Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Capsase- I don't think Sanders is a closeted racist. However, I think he's consciously appealing to closeted (and maybe not so closeted) racist. Well, that and/or he doesn't want to believe that people who favor him/populist economic policies may have pernicious reasons for disliking the Democratic Party.
There's this weird dichotomy I've noticed with Sanders and other Leftists where Trump is this terrible racist and because Hillary Clinton was such a bad candidate, it's her fault and that of Democrats that he won. However, the same view argues that no one who voted for Trump could possibly be racist and that their vote for him was a rational choice as Trump's stated economic policies were better.
On the Trump Russia connection
.
And since it got lost in the discussion: according to The Daily Beast Bannon has dealings with the Egyptian government
.
![]()
I don't think he's doing it deliberately; at worst he may simply be in denial about how many people really supported Trump because of racism, because well, if you are indeed correct about the root of the Trump phenomena and it's not possible to dissuade these people from voting for racists by emphasizing universal causes in rhetoric, the only apparent solutions run contrary to the general principles of democracy.
As far as your second point goes, Clinton didn't really articulate much in the way of policy; she certainly had extensive policy plans some good and some bad, but none of them really came across in the fast paced and slogan focused world of campaigning. I'm not sure how that connects to Trump's supporters being racist or not and to what degree, though I haven't really seen people claiming that his supporters aren't racist. Just that they probably aren't all racist, and even if they are that doesn't necessarily mean they cannot be convinced to vote for a democrat without abandoning the party's support for social justice.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:22:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
Well as I see it, assuming there's not conscious "malice" (although he does pretty consciously use the white working class as a stick to beat Democrats), I think a lot of it comes from Sanders either having difficulty reckoning with or oblivous too the paradox of white people favoring social welfare programs as long as they believe they will benefit themselves, but opposing such programs when they benefit "those other people". As this thread gets into
, it creates issues with Sanders' advocacy of various universal programs and his belief they are widely supported, because the minute the "white working class" gets that everyone benefits from them, they are likely to start opposing those policies.
And I think tied to that is also the fact that Sanders doesn't want to think that anyone (i.e. Mad Skillz's father) could have a pernicious reason for preferring him to say Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Which is understandable, as everyone wants to think that they are liked for good reasons.
What are you advocating in strategic terms though? Assuming we're still in favor of living in a democracy (and I'm definitely getting the impression many social justice advocates are souring on the notion of democracy in no small part thanks to Trump), what do we do about the "fact" that about 40% of the electorate is motivated exclusively by racial grievances?
That's the key issue, I think. If the Trump phenomena is exclusively the result of irrational prejudices and there's no way of getting these people to cross the isle (or we aren't prepared to do what's necessary to gain their votes), then we cannot have a democracy, and should seek to implement an authoritarian technocracy along the lines of China in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:33:10 PM by CaptainCapsase
Well basically that if Sanders actually wants to promote his policies (which he does), stop Trump (which he does), and get Democrats elected (eh), he should stop giving speeches about how Democrats lost the white working class because they are a bunch of champagne sipping elitists whose policies only help non-whites if anyone, and instead go after how Trump's policies and those carried out by his appointees hurt the country at the expense of lining their own pockets. Which has the benefit of being true.
Also, while it goes against the rhetoric about Clinton losing nonwhite Obama voters too, it would probably help to place a big emphasis on countering voter suppression- which partly means winning the states where those laws have been passed. That way, you don't need to depend as much on those votes.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:36:12 PM by Hodor2
Bernie is trying not to alientate white people from voting Democrat. And right now he's trying to convert th WWC to our side.
And that kinda means not talking about race because this is something they don't care to be preached about.
It's also a result of the Marxist lens that Bernie views the world where racism is just a derivative of class.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:38:46 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
![]()
That's another point where I think we're at an impasse; a significant portion of the party are by their own admissions centrists with a vested interested in maintaining the current (neoliberal) economic order, even with very clear signs that it's becoming unworkable. It remains to be seen whether Trump's election will force any real changes in that regards, and I've seen some positive movements among the democratic establishment that gives me hope they won't just stick their heads in the sand and hope things settle down.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:42:52 PM by CaptainCapsase
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Democrats are fine on some of those issues. But on other issues, like unions, they aren't nearly as good as you might think. Many of them also support terrible trade deals like the TPP, and are extremely eager to "compromise" with Republicans on cutting social programs.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:51:23 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!Well Sanders didn't actually say that Democratic Policies only help non-whites, but it's probably something a fair amount of the supposedly non-racist Trump voters believe, including some who even voted for Obama. I was thinking specifically of this interview (I'm trying to find) of a Trump supporter who liked the Affordable Care Act and was worried about losing coverage but had voted for Trump because Obama's policies didn't help her- and she specifically commented about the so-called "Obama phones".
Edit- So you think that Democratic Policies ranging from Progressive Taxation to Path-To-Citizenship to Equal Pay to Equal Work to support of Unions, to.... only help the wealthy and are only geared to do so. Very interesting. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:45:07 PM by Hodor2
Maybe I'm overestimating him but my guess is that it's just part of his strategy.
He's tiptoeing around them to capture them.
Console them when Trump betrays them, make them feel not stupid for voting against Democrats, concede they have points to make them feel good and once then ensnare them once they love you.
After the election, he went through Trump country to try to talk to Trump voters. He might be divisive for the Democratic Party but he trying to peel voters from the right.
Now unless he starts a new party, they'll go to the Democratic Party. That's a win for us.
And you know as a Marxist, the working class/proletariat is specifically the people he wants to take care of.
![]()
In terms of the policies democrats have actually enacted in power, they're very much a centrist party. They use rhetoric that goes further left when it suits them, and the GOP acts like they're a bunch of left wing radicals, but when it comes down to it the party is dominated by centrists, and governs accordingly. Which is one of the major motivations for people calling to primary incumbent democrats.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:56:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
Just remembered something and want to slightly backtrack/apologize. So Sanders latest "Trump voters aren't racist" statement was at an event with Elizabeth Warren where he was speaking to a Progressive audience and some of his comments were acknowledging that his statement was unpopular and would get boos.
So on one hand, I was wrong to call that one a dogwhistle, since in this case, he wasn't making the comment to a working class white audience. But on the other hand, it suggests he really does believe it and it's not just a strategy for winning votes.
edited 3rd Apr '17 4:55:15 PM by Hodor2
Suggesting there were legitimate grievances motivated many of Trump's supporters in addition to the rampant racism (which is what I believe he actually said) isn't the same thing as suggesting Trump's supporters weren't quite racist on average, and I for one would argue that trying to pin the Trump phenomena exclusively on bigotry (or for that matter exclusively on economics) is an assertion that requires far more radical assumptions* than viewing it as a combination of social (bigotry related) and economic factors.
*: One such assumption being that the massive rise in wealth inequality and stagnation of worker's wages which has characterized the past 30 years has not had any appreciable political consequences.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:03:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't dispute the legitimate grievances angle, although I'd chalk it way more to Republicans screwing them over than for Democrats not caring about them (let alone the idea that Democratic policies help non-whites at the expense of whites). But it at least sounds to me like Sanders is saying that no Trump supporters are at all prejudice. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but when he was on Seth Myers, both concurred with the statement that Trump supporters "don't have a racist bone in their bodies".
Also, for what it's worth, I really disagree with other tropers who say "screw them" in regard to Trump voters. I just think that there's some iffy reasons as to why they might prefer Trump and Sanders to Obama and Clinton. And that passing universal healthcare and related things should be done because they are good policies, not because it's a guarantee of getting their support. Because it's not, because they are likely to sour on them once they figure out non-whites benefit from them too.
I will definitely have to take a look at that, because if that's actually what was said I think he's definitely in denial. That being said, in terms of policy, I'm not sure the assumption that addressing economic issues wouldn't mitigate the support for demagogues like Trump is correct though; people like to cite the rise of right wing populism in Europe as an counterexample, but there's been significant downsizing of the welfare states in Europe in the past few decades, not to the extent as in the United States, but still very substantial.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:13:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
Ah, found an article/discussion
. Actually it was Meyers who used that phrasing, although Sanders agreed with it. And it was specifically about people who voted for Obama and went on to vote for Trump. As the article notes, it's an iffy phrase that tends to be mostly used by racist people.
I will add that while maybe you can chalk this up to my preconceptions, I think Sanders' recent statement about Trump supporters also implied none of them were "deplorables" rather than "not all of them are 'deplorables'."
Also, universal healthcare (A++, have it, would recommend) is, in my opinion, not very feasible in the US.
And it's not because Republicans or Dems who lean liberal would start meming about Bolshevism or whatever, it's down to the fact that the US is freaking huge and has an enormously spread-out population. We like to joke about Americans being awful at geography, but the reason for that has to do with the sheer scale of the country itself.
There's been a huge problem in Denmark recently of having to centralise hospitals because modern hospitals require modern, expensive equipment and specialised doctors to properly employ that equipment. And we're a country you can drive across in four hours.
Now scale that up to a nation a thousand times the size and with 60 times the number of inhabitants and you get a feeling for the kind of undertaking this would be, even if the federal budget as a percentage of GDP rose to the level it is here note
Either way I do not want to be the administrator in charge of that program.
Now, free or subsidised higher education, especially if you can ensure universities with high minority populations don't get fucked? Very feasible.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:17:48 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Exactly. Even IF you got the votes in the Senate, and House. Actually building a universal Healthcare system with the current problems the USA has would be a massive undertaking.
Each and EVERY SINGLE ONE of the USA's problem's intersect with each other, making it damn near impossible to truly solve even ONE issue.
New Survey coming this weekend!

One can be racist and still help everyone, not just the race they prefer. Hell, it's being pragmatic. If you attacked, othered, and got rid of all the non-whites, the US population would drop hard. And holding nonwhites down just encourages the bad behavior SOME of them (and to be realistic some of us) do. The only practical way to be at the end of the day is steadily neutral on the matter of race, get everybody into a better standard of living so we're not wasting resources on health issues we shouldn't even fucking have, and let the social world sort itself out when everyone's materially in the same place.