GOING ON OFFENSE Part Five: Challenging the "Meh, Both Parties are the Same..."

[calimary]

From the DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025161257

This one's RATHER URGENT! It is URGENT, CRITICAL, and ESSENTIAL to challenge and thoroughly break DOWN the whole kooky concept that both Dems and the CONS are basically the same. That's a non-starter, right there. That deflates activism and throws a lot of cold water on the fire we need in everybody's belly so we can FIGHT this effectively! Oh MAN, is there EVER a difference between the two parties! They're NOT alike. I don't care what argument people make. It comes down to what they DO.

Okay, fine, they're both corporate owned. That's a given until we get money out of politics and overturn Citizens United. Unfortunately, that's what IS, at least for now.

But that said, WHAT DO THESE TWO PARTIES DO - with that backing?

Do we see the Dems out there trying to restrict the right to vote? Do we? Where are they? WHERE are the Dems who are doing and preaching this? Somebody please show me!

Do we see the Dems out there trying to whittle away and take back, outright, a woman's right to have the last word over what happens within HER OWN BODY????? Where? Show me! I can say that 'cause I'm from Missouri. SHOW ME!!! WHERE ARE THEY? Where are the masses of Dems who are actively doing that? WHERE????

Do we see the Dems out there working and conspiring to screw Latinos and immigrants? Are DEMS the ones out there with the guns and the vigilante justice on the borders? Is it the DEMS dragging their feet in Washington DC and refusing even to bring up the question or put it up for a vote? Are the DEMS the ones obstructing any and all attempts even to TRY to develop some workable solutions? Are the DEMS the ones who are hearing from their constituents to screw immigrants and not do anything to help them?

Do we see the Dems doing everything they can to roll back or do away with, outright, the social safety net? Are the DEMS the ones we hear arguing about how we shouldn't have to pay for it? That we don't need it? We shouldn't bother? Nobody should be making us help the less fortunate - freedom-freedom-hate-taxes-hate-gummnt? Are the DEMS the ones who are actively trying to starve the poor by denying them the most meager access to food stamps? And then judging them and deriding them for what they buy with those food stamps, and lambasting them as lazy moochers?

Do we see the DEMS turning the families away who come to Congress to appeal for sensible gun restrictions - bringing photographs of their murdered first-graders from Sandy Hook? Refusing even to meet with them? Or if they do, waxing joe-the-plumber-esque and insisting their rights to have and to hold and even to make love to their damn fucking massacre machines trump YOUR kid's right to be safe in his/her own school? Are the Dems the ones stifling even the barest discussion or study of gun violence in America? We can't even TALK about it?????

Are the Dems the ones denouncing the World Cup as Un-American and a distraction from Benghazi?

Are the Dems the ones in Congress blocking ANY forward movement, blocking any movement at all - like some big crowd of Imodium pills with legs? Preventing ANY legislation, ANY at all, unless it's to try yet again the flaccid release of voting down "Obamacare"? Show me the Dems doing that!

Are the DEMS the ones who threw a hissy fit big enough to shut down the whole frickin' government because they were such Sore Losermen they weren't getting their way? Standing firmly in favor of denying the poor and the middle class affordable health care? 'Zat the Dems doing that shit?

And who's got the hard-on to send us back to full-on shooting wars in the Middle East again, starting once again with Iraq? Yeah, some of 'em were spineless cowardly suck-asses last time but you won't see many of 'em now. If you know of one, SHOW ME!!! I can't find 'em! Only ones doing that are on the other side of the aisle, most of 'em who never served to begin with. Are the Dems the ones with PNAC refugees advising them on foreign policy and stacking up like planes waiting to land at LAX - all ready and eager and panting with near-sexual desire to get back into the Defense Department and the National Security Advisor's offices?

SHOW ME. I wanna see. I wanna know. WHERE are the Dems here? Are the Dems the ones who've wasted taxpayers' money and time and confidence on meaningless scandal investigations that repeatedly and consistently turn up NOTHING?

Are the Dems the ones denouncing the very idea of government and proclaiming themselves "sovereign citizens" or some other bullshit that declares they and only they are The Law unto themselves?

Are the Dems the ones you'll hear proclaiming they're not scientists but somehow they still know that climate change is just a scary fairy story that some meddlesome liberals made up to keep all the Joe-the-Plumbers out there from having a good time (freedom-freedom dontchaknow!)? Is it the Democrats who want all the restrictions removed on polluters and the oil barons and the frackers and strip-miners, and want to do away with the EPA? Where? Point them out to me!

Are the Dems the ones turning their noses up at an increase in the minimum wage, STILL claiming we've gotta give all the goodies to the rich because THEY are really the "job-creators" when they're all cash-hoarders and hiding their money offshore and in fancy tax shelters so they don't have to pay their fair share. But hey, we've GOT to keep helping those who don't need any help! SCREW those who legitimately DO need help - they're just moochers! Income inequality? HAH! What a joke! Something else some nuisance liberal made up to pee on our greed-and-gluttony parade. Besides, price-gouging is America's Favorite Indoor Sport - at least for business. Dems are behind that? Who? Where? Show me!

Are the Dems the ones who insist that their 19th-Century idea of marriage and that you so-called gays are just making it up so you have some special "status" and rights that you don't deserve? HAH! Same for you, too, rape victims! george will says you're just making it up so you can cut in line and get special privileges, too, aren't you? The Dems are the ones fully invested in that, too? Where are they? Show me some!

And that's just part of it.

You STILL wanna try to sell me on the idea that there's no difference between the two parties?

[freshwest]

1. Thanks calimary, excellent OP!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I think that's pretty much a strawman.

As you listed in detail, on social issues, the two parties are a world apart.

People who note similarities between the two parties as a whole focus almost exclusively on what you blithely write off in 3 short sentences.

Okay, fine, they're both corporate owned. That's a given until we get money out of politics and overturn Citizens United. Unfortunately, that's what IS, at least for now.

Economic issues, especially the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich, is *the* central issue for a lot of folks. We're winning social issues right and left, with help from demographic shifts. But the policies pursued by both parties continue to involve propping up the wealthy and corporations whenever they screw up in their endless quest to suck away every last penny of wealth from the rest of us, with our own public money. That's incredibly insulting, in addition to being anti-99%.

(Edit: and lest I be accused of merely sniping, I offer the obvious solution to 'fight the meme' that both parties are the same. Offer up candidates who are NOT 'corporate owned'. Don't just TELL people they're 'not the same', BE 'not the same'.)

[winter is coming]

3. And we've seen, just this week, that economic issues are *not* orthogonal to social ones.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is a clear example of how the trend towards favoring corporate rights over people's rights hurts our country.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Yup. Even on social issues we can get reversals if corporate interests

are placed before human ones.

Above all, we must have candidates who are not aligned with corporations, but with regular people.

There are good Dems out there, just not enough of them. My own Senator, Sherrod Brown, is one of the best ones around.

[Maedhros]

7. Exactly, Erich.

When we're all picking through rags trying to scrape together enough resources to survive another day, we can be joyful that we're all doing so as equals.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. But some of us ...

those of us that are directly affected by the parties' ... those of us that "make DU suck" ... are/have been saying, those distinctions are NOT strawmen ... they are very real and have very real impacts on our ability to enjoy any movement in/on those issues where the two parties are similar.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. The strawman part lies not in the existence of differences

but the idea that most of the people who use such language are talking about social issues in the first place. Ie, when people say 'the two parties are pretty much the same', you're going to be able to go down a list of all the social issues and they'll most often be able to tell you the differences, so that it becomes obvious that when they say such, they are indeed only really talking about economics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Okay ...

then the people saying the parties are the same should really say, "the parties are essentially the same economically, but vastly different on the other 70% of the issues that woman and people of color face on a daily basis; but since I don't face those issues, for me the parties are all the same."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. Well, if you're trying to elect people to represent you

then yes, it helps if there is something they actually represent you in.

Sure, it's wonderfully enlightened to vote for someone who will help other people who need help, but sometimes it would be nice to elect someone who will help you when you need help too. As a black person, do you want to elect people who only help white people out, or would you rather elect someone who helps out both black and white people out? Aren't you doing the same sort of thing, if you tell me I should vote for people who will help you out, but who do nothing for me as I would be doing if I told you you should vote for people who will help me, but not help you?

I want all of us to be helped out. Not just one group or the other.

[Jamaal510]

16. Even economically,

one could argue that the two parties are a country mile apart when examining how one of them has tried to raise taxes on the rich, while the other has drastically lowered them and, in some cases, attempting to raise them on the poor. One of the two parties has spent taxpayer money on (nonsensical) lawsuits, repeal votes, and wars, while neglecting services such as infrastructure and education.
Whether we're talking about social issues or economic issues, the contrast between Democrats and Republicans today is like night and day. Even many experts and political science scholars believe so. They're the farthest apart they've been in history on the spectrum.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Hey, that doesn't fit the narrative! But ...

"The difference is only because both parties have moved so far to the right" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[Jamaal510]

19. My bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Understandable ...

you're a part of that swarm that bores and/or makes DU suck for some.

Just self-reflect and make it suck no more, by discussing only your individual rights and your income inequality concerns, sir.

[joshcryer]

14. Social issues are economic issues.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. And vice versa.

Which is why we shouldn't be promoting candidates who are bad on either, but ones who are good on both.

[joshcryer]

18. Economic issues are not necessarily social issues.

For instance, you can charge the bankers who have assets of around $10 billion total but it won't do anything to bring people out of poverty. Bankers would just be arrested. You could go after the 50k+ robosigners and jail every single person who did it. That wouldn't help anyone.

If you raise taxes you must do so redistribution, that would be solved by social programs. Say, for example, you want all mothers to have pre-school child care. To pay for that you would have to make a new tax. Therefore the act of taxation isn't to "hurt the rich" it's to "help mothers have child care."

Likewise, you want to build bridges. That's social, that has a social impact, but you don't go "we want to raise taxes to hurt the rich" you go "we want to raise taxes to fixes these bridges.

There is a problem though. We want to do good things, right? Well, the Democrats wanted to get FannieMae and Freddie-Mac to get poor people out of renting and into houses. That led to rather lax lending schedules. What happened was corporations and banks decided to use it against them. Let all these poor people get very convoluted and unsustainable loans, cash out, and move on when the crash happens. The Democrats wanting to fix the problem of lower home ownership walked into a trap of a deregulated economy. So yes, in some ways helping lock down economic issues solves a social problem that needs fixing. But I think the converse is always more true, I am merely conceding an example where it would hurt. The MIC also presents a situation where no-bid corporations are allowed to build military equipment, giving people jobs, but also without any sense of accountability.

[longship]

5. A very nice series, calimary.

And yet again, an R&

[sheshe2]

6. Thank you calimary, fucking A!

[littlemissmartypants]

8. Kicking. nt

[ancianita]

10. The "no difference" argument is the lazy non-voter argument.