Standing with the poor is not "Ideological Purity" - Why Class Matters PART 3

[Political Heretic]

Originally, I wrote this as a response to one person. But I realized that the subject is really much broader. The subject is about how to strip away the emotion, the defensiveness, and the heat from arguments between two groups of people:

(1) those who think the Democratic Party and the Obama adminsitration have done no substantive wrong since taking political power or office, or those who think they have at least done far more good than ill
(2) those who think something else

For the purposes of this thread, "you" means anyone who identifies with (1). Remember this originally started as a personal post to one individual. Then I realized that it applied very broadly to a larger divide here on DU. Also, I realized that this nicely completes a trilogy on Why Class Matters. Thinking about policy and about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of parties and adminsitrations should not be done without Class in mind.


If I try to interpret your position fairly, I'd describe it like this:
I believe you feel this administration has done good that far outweighs any harm or mistakes that it has made. I believe you would argue that in an imperfect world and system, one can't make national public policy subject to a "purity" test, because since nothing will ever be perfect, nothing would ever be accomplished. I believe you would argue that one must look pragmatically at political, social and economic realities and attempt to support parties, politicians and administrations that do the most net good, without sacrificing the good on the alter of the ideal.

Now, it was my attempt to be absolutely fair and respectful in summarizing your position. If what I said was inadequate or you take issue with it in any way, please correct me. Because that would potentially be a good learning exercise.

If I characterized your position correctly, then here's where we differ:
I feel compelled to stand with the poor, both as one of the poor (though not without racial, gender and historical privileges) and as one who feels morally and ideologically committed to the needs and interests of the poor regardless of what income or social level I ever find myself in.

For me, in terms of politics, standing with the poor means supporting policy that prioritizes the needs of the poor first, while putting the wants and wishes of the powerful and privileged second. Let me be clear - I am not suggesting ignoring the wants or wishes of anyone. I am only suggesting that the focus and prioritization of policy ought to be the poor.

While on a purely personal level, my deepest commitment lies with the poor, politically I can easily expand this category to include what I'll call "ordinary Americans." Ordinary Americans would be the bottom 80 percent that is working middle class, working poor, and the broader poor (indigent, non-working, mentally ill and untreated, etc.)

And that that means, to break it down another level, is that if policy sufficiently benefits Ordinary Americans (as defined,) if it prioritizes the needs of ordinary Americans first, ahead of the wants and wishes of the powerful and privileged - not to the total exclusion of those wants and wishes, but with primary concern focused squarely on the 80% of America - then I support it. And I support any political party when it has that focus. And I support any administration in general or president in particular when it has that focus.

This is not ideological purity. Allow me to make my case for why it is not: I would be willing to support policy that was "good enough," which is far from a "pure" stance. How is "good enough" to be defined? I have a specific answer. Policy is "good enough" if:

• It has sufficient benefits (for ordinary Americans)
  
• It has no critical problems (for ordinary Americans)
  
• The benefits effectively outweigh any remaining non-critical problems (for ordinary Americans)
  
• All things being equal, further effort to produce different or better policy on this issue would be more harmful (to ordinary Americans) than helpful.
  

Because I use that criteria for considering my position on policy, I do not feel the charge of "purity" can be fairly levied. I would be willing to support policy that had problems, as long as the benefits for ordinary Americans sufficiently outweighed those problems.

That's a pragmatic approach, though one with boundaries. I still maintain a firm commitment to my moral convictions, and yet I do so while recognizing the reality of an imperfect world and an imperfect political system. Thus all I ask of policy is that it do more good for ordinary Americans than harm.

That's the lens I am applying when I consider policy.

So in the future, if you see me being critical of actions or policy from this administration and/or congressional Democrats, remember my description here and ask me to explain why I think x policy or action does not have sufficient benefits for ordinary Americans. I promise that I will answer, and then I will listen to you argue why you believe that it does have sufficient benefits for ordinary Americans. The exchange will likely be positive, possibly even fruitful and certainly interesting.

It's important that we start getting to know each other and you realize that those of us who are labeled as more "fringe" or "radical" are simply choosing to stand with the poor rather than in deference to the financial elite, the powerful, the hyper-wealthy, and the super-privileged. Class matters.

[bread_and_roses]

1. Class does indeed matter, but you'll see precious little awareness of that on DU

Just as you'll see precious little awareness of institutionalized racism or white privlege here. Just read any thread referencing "welfare" for instance. I commend you for trying to make a dent, though.

on edit: there are a solid corps of posters here who do "get it" - though I've seen a good few drift off over the years, still, some remain, still trying.

[Political Heretic]

7. If you haven't seen part 1 or 2, you might be interested

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6982965

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6991641

[inna]

14. Wow, thanks for the links.

Good thing that at least one of the abusive bullies is gone.

The level of civil discourse around here.... :shakes head:

[truedelphi]

20. Yes thank you. i am on DU far less than in the past

And I now use google to go directly to those I want to see (Such as Octafish, Hissyspit, Autorank, some others) That way I avoid most of the "Aren't we great -we got ourselves a Dem President" topics.

Will be putting your name on the google list so I don't miss your topics.

Pls keep up the very good and enlightening work. These are well worth the read.

[Greyhound]

2. K&R. It is the prime issue.

One thing; you point out that "(you) do not feel the charge of "purity" can be fairly levied." I would only point out that these people are not interested in fairness, I doubt it even registers in their conscience since if it did they would not be advocating these policies.

It is becoming a cliche, but cliches become since there is at least a kernel of truth in them, but "I've got mine, fuck you" is prevalent, perhaps dominant, in this party too.

[Robb]

3. Again, a good start.

But then you go divisive with your second-to-last sentence: "...those of us who are labeled as more "fringe" or "radical" are simply choosing to stand with the poor rather than in deference to the financial elite, the powerful, the hyper-wealthy, and the super-privileged."

...The choice you give is to accept your position(s) or be considered a supporter of the "hyper-wealthy"?

You have gray area in your own definition of "good enough," but not in others' positions. It's that lack of gray that forces the "purity" label, IMO. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

5. Try reading it this way and see if it helps:

Although I am labeled "fringe" and "radical" I am only choosing to stand with the poor rather than with power. That's a statement about myself - that I am choosing (or I should say striving) not to stand with power, and to stand with the poor. It need not imply that others stand with power (or that they stand with the poor)or anything that others are doing - it simply says, I don't think its "fringe" to do what I'm trying to do for myself.

I do see how it could be read as you read it, and I apologize for that. But it can also be read as I just described. And that is want I intended, so your criticisms are misplaced. Could be worded better perhaps, but charges of having no "gray area" based on that sentence are inaccurate.

[el_bryanto]

4. I agree with this but not sure it really answers the main question

I mean when I see people lambasting Obama it is usually over a few issues - like his commitment to the LGBT community, his policy in continuing the Afghanistan War, his strategy in fighting for healthcare (i.e. not going for Single Payer or something comparable).

I suppose one can characterize all of those issues as standing with the poor against the wealthy - certainly in America poor people tend to fight our wars and they are the ones without health care - but the connection doesn't seem that direct.

Perhaps this is in response to something I don't know about, as I've been a way for a week or so due to work pressures.

Bryant

[Political Heretic]

6. I can't believe you don't think the connection is direct.

I'm not sure how you don't see a direct connection on health care or war. Honestly, no disrespect meant here - but I literally don't know what to write back because I'm sort of stunned.

As far as context goes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6982965">Bourgeois Underground: Why Class Matters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6991641">Bourgeois Underground - Why Class Matters PART 2

[emulatorloo]

9. "I can't believe you don't think . . ." sounds sort of judgmental and/or confrontational

in response to a poster who appears to be honestly trying to grapple with the issues.

I am not trying to be critical -- I just wonder if it is that kind of tone that could lead people to view you as being a "purist."

[Political Heretic]

11. Whether it does or whether it doesn't - it was my honest reaction, which I explained

again in the body of the post.

It leaves me in a state of pause. We can't always be perfectly prepared for everything we hear.... if someone told me that they honestly didn't believe the world was round I'd have the same shocked reaction.

[el_bryanto]

10. Poor people are going to die disproportionally in just wars as well as unjust wars

Poor people died more in World War 2 for example.

You have a point on Health Care, but I would respond by saying that the issue is Obama's choice of tactics, not his position. I personally would have liked to have seen him come out swinging for single payer, but we were never ever going to get it on the first go-around. I think as far as what was possible politically, we are getting a bit more than I expected.

Bryant

[Political Heretic]

12. In my opinion, there are no "just" wars.

There may be necessary wars, but I think we do better when we call them necessary and not "just."

And its not about poor people dying in wars. It's the question, does this sufficiently benefit ordinary Americans? Does escalating the war in Afghanistan sufficiently benefit ordinary Americans? You may think so, I do not.

When it comes to health care, my thinking wasn't single-payer or nothing. Single payer is absolutely what we need, what works best, what is closest to just and non-exploitative, etc. But I was willing to consider a different form of health care legislation that was "good enough" by the definition I gave in the OP.

The legislation is still coming together, but as it stands now I don't believe it has sufficient benefits for ordinary Americans. It has critical problems for ordinary Americans, such as a lack of a robust public option available broadly with non-negotiable rates that could provide true competition to private insurers. Or the fact that subsidies for the poor are meager, less than they were in the bill coming out of committee, possibly to be further reduced in conference - they do not effectively meet the health care needs of the poor.

Or the fact that the needs of the financial elite, in this case Insurance, are clearly prioritized over the needs of ordinary Americans. Goldman Sachs just put out a report analyzing the House health care bill, saying that it was a windfall for Insurance, but saying that even though the House heath care bill will be great for profit, the Senate bill coming out of the finance committee would be even better, and that all signs look good for a final bill to be very profitable to Insurance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/goldman-to-private-insure_n_355998.html">Source

Or the fact that there is currently nothing in the legislation that mandates insurance companies to keep premiums down - they are getting millions for new forced customers, no competition to keep prices down, and no airtight regulation to keep prices down.

I could go on.

I would support a bill that prioritized the needs of the poor first, but was not everything we need (i.e. single payer). However as it stands now, this legislation is putting the financial elite first, it does not have sufficient benefits, it has critical problems, and it would be more helpful to work on this further than it would be to pass this in its current form. I firmly believe that this bill won't help anyone except Insurance - I believe it will actually make things worse in the long run for ordinary Americans.

[el_bryanto]

13. Well we disagree on Just War.

I disagree with your assessment of the Insurance Bill. I think it isn't everything we need, but better than I expected.

Bryant

[Political Heretic]

17. How does it put the needs of ordinary Americans first?

In way specific ways does it have sufficient benefits and no critical problems for ordinary Americans?

What is your response to the facts of the bill that I detailed - do you think those won't harm poor people (insufficient subsidies is but one example)...?

I'm open to your position - that you don't think its everything we need but better than expected. But can you defined what that means?

I note that you say better "than expected" but not that it has sufficient benefits for ordinary Americans and has no critical problems for ordinary Americans, nor that it prioritizes the needs of ordinary Americans first. Is that really all that matters that something is better than "expected?"

What if its still hurtful to ordinary people? What if we expected a huge pile of crap and instead got a smaller pile of crap. That would be better than expected but not exactly something to celebrate, right?

[el_bryanto]

19. I don't have hte long answer

The short answer is that people I respect tell me it's largely positive - but has some problems. I haven't researched enough to answer this question in the long form. I apologize.

Bryant

[Political Heretic]

22. Actually, I love that answer. It's honest. I respect that.

Take a look at some of the problems I described one more time. I know I don't deserve your respect (you don't know me from adam) but just consider some of those things as you gather more information.

Cheers!

[Lyric]

8. It's not just his commitment to the GLBT community.

It's his commitment to equality. Equality is not a GLBT issue--it's a universal issue that affects every single one of us. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't want a leader who is committed to my "community." I want a leader who is committed to the issues that affect my community, my nation, and my family. To hear a politician speak about his or her concern for the "gay community" drives me up the wall, even though I know it's well-intentioned most of the time, because it sets us apart. It creates the false impression that the only people who are still worried about equality as a political issue are gay people. That is not the least bit true.

I don't care if my President likes or dislikes me, approves or disapproves of me, agrees or disagrees with me, so long as he or she supports my RIGHTS. I know others might disagree, but for me personally, I neither want nor need a politician's "approval." I couldn't give a damn about that. It is his respect for my RIGHTS under the Constitution that matter to me; my RIGHT to be treated equally and neutrally under the law, my RIGHT as a citizen to have exactly the same privileges and responsibilities of every other citizen.

I am sick to death of the way that our modern society believes that the personal opinions of politicians and judges should weigh heavily in their decision-making. They are not gods! It is not their place to pretend that their personal biases should be respected by the law. Their job is to make the laws that govern our society, based on the need for such laws, and guided by the limits that the Constitution places upon the government. The 14th Amendment says that all citizens shall be treated equally by our laws--therefore, even if every single person in Congress, every single SCOTUS justice, and the President of the United States were ALL deeply offended by the idea of marriage equality, IT SHOULDN'T MATTER. Their opinions are not meant to trump the Constitution.

Citizens often forget that the Constitution does NOT establish or "give" rights to us. Those rights are OURS as well as others that are unnamed, and the Constitution serves to SPECIFICALLY protect certain rights that other governments that came before us frequently abused. The Constitution is meant to limit the power of the government, not to limit the rights of the people to only the rights that are described there. That was the biggest reason that so many Founding delegates opposed the Bill of Rights. They weren't against the idea of those rights--they were afraid that future generations would falsely believe that they possessed ONLY those rights and no more. And they were right to be afraid, because the vast majority of modern America believes exactly that, and thus, we are now less free.

The government (including the SCOTUS) interprets the Constitution narrowly in order to conserve and transfer as much power to the government, from the people, as possible. It is incredibly rare for a Supreme Court ruling to make the government's power more narrow, and rather common for a ruling to expand it. Sometimes the expansions are small. Sometimes they're enormous. The political fights that we all participate in are no longer about *whether* the government should have more power over us. They're about *where* that increased power should be directed. There are no court cases asking whether or not the government has the right to decide the marriage issue--the court cases are all about HOW the government decides the issue. We take it as a given that the government gets to decide whether or not gay couples can get married, but I think there's an argument to be made that the government does NOT have that power. There is no compelling state interest in it. NONE. Some people try the weak argument that the government's power is based on the need to "uphold the stability of the traditional family for the best interests of the nation," but to put it bluntly, that's bullcrap. We have no reason at all to think that gay families are any different than straight families in terms of stability and basic function. The government has the right to bar certain kinds of damaging marriages from the nation (incestuous, pedophilic, zoophilic, multiple spouses) because there are secular, logical, rational REASONS for disallowing those sorts of marriages. There is no secular, rational reason for disallowing the marriage of two consenting adults. The ONLY reasons are based on personal biases and bigotry. Lots of people think that gay marriage is weird/ungodly/icky, and the politicians need those people to vote for them--including Obama. Therefore it's not allowed.

We argue and argue over whether or not Obama should or should not approve of gay marriage, but I really don't give a damn. He needs to respect the Constitution that stands MILES above him in power. His personal opinion is valid for HIM, but not for anyone else. His job is not to be a king. His job is to be a servant. Let him start serving the Constitution that he swore to uphold, even when he disagrees with it. THEN he'll have the full respect of THIS member of the GLBT community. I voted for him because my family is poor and they'd have been worse off under McCain, and if it comes down to it, I'll do it again. But I truly and sincerely believe that he is in direct violation of his Presidential oath, just like every other President who came before him--some worse violators than others and in a myriad of ways, but still, all of them with broken oaths. Until ALL people are indeed treated equally under the law, until our nation is again controlled by the ordinary people and not the wealthy, NO President can say that he or she has solemnly upheld that oath.

[glitch]

21. Extremely well said, deserves its own thread.

I think what you are describing is a cult of personality, encouraged in our culture since Reagan. And apparently the personalities can be interchangeable, the cult easily adapts. Cults are very difficult to deal with, I think it will take genuine de-programming to break out of the mindset. Unfortunately our "media" is actively working against any possible effort in that direction. Our education system has already been hobbled.
Informing people of the situation and correcting the problem is going to have to come from the grass roots. IMO. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

[varelse]

30. I wish you'd start more threads ;-)

not to diminish the OP, but you are awesome.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. If it were not for the bigoted dogmas Obama clings to

we'd be middle class instead of barely making it and both of us would have health care not just one of us. That bigotry steals my money to make itself feel better. Just as it fires my brothers and sisters, removing from them income and benefits, just to get some Christian jollies.
You are welcome to pay the difference in income taxes we face compared to one of Obama's 'God in the mix, one man, one woman real marriages' any freaking day of the week. Then you might feel that direct connection. PM me and I'll let you know how to make out the check. OK? I'm waiting.

[LWolf]

41. Let me help.

When I lambaste him on a single issue, it's usually because the thread is about that one single issue.

It might be:

health care
EDUCATION
WAR
NAFTA/CAFTA & other labor issues
His center to center-right appointments


There are more. But the above suffices to note that it's not a single-issue. It's his center-right position on way too many issues.

[WeDidIt]

15. Then I suggest you work to get the poor to the polls.

If the poor showed up to elections, ESPECIALLY non-presidential elections, poverty would be wiped out copletely in this country within a single decade.

Barring that, you've got a huge uphill battle by those who see the moral imperative vs. a class who will call the poor parasites.

[Uncle Joe]

16. I believe that was the reason Acorn was given the shaft, they were

working to get the poor to the polls.

[Political Heretic]

18. Hopefully that's something you will do with me.

It will be an uphill battle anyway.

We all see what has been done to ACORN - one of the largest advocacy and mobilization organization for the poor. It is precisely their activity that has lead to the smear campaign.

Not only that, but I appreciate the way you phrased what you wrote... very careful to avoid blaming the poor as a group for not voting. The poor face numerous substantial obstacles to turning out that other classes normally do not face.

Inadequate transportation, less access to information about poll locations, registration procedure, lack of permanent addresses, voter suppression and voter intimidation campaigns directly targeting poor communities, voter suppression campaigns against people of color is a poor issue due to the disproportionate number of people of color in poverty.

States that bar persons with felony convictions from voting (no, poor does not equal criminal, but statistics show link between crime and poverty for what I hope would be obvious reasons). Add to that disaffection with a political system that has an abysmally poor track record when it comes to the needs of the poor. Those are a lot of obstacles.

It's definitely an uphill battle.

There are other steps needed beyond turning poor people out to vote. Greater steps need to be taken to mobilize and organize the poor and working class to protest a classist system that exploits them. Resistance. Defiance. Taking to the streets as was done in the civil rights movement. We can stand with the poor on the picket line, not just the voting line. The former is arguably more effective than the latter anyway.

[Political Heretic]

23. Kick. Do I have to have Bourgeois in the title?

[DanTex]

24. It seems to me this is almost entirely about ideological purity

First, I would guess that just about everyone on DU uses essentially the same criteria for evaluating policies as you lined up. Basically, a policy should have benefits, no critical problems, and it would be politically infeasible to improve the policy further. That's pretty non-controversial.

The question, of course, is how you define "sufficient benefits", "critical problems", and what political concessions you think are necessary or acceptable. And that's where people are going to differ.

Apparently you feel that the policies of the last year have been more flawed than you are willing to tolerate. You may have a point. There have certainly been a lot of flaws and disappointments.

Others may feel that they are flawed, but still net beneficial, and supporting Obama and Democrats is still the right thing to do. They may have a point. Particularly in light of the alternatives and political realities.

But then you come and accuse people who draw the line at a different place than you of being bourgeois defenders of the super-rich, who lack the courage and strength of conviction to stand with the poor. Umm... overreaction, maybe? And then you suggest that DU is overrun with such people and should be renamed Bourgeois Underground. Really?

You have every right to be disappointed and critical. Determining where to draw the line between idealism and pragmatism is tough, and ideological purity is not necessarily a bad thing. But it's just plain false to say that those who come down on the side of pragmatism in this instance are pawns of the elite ruling class.

[Political Heretic]

26. No, I actually did not do that.

See this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7025759&mesg_id=7026144

[Political Heretic]

28. Additionally: not everyone on DU uses the same criteria.

Everyone on DU might have some version of saying a policy should have benefits, no critical problems, and it would be politically infeasible to improve the policy further.

But not everyone says a policy should have sufficient benefits for the poor, no critical problems for the poor, the benefits for the poor sufficiently outweigh any remaining non-critical problems and that further acting would be more harmful for the poor than helpful.

But then you come and accuse people who draw the line at a different place than you of being bourgeois defenders of the super-rich, who lack the courage and strength of conviction to stand with the poor. Umm... overreaction, maybe?

Not in the slightest.

And then you suggest that DU is overrun with such people and should be renamed Bourgeois Underground. Really?

Ah, I see that your combining all three threads in your comments. In that case, yes. Really.

I'll never use absolutes like "all" or "everyone." Of course there is a struggle within DU between those defending an exploitative establishment and those standing with the poor. And of course there are some on the periphery that exist as something "other." But denying the growing tend towards alignment with privilege, power and establishment in DU is precisely that - total denial.

The grip of upper middle class, white, male perspective detached from workers and from the poor and aligned with the standard status quo game of an exploitative establishment...... tightens daily.

Don't confuse rejection the charge of ideological purity in policy analysis - the subject of this thread - with some charge of "purity" when it comes to class analysis, or general political opinion.

When it comes to policy though, like health care for example, if you support the house bill in its current form, either tell me how it bill, has sufficient benefits for the poor without critical defects, with benefits sufficiently outweighing any remaining defects, or admit that you do not consider the poor as top priority when deciding whether or not a bill is worth supporting. It's one or the other - it can't be both.

[leftstreet]

25. Wait...why not just call 'ordinary' Americans 'poor' Americans?

You expanded your definition of 'poor' to include 'ordinary' Americans, but then carefully backtracked to remind 'ordinary' Americans they must stand with 'the poor.'

Er...try switching lenses when you consider policy: CLASS

[Political Heretic]

27. That's not quite what I said.

I didn't expand my definition of the poor to include ordinary americans - implying that poor are not ordinary americans and that ordinary americans are some other people.

I said we could take a new term, called "ordinary Americans" and have that include the 80% of American that isn't super rich. Not all of the people in that 80% wouldn't be poor. They just wouldn't be super rich.

I said that here:

While on a purely personal level, my deepest commitment lies with the poor, politically I can easily expand this category to include what I'll call "ordinary Americans." Ordinary Americans would be the bottom 80 percent that is working middle class, working poor, and the broader poor (indigent, non-working, mentally ill and untreated, etc.)

[anonymous171]

29. "Standing with the poor means supporting policy that prioritizes the needs of the poor first"

:thumbsup: :kick:

[MellowDem]

31. What's unfortunate about the US...

is that the poor and lower middle class has huge proportions that vote against their own best interests consistently. And the inherent ignorance of many of the poor due to issues of poverty and the ease by which some media is able to manipulate their wrath is the main problem to dealing with any issues of class. The poor are anything but united in this country and the culture war is what is front and center more than class.

It's not so easy as just saying "I stand with the poor" when such a broad group includes many who are actively working against your stated objectives. That's a rather "ideological" statement that really is never true. Whether you want to or not, you stand with middle class and wealthy Americans who are also working towards greater economic equality. Your main beef is with strategy. It has nothing to do with DU being "bourgeois", it's the age-old debate between practicality and purity. One's not any more "right" than another, and claiming that you somehow "stand with the poor", implying that those who don't share your strategies do not, is a very narrow-minded approach to any issue.

I personally have no problem with anyone who criticizes the administration and I share many of the criticisms. I just find your previous posts to be somewhat broad brushing of DU and not conducive to any sort of real discussion of anything.

[Political Heretic]

32. Few vote in the US, even fewer of those are poor people.

I hear what you're saying, but there are less people in the poor and lower middle class that even vote. The biggest block of people regularly voting against their own best interests are moderate to upper middle classers.

Whether you want to or not, you stand with middle class and wealthy Americans who are also working towards greater economic equality. Your main beef is with strategy. It has nothing to do with DU being "bourgeois", it's the age-old debate between practicality and purity. One's not any more "right" than another, and claiming that you somehow "stand with the poor", implying that those who don't share your strategies do not, is a very narrow-minded approach to any issue.

In a word, no. Saying "I stand with the poor" means I stand for putting social and economic justice for the poor first. It is true - and I made this point plainly across the three parts of this sequence - that class can be a "mindset" as well as an economic status. Which means that it is possible for a poor person to align himself or herself with the interests of power and privilege, and against their own best interests. And it is possible for a rich person to align himself or herself with social and economic justice of the poor. I said that quite clearly.

However the symbol of the phrase "standing with the poor" isn't about physically standing along side all poor people everywhere as though we all think and act identically. "standing with the poor" means - and I said this - standing for social and economic justice for the poor, regardless of whether or not some poor individuals work against those interest or some rich individuals work for those interests.

This is far, far from strategy. In fact if there is any criticism to make it is that I don't talk about strategy. The age old, "that's great, but how to you plan to accomplishment" challenge could be made here. Defining "standing with the poor" when it comes to policy as supporting policy that prioritizes the needs of the poor first and other needs secondarily - that's not strategy. There's nothing in that statement discussion how to do that effectively. That's simply a definition of what it means to "stand with the poor" politically speaking.

The parameters for standing with the poor are then defined - a policy that prioritizes the needs of the poor first would have:

- sufficient benefits for the poor
- no critical problems that would hurt the poor
- benefits that outweigh any remaining noncritical issues

That's simply a bare bones definition of what standing with the poor politically means. Now if you take issue with that, I would ask you to define for me how one can "stand with the poor" politically (in terms of policy support) and not operate in the way I have described. I'd be open to specifics of what standing with the poor would look like if it does not look like the bare essentials I've described here.

One's not any more "right" than another, and claiming that you somehow "stand with the poor", implying that those who don't share your strategies do not, is a very narrow-minded approach to any issue.

This accusation keeps coming up - that I am implying or overtly stating that those who don't share "my strategies" do not stand with the poor, and how narrow-minded that is.

This is an insidious trend in political discussion today - attempts to cloud the waters by claiming that there can be no clear delineation, no specific definitions of what it means to do something or not do something, its all just opinion, nothing can be known, and so on.

This is a tactic used to avoid getting down to brass tacts on things. Obviously a prerequisite for involvement on this board is an acceptance that the ideologies of the far right are simply wrong. So there are at least some instances in which people are quite comfortable with delineating clarity.

In this instance, I am supplying a definition, not a strategy. I supplied a definition of what I believe a phrase like "standing with the poor" (having already established what I am describing with the use of that symbolic phrase) must look like when it comes to policy in order to even be standing with the poor. If you dispute that definition, then by all means identify the elements that you dispute and provide and alternative definition.

A strategy debate would be one in which I describe the kinds of tactics, electoral strategy, advocacy approaches, etc. that I believe will most effectively accomplish the goals implied in the definition. None of that is to be found in this OP.

I personally have no problem with anyone who criticizes the administration and I share many of the criticisms. I just find your previous posts to be somewhat broad brushing of DU and not conducive to any sort of real discussion of anything.

My previous two posts clearly reflect my strong opinion. In contrast to this one, which has more to do with providing a definition of what the symbolic phrase "standing with the poor" must mean when it comes to support of policy. (Again if you dispute the definition, I await your alternative.)

The previous two posts are opinion with a qualitative basis, but its still opinion. I don't think your claim that it operates as a broad brush is fair, given the lengths taken to qualify statements, acknowledge contexts, and never claim something like "everything," "everyone" or all.

Nevertheless, I do have an opinion, which is that I believe the trend is growing, and that DU primarily reflects the influence of upper middle class privilege, and of white race. That's what I personally see as the large pattern when I reflect over years of reading then years or posting here. To me this perspective is not even remotely subtle, but rather quite glaring.

That is not to say that there is not resistance, or counter attitudes and trends. I believe there is struggle between what I believe to be the prevailing class sentiment and the undercurrent of reaction and resistance. But I believe the former still prevails.

And yet, that remains only my opinion. My opinion is quite strong on this, but it is opinion just the same. I don't agree that it is not conducive to real discussion. Coming from my perspective, the more attention that is drawn the uncomfortable issues of class in general and the dominance of upper class white attitudes of privilege and detachment, the more discussion and debate can be stimulated. But of course, others can and will disagree. They are entitled to do so.

But it is my intention to continue to raise these issues as often as I feel necessary, and I'm not deterred by accusations of narrow-mindedness or generalization while sharing my opinion. If you feel that is broad brush, then I simply disagree with you, nothing further to add.

[MellowDem]

43. Your definition of "stand with the poor"

is pretty much followed by all of DU, which you yourself said you think should be called "bourgois underground". That is why I assumed any difference you had was in terms of strategy. Sure, everyone pretty much wants the same thing when it comes to helping the poor on here, but some are willing to compromise positions and go with things that hurt the poor temporarily in order to get closer to having political leverage for long term gains. Or there is disagreement over how much a policy will hurt or help. Regardless, definition is often a reflection of strategy, and because of some other's strategy, they would not meet your definition. And on DU, you see much less will to compromise than Democrats in general (and certainly in Congress).

And your opinion of DU wasn't backed up with any sort of examples or evidence, which is why it came across as generalizing. I suppose if any group is mostly composed of a certain race and income group, it will primarily reflect their influence in the group, but I don't understand how whites on DU = all white Americans or upper middle class people on DU = all upper middle class Americans. And I don't even understand why it is a "bad" thing that it's mostly whites and upper middle class people (if that is the case) who post on DU. To assume that because this demographic is the majority on DU it is now obviously "bourgois" makes no sense.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[enigmatic]

34. Great posts

K&R

[Vidar]

35. Highly recoommended. Class warfare has pushed many former middle

class members, myself included, far beneath the poverty line.

[midnight]

36. Elimination of poverty would go a long way to healing the wrongs in our

laws, services, and our health. Damn right class matters.

[blindpig]

40. One way to do that...

Eliminate Capitalism.

Where ya think all of those profits come from?

[Echo In Light]

37. K&R in heretical solidarity

This line;

"I would be willing to support policy that had problems, as long as the benefits for ordinary Americans sufficiently outweighed those problems."

:thumbsup:

[sendero]

39. The things you are trying to describe..

... are very hard to nail down. I'm middle class now, but I grew up very poor. My childhood is why I'm a Democrat, I remember how we were treated, and I remember the assumptions erroneously made.

I'm not at all happy with Obama, but I'd be hard pressed to identify the reason as being his handling of the classes. He's not a corporate ass because he prefers rich people over poor, he's a corporate ass because our political system is rigged to favor the moneyed interest, and he doesn't have the chops to overcome that.

[Lyric]

42. The truth is that we've been fighting out this argument since American was born.

In slightly different forms and with different social issues attached, but the basic premise is the same. Back then, the viler Federalists like Alexander Hamilton operated under the assumption that the nation could only prosper if it served the needs of the wealthy first, thus giving them a higher stake in the success of the country. Philosophical Anti-Federalists (like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson) believed the opposite--that the nation should serve the needs of the common people first and foremost, because ordinary people (by your definition) are inherently more vulnerable to tyranny and oppression than the wealthy. The Anti-Federalist movement was later usurped by profiteering sadists who cherry-picked certain ideals about small, local government to justify their own greed for slave labor, but the heart of the anti-federalist movement still rings as true for us today as it did for Patrick Henry. To create a nation that exists to benefit and magnify the wealthy instead of the ordinary people who make up the vast majority of the citizenry is an abomination.

Today, we are still fighting this battle. There is still conflict between the people who believe that government should prioritize services to the wealthy versus the people who think that government should prioritize services to ordinary people. We came close to winning this war (and it IS a war, without a doubt) during the height of the labor movement in the 20th century, but greed and corruption ruined everything. Now we have to start over. But are people angry enough yet to do something? Well, there's a lot of ranting on the internet but not nearly enough marching in the streets. There are times that I fear the internet has become an obstacle to the goal of an active, engaged citizenry. We have more access to information than ever before, but the downside is that too many of us are content to take our anger and outrage to the 'net, vent for all we're worth, and then go back to our everyday lives feeling better but accomplishing little. When the internet didn't exist, people had to meet *in person* to vent that anger. That's how nationwide rallies and marches came to be. How can we convince ordinary people to leave the computer and get solid bodies out into the streets? How do we re-direct our anger from the internet to the public square in a physical way? Regardless of how much we scream, the government ignores what we say here. They can't ignore us when we're blocking traffic on Capitol Hill.

It's a dilemma, for sure. God knows I love the internet as much as anyone else, but I feel more and more empty every time I post something here. We are all friends and patriots and brothers and sisters, but WE are not the ones who need to hear these things the most.