And white voters do not. It is not a matter of bias, just simpler for courting votes.

Black folks, by the way, aren't the only persons of color.

Why does a segment of the white working class have much different priorities or desires than the working class as a whole, which includes other working class whites? And how would the Democratic Party appeal to the desires of that segment?

Distinctions are useful for crafting strategies. If we want to win across various demographics, our messaging must also vary, and this may include spending more time and money winning people more likely to be swayed by GOP tactics.

What GOP tactics specifically? Dog whistling and lying? Don't you think that will alienate the millions of working class people (especially working class persons of color) that form the base of the Democratic Party? And for what? The possibility of peeling away a fraction of that segment of working class whites with their different desires?

...but it's a statement of fact.

As for whatever you're saying about GOP tactics, I'm not sure which segment you imagine to be impervious to any possible Dem strategy. GOP voters are also affected by enthusiasm or lack thereof, and independent and non-voters can certainly make a big difference.

It's still possible for Dems to win elections.

Black voters are a solid block, that are unjustly taken for granted. There is never a concern about anything other than suppression and turnout.

...the Democratic Party does what it would take to appeal to the desires of that *portion* of working class whites so many are focused on.

Millions of working class whites are already voting for Democrats. As are millions of working class persons of color (which, again, includes more than just black folks). They also care about jobs and wages and labor standards and trade. So, what is it that sets a segment of working class whites apart? I think we all know the answer to that.

are treated as so golden that, when they don't vote Democratic, it's the Democrats' fault. And then we must analyze and scratch our heads and twist ourselves into knots trying to figure out what we did wrong to not earn their votes and then shape shift into something more appealing to them in hopes that next time, they'll vote with us?

On the other hand, when black voters don't vote Republican, everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says, "What do you expect? That's just how they are..."

I've wondered about that too, but have no answer.

That whites are "special"?

They are no more special than any other working class person.

Their hearing might be more special though. They respond to dog whistles quite well.

that they'd be paid more, they'd have better jobs, they would have more "stuff" and "status," if only all those troublesome black and brown people weren't taking away THEIR gawd-given "opportunities" by competing with them for work.

How DARE "those people" take "their jerbs?" Deport them!! And send the really dusky ones "back to where they came from" i.e. Africa. That's their POV. They're racists, those Trump voting white working class members, and they don't care who knows it. They're also xenophobes. And, of course, they're sexists.

The working class is a VERY fractured entity. It's not united, it is at each faction's throats. That's partially because Trump activated a segment, within the class, of racist, sexist, xenophobic morons that a) do exist and b) are a substantial element of the class--sufficient in number to taint the whole.

It's a problem, and it's real.

...in response to any racial progress. As Jamelle Bouie wrote of the unknown number of Obama voters who went for Trump, "Trump gave them a choice between multiracial democracy and white primacy."

So, how does the Democratic Party appeal to that segment of working class whites w/out alienating the base? A Democratic Party base that cares about jobs, wages, labor standards, trade, etc. And votes for Democratic Party candidates, who already speak more about those issues than anything else. Including Clinton.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that there's nothing the Democratic Party can do to produce more Democrats (including, possibly, some who voted for Trump and were influenced by 25+ years of attacks against Clinton). I think there are measures the Democratic Party should take, and one is to stop contributing to the false "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative.

As I've written elsewhere, I think more outreach to rural areas (where there are Democrats, not all of whom are white), particularly in purple/battleground states, is important. That's something Obama did more of than Clinton did. *Note: More outreach is not synonymous with changing the message.

I think Democrats must find a way to engage some of the disengaged. 40% don't vote in presidential elections. 60% don't vote in mid-term elections. Some of that is due to voter suppression but most is not.

I think it's important to talk more (in the media) about the divide and conquer tactics, even if it doesn't win over Trump voters. Meaning, among other things, Democrats go on the air to point out the problem with drawing a distinction between the working class and working class whites. Call out the dog whistling that's behind that distinction, and call out the media (generally) for contributing to it. It's important because persons of color need to know they aren't taken for granted, and because young progressives (some of whom haven't voted before or voted Green) need to know the Democratic Party is well aware of those tactics. Democrats (and potential party members) need to know the Democratic Party isn't going to abandon them in favor of some misguided attempt to appeal to the targets of dog whistling.

Democrats need to promote media literacy and critical thinking in schools and elsewhere (while also calling out the media for promoting false equivalencies). The number of people subscribing to patently false beliefs has gone well beyond the danger zone.

Democrats need to talk openly and often about voter suppression, as well as the unconstitutionality of racialized gerrymandering.

And Democrats, as a whole, do need to talk more about the undue influence of multinational corporations. Money's influence on election results has been vastly overstated, but there's no doubt Big Money (Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Prisons, the weapons industry, etc.) influences policy. Also, elected officials should be forbidden from pushing legislation they would profit from (something members of both parties are guilty of, such as Harry Reid profiting off of Nevada land deals made possible via legislation).

But I'd prefer to grow our MAJORITY (and we won by three million damn votes) by getting rid of gerrymandering, voter ID, voter caging, those skeevy cross checks, and other horse shit GOP voter supression tactics. And more, more, more, GOTV.

And sure, we can address those "corporate" issues (though most of those white working class types work FOR the corporate man) as well. But we shouldn't welcome racists, sexists or xenophobes. It's not who we are.

I'd also like to reach children with OTA cartoons that don't shy away from topics about racial harmony and "Do the right thing." They need to be quality and highly watchable, though, and that's a private sector endeavor. Poor kids don't have cable--they use an antennae. The more "message" kid's programming we can get into rural OTA slots on weekends and after school, the better. They have to be carefully taught, after all, and the only way to counter a message of hate from mommy and daddy might just be from Dora the Explorer. Odds are good they aren't gonna get that stuff from school, either...and a cartoon-watching ten year old is a voter in two POTUS terms.

Not everything revolves around economic class.

All part of capitalism 101.

Divide by race, by sex, by religion, by region, by language, division to weaken and division to play one subset of workers against another.

The Powers That Be need the masses bitterly divided and at each other's throats, lest the torches and pitchforks arrive at the palace gates.

A House divided against itself cannot stand, and a People divided against themselves cannot stand together for their own common interests.

Because some boats have never been let out to sea.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512669872. Social justice encompasses economic justice. Institutionalized racism has a huge impact on economic standing.

The point of my reply was that the Democratic Party must not lose sight of the fact that it's not sufficient to promote policies that help everyone equally.

Obviously, millionaires don't need economic help. Abstract discussions require assumptions which may or may not accurately discern the point being conveyed.

I'm talking about the fact that persons of color in the US are still being impacted negatively by historical injustice (from slavery to Jim Crow to ongoing implicit bias). About how the wealth gap is partially due to persons of color, for a long time, being made essentially ineligible for Social Security benefits and the GI Bill. Not to mention the lack of access to jobs and educational institutions.

I'm talking about The Case for Reparations.

Anyone owed is long dead

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

And reparations doesn't have to come in the form of cash. Nor am I suggesting that the Democratic Party has to use the term "reparations." I use it for the purpose of this discussion.

What the Democratic Party could and should do, however, is take heed of the very detailed platform of The Movement for Black Lives.

Also, in addition to past injustices impacting the present, there are ongoing injustices based on race. Institutional/structural racism continues to be a reality.

As long as we talk about the white working class voting republican then there is a herd mentality that tells them the republicans are for the whites and the democrats are for the blacks and would allow them to partially vote on race.

If we talk working class then we start to bind people of various races together.

However as long as we say repubilican/white working class like Saddam Hussein/9/11 then a certain percentage of the white working class will vote GOP because they have been lumped with them.

Instead, far too many progressives are contributing to the narrative. Either the decades of dog whistling (working class equals white) has infiltrated their consciousness, or they innocently fail to see the problem with drawing a distinction, or they severely underestimate bigotry. Some have even suggested that only a fraction of Trump supporters are racist or sexist or xenophobic. Meanwhile, a vast majority of his supporters (~80%) question Obama's place of birth (with more than 60% believing he was born in another country and about 20% who are unsure).

This is from 9/30/2012 --

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]So the margins for Romney over Obama in this poll were (among white working class voters):
South: +40%, West: +5%, Northeast: +4%, Midwest: -8%

The link [font color = red]WAS[/font] at: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120930/COLUMNISTS21/309300041/1001/Joseph-Gerth-Polls-suggest-Kentucky-voters-gone-South?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cp

I don't remember what the title of the article was either. Oh well. I did some Googling but had no luck. I suppose I could try the Way Back machine...

I sure wish I had something like this for 2016

Hillary did very well with the African-American working class, the Latino working class, the Women working class, the LGBT working class, the Muslim working class ... etc.

...the question is, how does the Democratic Party appeal to that segment of working class whites who clearly have a different set of desires or values? Without alienating all of those who vote Democrat, young people who might vote Democrat and Green Party supporters who might be willing to vote Democrat in the future.

Because those voting for Democrats also care about jobs, wages, labor standards, trade, etc. Something else sets that segment of working class whites apart.

Everyone has to work. Everyone wants decent paying jobs. The "unemployed class" are the ones that are going to need help once the republicans start slashing the safety nets.

Some simply fail to see the problem with drawing the distinction, and others may not recognize that years of dog whistling has infiltrated their consciousness. And I'm not even talking about Trump voters. I'm talking about Clinton voters, third party voters, and non-voters. There's no excuse for supporting Trump (his campaign was openly bigoted, he's a sexual predator, he's committed fraud, he not so subtly encouraged violence against Clinton with a comment about the 2nd Amendment, he never released his tax returns, he has no relevant experience, etc.).

Aside from the bullshit about marginalizing white voters, Bill O'Reilly of all people recently spoke some truth. He was talking about the desire to do away with the electoral college, which is a vestige of slavery, but I think what he said applies in a broader sense, as well.

Now, I don't think the Democratic Party can afford to word it quite like that, but O'Reilly isn't wrong. He's just wrong in being opposed to efforts to level the playing field. White privilege *is* a reality. It's also just a benign way of saying white supremacy, which is what has enabled white privilege. Historical injustices (to say nothing of ongoing injustices) continue to impact the present. A rising tide won't lift all boats when not all boats have been let out to sea. The Democratic Party should not lose sight of that and kowtow to bigots.

But the bottom line is some mythical, disillusioned "white working class" who voted Trump out of economic concerns is just a lazy, brain-dead post-election narrative because the media (rightly) thinks that the average viewer will swallow it and not think for themselves...

Which is why it pisses me off to see people who should know better, i.e. Sanders, fall for it.

Not all of whom are on the right

speak to the working class and that the way we do that has no distinction between people of color and white workers.

But as people have stated here entirely fairly, the Democratic platform was far better for the working class than the Republican one. It is not that our policies are lacking by comparison. It is first and foremost that we allow the rich to hold all the channels of the message and it gets filtered or ignored through them accordingly, yet we still refuse to call it out as corporate propaganda, and second, that whatever message does reach the people is watered down with our own language that suggests we're just going to do business as usual...that we're going to work with the power brokers and ask them nicely to basically cut out their worst behavior...maybe throw the people a bone here and there. The problem is we're too cozy to do our jobs the way we should be able to. We're too much about working within the current system, rather than changing the face of it.

People don't trust that...they already don't trust government. Why don't we channel that into tearing down the things they shouldn't trust about it?

It's a segment of white working class voters that are getting all of the attention. And it's not because they're the only ones who care about jobs, wages, labor standards, trade, etc. In fact, I'd argue the segment we're talking about cares less about those things.

It's a segment that has a different set of priorities or desires, and it's really no secret why.

lives harder...the immigrants and people on welfare(and its no accident that they are confused about who even receives welfare).
You're right there's no secret here. A world view has been engineered for these people. Some of them will in-fact vote against their self-interest knowingly if it hurts a group they hate because that hatred is so engrained that it is central to their identity, but I don't think that's most of them. I think the "knowingly" is the important part of the equation that is missing when they cast their votes.

It's the basis for that segment of working class whites having a different set of priorities than the working class as a whole. One of the problems with the "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative is that it implies working class persons of color (not to mention the millions of working class whites who voted for Clinton) must not care about economics. There's a clear racist element to that notion, as well as the implicit suggestion that "working class" is synonymous with white. To say nothing of the fact that Clinton won among those who said 'the economy' was their top priority.

Bear in mind that a vast majority of Trump supporters are Birthers. Birtherism is rooted in racism.

The white backlash and hatred for "liberals" (two things that are not mutually exclusive) is a driving force behind the Trump Cult. "Conservatism turned toxic: Donald Trump’s fanbase has no actual ideology, just a nihilistic hatred of liberals."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/20/clinton-gone-silver-lining-trump-victory

This heralded the Obama years, as the New Democrats continued to justify their existence through a focus on social causes that do not threaten corporate power. Or as Krystal Ball put it so powerfully: “We lectured a struggling people watching their kids die of drug overdoses about their white privilege.” Add to this that we did it while their life expectancy dropped through self-destructive behaviors brought on by economic distress.

If the rhetoric of the Democrats convinces white working people that we want them to sit in the back of the bus and contemplate their white privilege, many won't vote with us.

If you really want an answer to your question, you have to acknowledge that Democrats speak to white people differently than to POC. On DU, it's OK to brutally generalize about white people, but no others. It's OK to nastily denigrate white culture, but no others.

If Democrats really want to win elections, we'll have to rethink this approach.

But when it comes to white working class men it's all about how badly they have been treated.

And by the dog whistling that suggests working class is synonymous with white, thus the "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative.

"...a focus on social causes that do not threaten corporate power."

Oh good grief. As if anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-heterosexism and anti-xenophobia are merely "social causes" that have no relationship to economic justice and the corporatocracy.

See posts #9, #11, #15, #20, #22, #25, #29, #30, #34, #36 and others throughout this thread.

A hell of a lot of white people vote for Democrats. Nobody is denigrating "white culture." I don't even know what "white culture" means, but it sure sounds like a generalization to me.

White privilege is a reality. Institutional/structural racism is a reality. Also a reality is the fact that historical injustices continue to impact the present, including the enormous wealth gap between black and white households. A rising tide doesn't lift all boats when some boats have not been allowed out to sea.

Acknowledging and addressing all of that in no way prevents the Democratic Party from also promoting a living wage, protecting the social safety net, and addressing poverty (as well as the related issues of drug use, dropout rates and teen pregnancy) more broadly. In fact, the Democratic Party is the major party that's already doing that. The Republican Party sure as hell isn't (the president-elect offered next to nothing in the way of substantive policy positions).

low level tellers had to commit fraud and create fake accounts in order to keep their jobs-- she walked away with over a hundred million dollars. So no, fighting sexism in the executive suites doesn't fight corporate power or help ordinary workers or help protect ordinary people who are customers of the bank. It just means that occasionally the person who scams huge money from the pockets of ordinary Americans will be female. And it didn't help those victimized by Wells Fargo one bit that the President and Attorney General who stood by and watched were black Americans.

Sure, a lot of white people voted for Democrats. Some are white people concerned about climate change or the minimum wage who voted Democrat in spite of being alienated by their racial rhetoric, like me.

Some people were alienated from both parties. 100,000 people in Michigan went to the polls, but left the presidential line blank. If half had voted for Hillary, she would have won the state.

A white person working for WalMart for $10 an hour is not privileged. A white person who lost their job, home, and pension in the 2008 crash is not privileged.

Liberal activists scream at poor whites about their white privilege, post pictures of black activists drinking white tears, write articles about the white entitlement of Bernie supporters, mock the concerns of white people as mere white people's problems, and if any white person complains about it, they point fingers and laugh at their white fragility. Now that we've lost, top to bottom, they are pointing at the whites who failed to vote for Democrats and crying 'racist, sexist, xenophobic bigots'. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Whiteness is an advantage in America.

One of the reasons some of these white working class people are so angry is that they feel that that white skin privilege is less valuable than it used to be. Donald Trump told them that he would get it back for them.

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

And structural racism has a negative impact on well-to-do persons of color, as well. Everything from advancement opportunities to what happens in a court of law to health care.

Also, criminal (in)justice (be it police brutality or verdict/sentencing disparities) clearly impacts economic standing. It's tough to earn income if you're dead or in jail. On my reading list is The New Jim Crow.

caught dead paying their lowly workers that much unless they had been there forever and proved to be a well behaved company boy or girl.

There are some women and persons of color in positions of power, therefore there's no institutional/structural racism and sexism that impacts economic standing/disparities in the US. So, the massive disparities must be on account of laziness or a lack of personal responsibility. I hear that argument from right wingers. It's sometimes called the Oprah or Obama argument. Or the exceptions to the rule argument.

I expect more from progressives.

I'm white and I'd be alienated (i.e., downright pissed off) if Democrats spoke even less about structural racism and sexism than they currently do, which isn't much. Contrary to the en vogue narrative, Clinton spoke about economics way more than anything else, and the bulk of her message was not geared toward persons of color or even women. And a study done in 2011 showed Obama spoke less about race in his first 2 years than any previous Democratic president since JFK.

You really ought to do some reading up on white privilege. It's not all about wages. White privilege, or the lack thereof, impacts wealth/assets, advancement opportunities, access to certain jobs and schools, access to housing, loan contracts, dealings with law enforcement, court proceedings, health, and on and on and on. And historical injustice continues to impact the present. A few suggested readings:

http://www.timwise.org/2003/10/collateral-damage-poor-whites-and-the-unintended-consequences-of-racial-privilege/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/

YOU said:
"As if anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-heterosexism and anti-xenophobia are merely "social causes" that have no relationship to economic justice and the corporatocracy. "

I gave you one of hundreds of examples of how fighting sexism did nothing to fight the corporatocracy.

YOU then twisted my words and made the worst of assumptions about me.

We're done here.

If you think that statement of mine is disproven by your Wells Fargo female executive, I agree that we're done here. Your denial of white privilege is reason enough to be done.

Read White Like Me by Tim Wise sometime.

By the way, I made no assumptions about you. I critiqued your argument, which is the same argument right wingers frequently use in an effort to dispute the existence of white privilege.

... and this includes the corportacracy

they just can't understand apparently. They claim to be so tough. They should grow up and shake off any comments about white tears. Why so sensitive? And not all of them lost their home or their job.

And voting for the Rs in revenge is stupid, and they set themselves up for accusations of racism, etc., by voting for the sexist racist.

That'll win votes.

Each voter is allowed to be as sensitive as they want to be when they are in the booth, or when they decide to skip the election because they are disgusted with both sides, albeit for different reasons.

I'd like to see the left stop issuing broadside insults at white people because I'd like us to WIN. I want universal health care, reproductive rights, civil rights protected by a good Supreme Court, living wages, all that good stuff.

You'll never get an argument from me that voting for Trump was a smart move. But I've read a number of comments across the web from white people insulted by the left's lingo who did just that.

"Fuck the White Working Class" is a slogan for a party that wants to lose for the next 40 years.

why are they so sensitive about that? It's not saying that no white people have a hard time of it and no black people do well. It's just saying they have that advantage.

To me it's one of many voting blocs, each unique for it's own reasons, no particular one inheritly more valuable than another, other than the number of votes within it.

...the rest of the working class, which includes millions of other white working class people, as well as millions of working class persons of color?

Once we have an answer to that question (and I think we already do), what is the Democratic Party to do that won't alienate those working class people who currently vote Dem?

If the bulk of working class people weren't voting for Democrats, that'd be one thing. But it's merely a portion of white working class people that are getting all the attention.

I do think the Democratic Party can take measures to produce more Democrats (see post #20 in this thread), but the "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative has always been a load of bull. Democrats need to take to the airwaves and change the narrative, not contribute to it.

By 2040 we will have tipped the scales and whites will no longer BE the majority. They are in fear of that day and believed Donnie would set that clock back for them. Perhaps they fear that a non white world will not be a friendly one to them seeing as how they have treated all people of color for decades.

Me, I look forward to a non white America after all whites did not do a great job, now did they.

and white Evangelicals.

Black Evangelicals (and there's many) vote for Democrats and white Evangelicals overwhelmingly vote for Republicans... even more so than the "white working class" do.

We're only talking about a portion of white working class people. And the "working class whites/economic messaging narrative" suggests that working class persons of color (and the millions of working class whites who vote Dem) must not care about jobs, wages, parental leave, workplace conditions, the cost of health insurance, etc. We know that's not true, of course. It's something else that differentiates that segment of working class whites from the working class as a whole...and I think we all know what that something is. I think it applies to the divide between evangelicals, as well.

the black working class will safely vote for Democrats regardless of the specific economic messages?

I'm not sure!

Many African Americans were neglected during FDR's work programs and some union jobs only went to whites, so there's a perception that AA's will naturally be more concerned about any hints of racial bias instead of economic/job proposals from various candidates.

And see post #3 about taking persons of color for granted.

For one thing, Clinton won among those who listed 'the economy' as their primary concern (that would include many persons of color). For another thing, institutional/structural racism has a huge impact on economic advancement/standing/disparities. For yet another thing, millions of working class whites vote for Democrats.

See post #25. While I don't think it's done maliciously, some well-meaning people seem to have been infected by decades of dog whistling (from Nixon to Reagan to today's Republicans such as Ryan and Trump) that suggests "working class" is synonymous with white (persons of color are lazy welfare recipients, so "working class" and "white" get hitched in our little game of word association).

I really think it's utilized to make voting pattern distinctions, at least in the cases where I've seen it. Same with "white Evangelicals." That doesn't imply that only white people are Evangelical Christians!

It could be a dangerous habit, though! I suppose that some people could start to equate "white" and "working class" that way, or maybe even "white" and "Evangelical Christian."

By the way, here's a good article about economic and racial messaging to different audiences.
http://fusion.net/story/323539/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters/

But Sanders seldom trained that same impassioned rhetoric on the problems that so many black voters wanted addressed: police brutality, white supremacy, and the ways in which economic inequality is inextricable from race.

It may have been white privilege, or simple cultural ignorance of black people and our plights. The Vermont senator, who built a movement on lofty promises like universal health care and free college, dismissed reparations for black people as “very divisive.”

He appeared not to realize that you can’t simply deliver the same speech on economic inequality to a room full of black people in Atlanta that you would to a room full of white people in Iowa.

It can infiltrate well-meaning people.

Thanks for the link. Bernie is far from alone in needing to understand "the ways in which economic inequality is inextricable from race." It's one thing to tailor a message. It's another thing to give contradictory messages that risk alienating the base. Tread lightly, I say. And there's nothing wrong with talking to a white audience about structural racism and sexism, and about how those things have been used to divide and conquer the working class. In fact, I'd say it's vital that Dems have those conversations with white audiences. Nothing threatens the ruling class more than a multiracial alliance. That point, along with points made in the Fusion article, echoes what I was really getting at in the following thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512668738.

See post #20 as to what I think the Democratic Party needs to do to increase the ranks of Democrats.

See posts #30, #36 and #46, which (along with my thread about how you can't win the nomination without winning over a large percentage of POC and women) relate to the following excerpts:

He answered it more directly than Clinton, who skirted around it more cleverly.

Sanders is right that it would be divisive. It might even annoy some non-AA voters who would think, "My ancestors arrived here just a few years ago!" if they think they'll pay higher taxes to pay for it. (I've seen reparations defined in various ways, but a common belief is that it means the government will hand out large checks to African Americans.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/reparations-for-slavery-sanders-obama-clinton/

Clinton’s position

Clinton’s recent and past comments suggest her ideas for helping the black community are no different from Sanders’ and Obama’s.

Clinton didn’t directly answer the question about reparations at the Iowa Brown & Black Forum, but she also suggested investing in black communities and addressing poverty:

"I think we should start studying what investments we need to make in communities to help individuals and families and communities move forward. And I am absolutely committed to that. There are some good ideas out there. There’s an idea in the Congressional Black Caucus about really targeting federal dollars to communities that have had either disinvestment or no investment, and have had years of being below the poverty level. That’s the kind of thing I’d like us to focus on and really help lift people up."

In October 2015, she provided a similar response when asked by the hosts of the BuzzFeed podcast "Another Round":

"I’ll tell you what, I think we need to make many more investments in everything from pre-school education to affordable housing, that’s my form of trying to give people the chance to be empowered, to make the most out of their God-given potential."

As Fusion pointed out, this was largely Clinton’s answer in 2000 as well. When she was asked about reparations during her Senate campaign, she said African-Americans deserve an apology for slavery before pivoting to economic conditions.

"But I think that the people I know and the people I work with want us to stay focused on the future, keep our economy going, keep providing good public education, quality affordable health care — do the things that will enable people to have the best futures for themselves, and that’s what I’m committed to doing."

But I think Clinton's answer at the Iowa Black and Brown Forum was a solid response. It's the sort of response I had in mind when I wrote what I did in post #46 regarding the viability of "reparations."

I'm also reminded of what Jackie Robinson wrote to Eisenhower:

The problem is a lot of folks seem to think the playing field is now level. From an article by Tim Wise:



Democrats, including Clinton if she ever plans on campaigning for other Democrats in the future, need to do a better job of addressing institutional/structural racism and how it is used to divide and conquer. White Democrats (and young people) need to get that it's the thing itself that is divisive, not addressing the thing. That's not an easy task, but it's both possible and necessary. The evils of our past continue to haunt the present, and there are plenty of evils of the present, as well. The US has never properly addressed those evils. The disparities in wealth, health, criminal justice, access to housing and so on *must* finally get the attention and eradication they deserve.

I know this is already a long post, but let me add what the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent concluded upon visiting the US this past year:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/

Compare:





I'm personally very disappointed in the education / job training results from whites! Cash payments seem more like a slippery slope to me. Do we later pay all women reparations for ill treatment against their gender? What about people of Irish ancestry? The Chinese who worked on railroads? What about me? One of my ancestors had his farm in PA taken away, after about 50 years of clearing and developing it (no slaves) because a lawyer noticed a paperwork oversight with the county to essentially steal it?

I'm pleased that most Americans believe that slaves should have received reparations after the Civil War. That might sound like a "cop out" to some people, but it was also more cut-and-dry and practical back then.

Just like it would make more sense to pay reparations for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by the USA for a totally senseless war NOW rather than in 150 years when it's unclear which Iraqis were directly affected by it. (I'm sure that most Americans wouldn't support such reparations, though... maybe not even a majority of African Americans.)

By the way, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that slavery alone (not to mention other racial issues that followed) was detrimental to many African Americans. Even if the uncompensated labor is ignored, there's also the issue that white people could accumulate property while slaves could not. Once there's a piece of paper declaring that people "own" something in this country, like land (limited supply), how are other people going to be on equal footing when they didn't even have an opportunity to acquire those legal contracts? Very few African Americans in rural areas today? It's not exactly a mystery!

The greatest wealth in this country is contract-based. It's STILL happening. Bill Gates? He didn't even create DOS! He bought it from another programmer who wrote it, thereby giving Gates a contract that declared him the "owner" of it. He then appealed to IBM who agreed to use it for their new line of PC's. Gates had a contract with them that declared he still owned the software. Once that money rolled in, he could then hire other MORE TALENTED people to work for him, and they helped him get even richer! On and on. (Gates' father was a contract lawyer.)

Anyway, reparations could also be paid to the very educated and talented people who work today to make the "owners" get rich! It's not nearly on the same level of exploitation as slavery, but it's still exploitation that most people accept as "the way it is" today... when people in about 150 years might think it's an utter outrage.

The US has set a precedent of giving reparations to Native Americans, Japanese Americans, Holocaust victims and others...and long, long after the crimes were committed.

What's truly aggravating is that the US government gave reparations to slave owners following emancipation. Seriously, slave owners received reparations due to the loss of income resulting from emancipation.

So, I wouldn't worry about slippery slopes. The term "reparations" doesn't have to be used, though I use it for the purpose of this discussion. Because, yes, some hear the term and all they can think of are cash payments. Americans of African descent have a uniquely horrifying history (including recent history). Americans have been conditioned to not see what the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent can plainly see, and that conditioning must be combated. The longer we delay the more difficult the task will become.

While some are not open to an education, there are those who can come to understand that historical injustice (and ongoing injustice) has had a devastating impact on the present.

"The Case for Reparations" by Ta-Nehisi Coates is a must-read if you haven't already read it. As the subtitle reads, "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole."

As for your point about Gates and others, Democrats should certainly be making the point that there are no self-made people (that's a dangerous notion to Republicans, who promote individualism in an effort to dismiss the collective--this is central to right wing ideology). We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before, as well as our contemporaries--we all rely on "the commons." Jonathan Rowe in Our Common Wealth wrote about how patents and copyrights were originally intended to last for a short duration. He also wrote the following:

So how did the white unemployed class vote? The white retired class? The white working single mother class? These are the white classes that will come around to the Democratic Party once the GOP starts slashing unemployment benefits, food assistance, ACA, Medicare, SS, while giving huge tax breaks to their billionaire buddies.

Until the 2016 election cycle, I never considered there was a need for a special distinction. All working class people want and need the same things, have the same struggles, are affected by the same or similar issues, etc. It was they, the so-called "white working class" who set themselves apart as having some special privileges that non-white working class people aren't entitled to just because they are white.

Trump played into these angry feelings of entitlement that only fed and justified all their bad behavior and delusions of being the only victims of bad government by the rich and by the so-called "elites" as we have been labeled, as the scapegoats for all their inadequacies.

Why is it that only we, the "loser-libtards" have to eat humble pie and learn the hard lessons from Election 2016 that if we want good government we have to get in there, get active and change things for ourselves? But the self-annointed winner-trumptards are entitled have somebody/anybody else make life better for them? Aren't we ALL being fleeced by the Republican Congress, the corporations and the 1%? What justifies their expectations of special treatment and privileges above everyone else? That's what I don't get.

I think we all, at least deep down, know what separates them from the working class as a whole (including other working class whites and working class POC).

Yes, there are things the Democratic Party can and should do to grow the ranks of Democrats (see post #20), but kowtowing to bigots ain't one of them. And Democrats need to hit the airwaves to blast the "working class whites/economic messaging" dog whistle narrative.

Anyway, good post. Well said.

I don't think coddling these people would yield any productive results anyway. They just want to "stick it" to someone. Even if Trump renegs on ALL of his campaign promises, as long as he keeps harrassing the establishment and encourages them to keep trolling the "elites", they'll feel vindicated.

I think it's important to recognize that not everyone who has bought into the narrative has malicious intent. But it does need to be pointed out that the narrative is deeply flawed and serves as a dog whistle. Democrats need to hit the airwaves with a new narrative, rather than further the "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative.