John Edwards talked eloquently about the two americas during

[Veggie Meathead]

his campaign for the nomination.I would like to propose another version of the two americas theme.This has to do with the America of corporate entities like Halliburton,Enron, Andersen,Worldcom which are out to gouge the taxpayers;the second America is one of ethical companies, big and small,such as W.L.Gore,Johnson & Johnson,Intel that are innovative and provide products and services needed by people worldwide.The first America is totally risk averse and cuts corners,denies workers any say and hides its faults.The second America is made up of corporations that take risks and seek to be rewarded for those risks.They also have complete transparency.

The world admires the America of the second kind.It fears and detests the America of the first kind.You might say the first America is the Republican version and the second America is the Democratic version.

[redqueen]

1. That's a great idea

I hate that conservatives are always labeling liberals as anti-business. We're not anti-business, just anti-irresponsible business. It would do a lot if we could get that distinction out there.

[Kanary]

2. So, let's wipe off poverty from the *one* venue it still existed?

I don't believe this.......

Do DEMs care about *any* of the issues they used to espouse???

Kanary

[Veggie Meathead]

3. Could you please explain what you mean? I was trying to add

another item to John Edwards' theme of two Americas.

[Kanary]

4. Edwards is the *last one* to be speaking of poverty

Poverty isn't even a concern here on DU, among "radicals".

Yet, you have now taken his specific message about poverty, and changed it to NO MENTION of poverty at all.

Why, oh why are DEMs now so set on ignoring poverty issues????

Doesn't it mean *anything* anymore?

Kanary

[bleedingedge]

5. But doesn't the stance against corporate misdeed...

encapsulate, to some extent, issues of poverty.

For example, if Wal-mart woke up tomorrow and decided that underpaying workers was a bad thing, and that corporate profit wasn't the end-all-be-all of business-existence, wouldn't that have a positive effect on poverty? More workers with more money to spend on other products which would lead to more jobs...etc.

I, for one, do not think poverty is a silver-bullet issue that can be legislated away. No comobination of programs, governmental or otherwise, is going to make an impact on poverty levels until businesses become beholden to the workers and the society that give them life. So in that regard, I see the issues as irrevocably tied to each other.

I understand your point, in that poverty is a humanist issue, which is what liberalism is (traditionally) all about. Additionally, I think it is important to keep the word "poverty" at the forefront of Democratic policy. But I disagree with the concept that a shift in perspective essentially indicates an abandonment of cause.

In fact, even Edwards' message of poverty was often tied to concepts like the obligations of business to those who helped build it and the idea of industry not as an entity unto itself, but as a means to making life better for those who engage in it.

Just my opinion.

[Kanary]

6. NO!!

Making it "assumed" takes away what little remains.

Why is it so important to you to change the ONE thing that still remains as a statement against poverty?

You have all your middleclass issues at the forefront anyway..... why in the world can't you allow ONE statement for those who aren't in your shoes???

Is it now impossible for Murkins to have any concern for those unlike themselves?

Kanary

[jeff5]

9. You Need to Chill

Nobody suggested limiting Edward's theme, just extending it, in what looks to me a valid, useful way.

Try the decaf for a week.

[Kanary]

10. Take your assumptions, buddy........

You know nothing about me, and have NO BUSINESS telling anything about who I am, and how to live my life.

I have just as much right to speak my mind as you have.

Shutting people up is the way of the RW.

Kanary

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Veggie Meathead]

7. Kanary: You have completely misread my post.I was actually going to

say we retain Edwards' original theme and add to it my idea of the two Americas represented by the ethical and worker friendly corporations ( the Democratic Corporations) and the secretive, risk averse and worker unfriendly corporation ( the Republican kind).The original message should still be retained and hopefully will be strengthened by mine.As another poster remarks here it will show that we are just as business friendly but do not go along with the Republican idea that anything goes.

[Kanary]

8. Sure, water it down for more middleclass issues

NO misreading........ I get exactly what you mean.

NO "strengthening" by watering it down.

The issue of POVERTY needs to be screamed from the rooftops........ it's been buried.

Maybe if you are someday in my shoes, you'll understand what I'm saying. By that time, it'll be too late for me..... I'll be dead, thanks to burying poverty issues.

So, when it become *you*, will there be anyone left to speak up for *you*?

Kanary

[Veggie Meathead]

12. Many hourly workers at corporations are indeed poor,and cannot be thought

of as middle class at all.This is especially true of those who do not receive benefits such as health insurance.To say that supporting ethical corporations who address issues of concern to their workers such as health insurance and retirement ignores the issue of poverty,is not correct.

For good or ill corporations dominate our economy and if we throw our support behind what I have called ethical corporations, it immediately nails the lie the Republicans are used to perpetuating that we are not business friendly but also retains our concerns for the working poor.I think this will help broaden our constituency.Please give this some thought.

The last thing I want is for the Democratic Party to forget its roots.
It must stand by the poor, the weak and the voiceless.It must also be seen as an effective party and that was the main reason for my post.By the way, I like the way John Edwards has framed his theme.

[Kanary]

13. so, only the working poor can be recognized?????

More divisions, more picking sides.......

on and on it goes..... trying to play to the REpubs.

As I said, maybe someday you'll be in my shoes, and it will look *VERY* different to you.

Kanary

[Veggie Meathead]

15. I have not said that only the working poor have to be recognized.

Our party must be the voice of the powerless, working or otherwise.In realistic terms this means that we must first regain power from the Republicans so that our programs can be put in place.The wider our program reaches,the better our chances are likely to be.Please believe me we are all on the same side.We differ only in the means by which we want to reach our destination.

[Kanary]

16. That's all you're willing to recognize

That's all you talk about.

No, you don't get *my* side....... you're not willing to *hear*

"We differ only in the means by which we want to reach our destination."

Only problem is, "your" means is letting more and more cuts happen, and more people die.

Does that matter?

You keep wanting to appease the REPUBS.... what will it take for you to realize that hasn't worked, never worked, won't work in the future?

You won't answer *my* question..... why do you have to change something that is the ONLY voice for poverty?

Why can't you keep pushing your OWN issues, rather than taking over one that only has, at this point, one voice?

You don't answer *anything* at all about being in my shoes........ I'm just supposed to understand and agree with you.

I don't.

Kanary

[bleedingedge]

17. OK, then...

Why don't you tell me what your side is? I assume from your posts in this thread that you're a member of the non-working poor. Is that correct?

Why don't you have a job? Is it because there aren't any nearby? If that's the case, you have a beef against corporations who choose to outsource labor overseas because they can, because it is cheap and because it benefits their bottom line.

You've spent a lot of time raling against people who seem to be saying something you disagree with and yet you never explain why your point is so much more salient than mine (or theirs).

Sure, I'm new here, but I know a thing or two about how to argue and debate and if you want to sway somebody to your side, you've got to make them understand it. Repeatedly saying "you don't understand" and "it'll look different when you're in my shoes" is akin to Bush saying "Well, your government knows things you don't". Screw that - teach me something, talk to me, convince me.

And by the way, I've been where you are - I got my ass canned because I wouldn't sign a "no compete" clause. I got put out of a job, had no savings, no discenable skills, etc. That's where I'm coming from - I was thrust into a potentially dangerous situation because a company decided they wanted to corner whatever rudimentary market skills I had, a fact that would have (and did) essentially handcuffed me into either staying there, regardless of how poorly they treated me, or looking for work in an entirely unrelated industry. Granted, I got lucky in a lot of ways both before and after that. But still, you haven't got the market cornered on perspective here.

So when you say poverty is an issue unlinked to anything else, I simply say you're either wrong or of limited perspective. "Poverty", as I've seen and experienced it, is a symptom of larger ills. And the original post sought to tie it in with other concepts that relate to or exascerbate it.

As I see it, it's like getting upset that arguments about "racial equality" are taking a back seat (no pun intended) to the abolition of Jim Crow laws.

[Kanary]

18. "Convince you"

That's my point, exactly. There *used* to be a time when DEMs *cared* about people, and didn't have to be "convinced". That *USED* to be the stand of the Party.

All you want to do is reinforce your point, and not look at maybe, just maybe, Edwards knew what he was doing, and was speaking in those terms for a reason. I've said over and over that watering down the Poverty issues will accomplish *nothing* but getting people erased from the face of the earth.

I will NOT tell you my personal situation, as you are in an arguing, rather than and understanding and supportive, mood. I will NOT lay out myself for you to criticise. That's NOT my purpose on this earth, and it's really sad that it comes down this far. Look at just how far the Party has fallen.

Yes, you have your perspective, and that's expected to take presidence over all else. There *are* others who are suffering, for different problems, and subsuming them all into *your* cause is NOT making for a "big tent".

And that was my whole point in raising this issue....... What the DEMs have come down to is middleclass issues, and can only support what they, themselves, experience. We've lost the ability to empathize and champion others who are in different situations. And THAT is what's killing the party.

We don't have to have the REPUGS killing us..........We've succeeded very well in dividing ourselves into various camps, and fighting among ourselves. Will we ever be willing to join forces, and REALLY care for each other, instead of just our own issues??? Or, do we want to keep letting "them" win? Have we totally lost the ability to care about the "other"?

How bout actually addressing that, instead of putting words in my mouth that I never said???

You say we're "on the same side", yet you don't want to hear anything about what that is......

Kanary

[bleedingedge]

19. Well, good luck with that then.

>All you want to do is reinforce your point<

Wow, then I made a serious tactical error when I asked you to help me see this from your point of view.

>you are in an arguing, rather than and understanding and supportive, mood.<

Yeah, hoo boy, I can certainly see that you're not engaged in the same - you clearly came to this thread with the idea of being understanding and supportive, didn't you?

Of course not - you wanted to state your point. Good for you, fine. But when somebody replies back and says "Hey, let's talk about it", you got no right to back off and claim "Oh poor me, you're not supportive".

And by the way, when you criticize my POV and say it takes precedence over everything else, that's true on a humanity-wide scale. Why is my perspective any more or less weighty than your own? Or are you the perfect model of Vulcan-objectivity? Your whole argument is that YOUR perspective should be the one that takes precedent and I challenged you to explain why. But of course, you backed off that because of some absurd idea that I was asking you to justify yourself. Nonsense - I challenged you to justify the notion, not the noggin. Big difference.

You seem to simply want some sort of blanket acceptance of your point, your idea, your concept, your anger. Well, good luck with that. You'll do well to help the liberal cause by engaging people in unfocused and unsupported handwaving, rather than logical discourse.

>How bout actually addressing that, instead of putting words in my mouth that I never said???<

Why in God's red ass should I? You have offered exactly one thing to this whole discussion: NO! NO! NO! I even invited you to give me some more information, to help me understand your position and you flatly refused with the lame ass excuse "That's NOT my purpose on this earth".

You have not offered one logical challenge to the initial post - you've simply raised a cry that "oh no, we're forgetting poverty". And the original post wasn't even "let's ignore poverty", it was "let's frame the debate thusly...".

OK, so you want Dems/liberals to focus on poverty. Focus on it how? By pointing it out? By simply using the word? How? What policy initiatives have you got? What are your ideas? Add something.

And by the way, when did I put words in your mouth?

>You say we're "on the same side", yet you don't want to hear anything about what that is....<

That's ridiculous. I specifically said tell me about your position, convince me and you ripped me a new ass. You're fucking-a-right I want to hear something, but you seem likely to say anything only if I break out the hot chocolate and electric blanket and promise to agree with you. I ain't that kind of person and I don't engage in that kind of feel-good retardation.

PS You think I'm the cancer on liberalism? Whatever. The real problem, on both sides of the aisle, are people like yourself who want to stridently advance a point without expecting any dissent or challenge from anybody else, even those who may substantively agree but differ on methodology.

[AP]

11. If you've seen the docu "The Corporation," you'd know that there's at ...

...least one good corproate citizen.

That carpet manufacturer CEO almost brought me to tears a few times.

Corporations like that are making positive contributions to society. And the biggest problem with our society today is that there aren't enough corporations like that and there are WAY too many which care only about maximizing short term wealth and passing it on tax free to copoprate insiders as soon as possible, workers, the environment, lives, and democracy be damned.