extension of his?

Balderdash!

FDR was a liberal capitalist who instituted reform to save a free market economy from the twin evils of fascism and socialism.

The notion that a modern day socialist revolutionary movement in this country can wear the mantle of FDR is a ludicrous proposition. Yet they try.

Un-fucking-believable!

[white_wolf]

36. Except Sanders, despite his title, isn't a socialist in the sense FDR understood the term

He's a Social Democrat much closer to the policies found in the Nordic countries than the USSR.

[Expecting Rain]

48. Nor was Huey "Share the Wealth/Every Man A King" Long, who was FDR's mortal enemy.

Both Long and his spiritual successor embrace a number of conservative stances including populist appeals to the white working class that didn't appear inclusive to black Americans.

Social Democrats in the Nordic countries don't engage in class warfare or seek to divide their countries by undermining social cohesion. FDR didn't go in for that sort of populism, nor do the Nords.

The Nords love their wealth generating industries as they are aware that that's how they pay for the generous social programs they favor.

Comparisons between some and either FDR or the Nords is quite inapt.

[white_wolf]

69. Name one conservative stance Sanders supports

You won't be able to and to smear him as some sort of race-baiting populist is petty and divisive. I'm sure the GOP appreciates it, though.

[Blue_true]

34. Blacks benefitted little from the New Deal.

FDR would not even integrate the military. Blacks started to see real progress under Truman, who integrated the military and forced inclusion of Black GIs in the GI Bill programs.

[dembotoz]

38. so blacks don't get social security? i did not know that

[Blue_true]

39. Not when SS was implemented.

You need to study history. Blacks got included in SS in the early 50's to a small extent. The big change came in the 60's when Blacks got fully brought in to the program. The delay of 25+ years is important economically.

[Ken Burch]

51. And we all agree that it was wrong that people of color were left out of the original New Deal

And I think everyone recognizes that that DID happen.

All of those exclusions happened because most committee chairs in Congress in that era were Southern segregationists. We don't have anybody like that in the party today. If we retook Congress, we would do so without anyone like that

What needs to be said to satisfy everyone that the betrayal of the Thirties couldn't possibly be repeated? That that is the past, not the future, with this party?

[dembotoz]

77. guess we need to tear down the fdr statues along with the other confederate generals

oh wait......

[Warpy]

104. And they didn't get a living minimum wage

like everybody else did, even though their job titles were so horribly restricted? Household service was exempted, thanks to the south, but other jobs were supposed to pay at least that much. They didn't?

I didn't know that, either.

The things you learn from history books vetted by Texas.

And there doesn't seem to be any way to get facts past any of them.

[dsc]

117. to be clear

It wasn't that blacks were banned from Social Security but that many blacks were defacto banned since their occupations weren't included. Domestic workers for example weren't originally part of social security and neither were farm workers to give two examples of occupations which were made up mainly of African Americans and were excluded from Social Security. But if a black person worked at say a bank, they did get Social Security.

[former9thward]

126. Do you think the occupations not covered were random?

The occupations not covered were occupations made up of minorities and women.

[Ken Burch]

49. That is right. And that shouldn't have happened.

Not only would that not happen again now(the Civil Rights Acts would prevent it), but nobody on our side of the spectrum even wants that to happen again.

That was a wrong of the past.

[Blue_true]

149. Ken, you seem like a decent person. I know you and I disagree on some issues.

The problem that I have with many progressives who hold the New Deal up as panacea is they are looking at things through rose colored glasses. Whole classes of Americans were LEFT OUT OF THE NEW DEAL ON PURPOSE. FDR actually did little to challenge deeply embedded inequities in American society, Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson did far more once that held the Presidency. Don't get me wrong, we need greater distribution of wealth today, things as they are have gone beyond gross. But as we do that, we must have a clear picture of the past, because if we don't we end up fighting eachother over principles that we fundamentally share the same viewpoint on.

[Ken Burch]

152. OK. Those are valid points.

And I think that the people who use the New Deal as an example are aware of that and are committed to making sure that those exclusions, which are unforgiveable, are not repeated.

I think that Bernie used the New Deal as his model because it seemed to be a good shorthand way to describe the basic idea of where he was going...he was clearly never going to repeat the exclusions-the civil rights laws we have on the books would make such exclusions impossible now, as far as I know, and even the House and Senate GOP leaders wouldn't be reckless enough to try to repeal those laws.

Also, the people who would support using the New Deal model, in a modernized form, today can be assumed, as mainly young progressives, to be antiracist and antioppression.

If the term "New Deal" itself is offensive to women of people of color, would "a bigger Great Society, and no Vietnam" be an acceptable alternative?

[Blue_true]

154. New Deal as a name is acceptable.

But the people proposing it have to be clear, women, POC, Muslims, LGBTQ are full members on the boat. There cannot be playing footsie with voters that are fundamentally opposed or mostly are opposed to rights for everyone.

[Ken Burch]

155. For too many, it is impossible to separate the New Deal label from 1930's racism and sexism

While it is obvious that people who use that name as a label for what they support would make sure the exclusions and omissions of the past would not be repeated, the name itself seems to destroy trust in any such assurances-it ends up sabotaging itself.

Another name is needed that doesn't carry all that historical/emotional freight.

But that doesn't mean scrapping the radical hope and ambition behind the name. Those remain valid.

[MineralMan]

37. Who has written anything of the sort on DU?

Perhaps I missed it, somehow, so if you could provide a link, I'd appreciate it.

[Ken Burch]

42. You haven't, but it has come up a lot.

All through the primaries, when Bernie said his program was like the New Deal, he was accused, and his supporters were accused, of somehow wanting Jim Crow back as well.

It's almost impossible to find links to past DU threads by subject now, but those threads were here and the accusation was here.

We ALL agree that the way people of color and women were treated in the 1930s was indefensible.

[MineralMan]

44. As I said, I have not seen such at thing on DU.

I have not seen that idea expressed here. Unless I am shown someone writing that on DU, I do not believe it happened, but is something you may be imagining.

[TCJ70]

46. This is pretty close:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10027979332

Specifically:

Many people seem to be stuck on FDR nostalgia and try to use it to lure black voters into their camp. I am posting this to explain why we black folks are MOSTLY NOT nostalgic for FDR and why claiming to be an FDR Democrat just gets them the side eye, rather than the utmost adoration that many seem to think they deserve for being so 'progressive'.

The history isn't wrong, but the suggestion that anyone claiming to like New Deal policies deserves scrutiny is there. I know this post is a year old, but it was a common theme during the primaries and used against the Bernie people almost exclusively. Like they didn't care about black people because of the focus on economic policies and things like universal healthcare.

[TCJ70]

47. Here's another, more recent, example:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017454070#post1

[MineralMan]

50. Both of your examples are of people saying that we need

a solution for today, not just a rehash of a solution from the 30s. We don't need the New Deal. We need a deal that is new and appropriate for our current situation.

FDR did things for his time. This is a new time, and his example is dated and no longer applicable.

It is not a new FDR we need. We need leadership that is up to date and current. FDR is long dead. I'm 72 years old and was born after he died. We do not live in FDR's United States any longer. We need a new Democratic change, not a copy of an old one, as good as it was for many people.

[melman]

53. They're not just saying that

and you know they're not just saying that. Your game is obvious.

[MineralMan]

56. I'm saying that. I have been saying that for a long time.

I'm playing no game at all. I want change, and I want change that benefits everyone, both socially and economically in equal proportions. I do not want just an economic revival, but a social revival, as well.

FDR did a good job in overhauling economic matters during the Great Depression. On the social side, he did precious little. We do not need a repeat of that kind of change, but a comprehensive change in all areas, simultaneously.

FDR would not be up to the job in 2016 or 2020. He was President in a time before all of us were born. We need change for today, and a completely new approach to that change. Building on solutions from the past is not going to get it.

That's what people are saying, and it's what other people are not listening to.

[Ken Burch]

61. And there's no possibility that New Deal-type measures passed today would exclude people of color

We all agree that the failings of the Thirties on race must not be repeated-and there's no chance they would be.

There's no disagreement at all on that.

And the conditions that caused those betrayals in that era are not going to recur.

The exclusions of people of color and women(and domestic laborers of any race) happened because FDR had to get his legislation past Southern segregationist committee chairs to get it passed.

If we regained majorities in Congress, there wouldn't be anyone like that-the sort of person who would approve social spending, but only if it was whites only-in any position of power in the congressional leadership.

It's not that people aren't listening, it's that everyone's already in agreement that that must not happen.

[TCJ70]

55. You have easily movable goal posts...

...this "conversation" is over. If you want to ignore the proof...go for it.

[Ken Burch]

72. OK, modernize it-but that doesn't have to mean settling for smaller programs

of smaller ambition.

A second New Deal wouldn't be exactly like the original. It would be non-exclusive, it would have take historic oppression into consideration.

The most important thing in the idea of a second New Deal is that it would focus on coming as close as possible to ending both want and fear of falling into want-this is important to reducing white backlash, because since the mid-60s, white backlash has been fed, especially in the North, by the belief that any economic gain, any improvement at all in the condition of people of color somehow has to mean that white people will lose ground.

In addition, the need to end want matters for all, because all of us are part of the economy and are affected by inequities within it-and in the case of women, LGBTQ people, and people of color affected more deeply by the interaction between greed and bigotry.

And if people are in any sense on the progressive side of the spectrum, they can be assumed to be at significantly aware of our country's racial history or easily brought up to speed on anything they need to know about it but haven't yet been taught.

There simply isn't a huge dividing line between people working for "social justice" and people working for "economic justice"-all essentially agree on the agenda.

[Ken Burch]

57. It's all over the 2016 forum.

Would you agree that there is no possibility that a second New Deal would end up excluding people of color or women?

[melman]

40. lol at the people asking for links

First, they know linking to posts like that is considered a call out.

Second, could they be any more disingenuous? The way they pretend to have never seen this stuff is truly

Third. Try the 2016 primary forum. There's a shit-ton of it in there

[GulfCoast66]

63. No one is saying that.

But some of us can't help noticing that those who repeatedly bring up FDR as a shining example for today never or seldom bring up LBJ, a president who actually did something for the base of our party.

Just saying

[Ken Burch]

68. OK. LBJ did a lot of excellent things domestically.

On civil rights, he can be called the Second Lincoln(and in that analogy, MLK would be the second Frederick Douglass, to say the least).

In his case, the legacy is clouded by the unjustified decision to escalate in Vietnam.

And he also just doesn't get talked about as much as FDR.

LBJ basically created non-racist, non-exclusive New Deal programs, which proves that programs like that don't have to replicate the failings of the past.

[JI7]

90. And fdr had japanese internment

[Ken Burch]

107. And LBJ had a segregationist past and what he did to Vietnam.

n/t.

[JI7]

110. On economic justice he included all and the fact you dismisd

It while being ok with fdr says a lot to me about how much interest you actually have in economic justice for those who did not have it before civil rights.

[Ken Burch]

112. I praised LBJ for the good that he did. It's not LBJ Vs. FDR.

And I've never once said it was ok that FDR's programs excluded blacks or women.

I've simply said that wouldn't happen today if anyone introduced programs modeled on the New Deal.

We have federal civil rights legislation...we didn't have that in the 1930s. The existence of that legislation would guarantee that the exclusions of the Thirties won't be replicated.

There's no debate here. No one on this page or this site or on any part of the left is arguing for whites-only economic justice policies.

[GulfCoast66]

127. You said it...he does not get talked about as much which is surprising

Since you self identified progressives like to push Medicare for all. You know, Medicare. That LBJ signed into law.

So the president that not only did more since Lincoln for the current base of our part but the one that passed the first attempt at a national health care plan. And you do not to talk about him as much as FDR. Puzzling.

[Ken Burch]

136. Look, I just now praised the guy. Why are you sniping at ME on this?

I've always given him credit on domestic policy.

He listened to the black freedom movement and did get Medicare through.

It's not the fault of the left that LBJ doesn't get talked about. We didn't put out some order never to mention the guy.

The only issues we really had with him were about the decision to escalate in Vietnam when he should have just brought the troops home in December of '64. Once he did that(he had admitted privately earlier that year that the war was unwinnablw-it was picked up on his White House taping system)a challenge to his renomination in '68 essentially had to happen

And btw we're the ones who still defend the idea of social spending, so we're more loyal to the good parts of LBJ's legacy than you moderates are.

[betsuni]

140. "you moderates"

[GulfCoast66]

141. Not moderate...liberal social democrat

I am a big fan of FDR and pretty much everything he did.

The only point I keep trying to make is that while I may love the man and his legacy it is more complicated to a large part of our party. Pointing to his legecy as a rallying point may not rally the party as much as you hope.

And the reason I do not call myself a progressive is due to the checked past of the progressive movement in this nation. Social improvement has often not been on their radar and some have reactionary toward social change

Now I certainly do not believe most of today's progressives, especially those on DU, fall into that category. But the last 2 years have convinced me that there are still economic progressives willing to abandon social change if it helps with their economic agenda.

And as far as me being a moderate, if wanting to emulate the social and economic system seen in Germany makes me a moderate, so be it. They do not call themselves progressives either.

Have a nice day.

[Ken Burch]

153. How about "Great Society without Vietnam", then"?

I'm fully aware of the horrible things some people in the early 20th Century "Progressive Era" said about race, gender, and class.

[JI7]

91. Exactly.

What LBJ did and which resulted in majority of whites becoming republican was to help all people benefit from social programs .

[Ken Burch]

115. The whites who turned right didn't do that because social programs were open to all.

At that point most white people were far more prosperous than they were in the Thirties, so that by itself would have turned them to the right and against social benefits, unfortunately. The ones who turned right would have turned right if Great Society programs were whites-only. They were just as hostile to the idea of poor whites in Appalachia receiving assistance as they were to African-Americans or Latinx-Americans receiving it.

It sounds like you're close to arguing that the Democratic Party should simply write off the vast majority of white voters as a group-or that you think Dems be on the side of white people OR people of color, never both.

What chance does that give us to make anything better if we work from such assumptions? What possible way does that give us to create progressive change to any important degree?

[JI7]

118. The whites who turned against it included poor whites

Majority of white people voted for trump.

[Ken Burch]

120. The 2016 election was fifty-one years after the Great Society started.

I know most whites voted for Trump.

And I'm not arguing for things that would only help white people, or things that would help them more than they'd help women or people of color.

Economic justice is not the only thing that matters, but it does include ALL.

[LanternWaste]

65. FDR took TR's Square Deal, added more, removed much more and re-branded it as the Fair Deal

FDR took the best parts of TR's Square Deal, added more, removed much more and re-branded it as the Fair Deal. He didn't however, allege (without any supporting evidence), that posters on DU were equating the two as identical.

If FDR did do that though, I'd giggle and point at him for his need for attention, his petulance, and his pretense of conflict where none of any note exists.

That too, "goes without saying..."

[NurseJackie]

71. ###

[Ken Burch]

111. That's not what I was saying.

What I was saying is that those who support economic justice measures recognize the existence of Jim Crow in the Thirties, recognize that the New Deal had its limitations and betrayals, and there's no chance any similar measures introduced today would replicate them.

It's the Right that wants segregation back, not the Left.

[marybourg]

75. Sounds like the unholy marriage of the radical right

and the radical left.

[NurseJackie]

84. Exactly WHO is saying that? It appears that this particular "objection" exists only in your mind.

So can the idea that wanting a second New Deal somehow equates to wanting EVERYTHING from the 1930s back finally be put to rest?

Nobody is saying this either. I haven't seen or heard or read ANYONE making this comparison or citing this as an objection. It's ONLY been you. As near as I can tell, you are the only one saying these things and making these comparisons.

I think this is what's called a straw-man argument. "Straw man"... is that the right term? (Hang on... let me check.)

Yep, found it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

(Scarecrow describes Trump.)

[clu]

86. there is a post in this thread

claiming that economic justice is second fiddle to social justice

[Squinch]

87. Who is saying this?

[eleny]

98. Sounds like the deceptive ploy of turning a positive attribute into a fault

An old Karl Rove tactic.

[JoeOtterbein]

102. We can have both Social & Economic justice at the same time. IF WE fight for both!

[Willie Pep]

116. It is a cynical tactic to try to avoid supporting progessive economic issues.

The key is to link the New Deal to Jim Crow and racism and turn traditional liberal economic positions into "white man issues." If people are looking for toxic examples of identity politics here is one.

Even the Roosevelt Institute recognizes the shortcomings of the New Deal when it came to certain groups.

See: http://rooseveltinstitute.org/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history/

Most progressives actually support both social justice and economic justice. This is a very weird critique of the left coming from moderates who have been and are willing to put up with Blue Dogs with conservative positions on both social justice and economic issues.

Full disclosure: I am something of a Blue Dog myself with conservative views on certain issues but even I think this is a wrongheaded way to attack the left.

[jalan48]

121. Pretzel Logic

When the Constitution was written black slaves were counted as 3/5's of a person. Does this mean we should abandon the Constitution?

[Warren DeMontague]

129. some people just make shit up.

doesn't matter if it doesn't make any objective sense, or not.

[betsuni]

147. "Some people just make up shit.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not."

Proofread it for you. You're welcome. Cheers!

[Warren DeMontague]

148. I like my version better.

but I've been told it's just the lighting.

[Docreed2003]

134. Executive Order 8802

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802

Most historians agree that it was one of the biggest steps in civil rights in a generation and helped to lay the groundwork for parts of the Civil Rights Act of 64.

It's natural to look back on history through our modern lens and judge actions taken or not taken at key moments in our history. My cynical side would look at the passage of EO 8802 and think, "Well of course FDR did that, abled bodied workers were needed for the war effort at that time." Realistically, that was a huge moment in history.

There's plenty to judge Roosevelt on in hindsight from refusing Jewish refugees to the Japanese internment camps.

For all of his flaws, FDR was a man of his time and what we widely view as our modern America was greatly shaped by him, Eleanor, Truman, JFK and LBJ. To hear people issue RW criticisms of the New Deal in this forum is discouraging, not because criticism of the New Deal isn't warranted, it surely is, but that criticism is frequently used to further a divide and to insult. Should FDR had made more moves to improve minority and women's rights? Absolutely! But I doubt those measures would have ever been passed during that time.

It took the aftermath of WWII to fully integrated the military. That move led directly to further advancements in Civil Rights. The assassination of JFK carried a huge weight on LBJ to push for the 64 Civil Rights Act in his memory. Each step on the journey to social justice in this country has been slow and with great cost, perhaps it's the nature of real change.

In that perspective, I think one can look back and acknowledge the past and accept the good and reasonable call out the bad. In many ways, we find ourselves in similar straights today. "The ACA wasn't good enough, give us single payer", "The banks and corporations are too powerful, let's break them up and force them to pay their fair share." And on and on. We must be careful to not push any agenda that would put at risk the social advancements or economic structures that we have....because, especially social justice advancements took so long with such incredible sacrifice, most people aren't willing to push for radical ideas that might put those advancements at risk! Some things do happen relatively quickly, take for example the right for gay couples to marry, but that is a unique example in this country's history. At this present moment, we are burdened with economic injustice and attacks on social justice. The two are the wings of the bird of freedom, there cannot be one without the other. But the work that will be required to undo the harm that conservatives have inflicted upon both fronts will take years, perhaps decades to unravel. We can and must fight for social and economic justice, dividing the two only serves to divide ourselves. How we achieve that balance is up for debate, the importance of both is not and should not!

[Ken Burch]

137. The people who back New Deal-type measures now have acknowledged the past.

The left had been among the first to critique the racist aspects of how FDR's programs were run.

A lot of left people have been involved in antiracist activism as much as economic justice work, since those causes haven't been in conflict with each other in decades.

And it's not as though we are less likely to have racist outcomes like that by having smaller and less ambitious economic justice policies, or by depending more on CEO types to voluntarily do right by their employees.