The divide on the left.
9/4/10 21:58![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
futurebird.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSome of the time I feel like things like "net neutrality" and issues of freedom of expression and surveillance take center-stage in our progressive communities and issues like public housing, welfare, min. wage, work safety, don't get much attention at all. If your main concern is addressing poverty and inequality things like "net neutrality" might seem hopelessly abstract. In the same way, I think that some progressives just don't get a lot of issues that are related to poverty and ongoing racism.
"Progressives" need to do a better job of getting to know organizations that work with poor and minority communities. More cross-pollination. There's this gap-- and, frankly, the people with the most resources should do the most reaching to bridge it.
In NYC I've seen good progressive ideas fail since a large number of working class and poor Democrats just don't "get" what the progressives are talking about. It's really easy for whatever lobby it is that benefits from the legislation not getting passed to use some populist BS to piss off these Democrats and get them to pressure the elected officials for the dumbest things. And who can blame them? Progressives rush in at the last moment breathlessly explaining their pet policies. I think some of the organizations who focus on class, gender and race issues just say "where were you when we needed your help?" But in the end everyone loses.
When I have tried to talk about this in the past suddenly EVERYONE who is a self-identified progressive is also suddenly so very "working class" --and they get in a huge huff since they think I'm calling them a bunch of latte-drinkers.
Well, goddammit, a lot of progressives do drink lattes and we (yes, I said "we") don't know enough about the issues that matter to poor and working class Democrats or what the hell we can do to address these issues. In addition, a lot of self-identified progressives don't really 'get' issues that involve race or gender that well either.
ACORN should still be around. So, who's next? The far Right was successful in taking this organization down. And this isn't abstract, it's serious. I have seen the positive impact that they had and it will leave a huge gaping hole. So, since it worked, you can bet the Right is going to do it again. If we let some of our people end up isolated as ACORN was they won't be able to fight back-- I don't think ACORN spent any money on PR people, they wanted every penny to go to the work. That's idealism, and they were eaten alive becuase of it. It doesn't have to be this way, though, if enough people step up to the plate to protect the people who are doing the good work-- maybe we'll get to know each other better and be a more powerful because of it.
"Progressives" need to do a better job of getting to know organizations that work with poor and minority communities. More cross-pollination. There's this gap-- and, frankly, the people with the most resources should do the most reaching to bridge it.
In NYC I've seen good progressive ideas fail since a large number of working class and poor Democrats just don't "get" what the progressives are talking about. It's really easy for whatever lobby it is that benefits from the legislation not getting passed to use some populist BS to piss off these Democrats and get them to pressure the elected officials for the dumbest things. And who can blame them? Progressives rush in at the last moment breathlessly explaining their pet policies. I think some of the organizations who focus on class, gender and race issues just say "where were you when we needed your help?" But in the end everyone loses.
When I have tried to talk about this in the past suddenly EVERYONE who is a self-identified progressive is also suddenly so very "working class" --and they get in a huge huff since they think I'm calling them a bunch of latte-drinkers.
Well, goddammit, a lot of progressives do drink lattes and we (yes, I said "we") don't know enough about the issues that matter to poor and working class Democrats or what the hell we can do to address these issues. In addition, a lot of self-identified progressives don't really 'get' issues that involve race or gender that well either.
ACORN should still be around. So, who's next? The far Right was successful in taking this organization down. And this isn't abstract, it's serious. I have seen the positive impact that they had and it will leave a huge gaping hole. So, since it worked, you can bet the Right is going to do it again. If we let some of our people end up isolated as ACORN was they won't be able to fight back-- I don't think ACORN spent any money on PR people, they wanted every penny to go to the work. That's idealism, and they were eaten alive becuase of it. It doesn't have to be this way, though, if enough people step up to the plate to protect the people who are doing the good work-- maybe we'll get to know each other better and be a more powerful because of it.
Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 05:59 (UTC)i''m not saying she's wrong or lying. i just thought it was funny you used maddow to me that would be like using glenn beck as your citation.
Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 06:19 (UTC)Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 09:39 (UTC)Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 15:37 (UTC)heh, don't disturb my foaming at the mouth dude.. ;)
Okay, you think it's funny that I bash the far right and use Maddow as a source for it. I get it. (you think she's "far left" which I think is a joke)
I however refer back to the actual point of my comment, that Maddow cited a legitimate source correctly (which btw makes your "funny" aspect much less funny, since people like Glenn Beck are notoriously known for citing falsely), and you basically don't disagree with that.
Glad we straightened that out.
Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 16:00 (UTC)Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 16:29 (UTC)golly, bipartisanship sure ain't no fool's game no-sirree
Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 10/4/10 18:41 (UTC)Maddow has facts; Beck has nonsense and a chalkboard.
Maddow engages in journalism--tho she clearly has a view and isn't afraid to share her view. Beck is not doing journalism, he's doing fear-mongering.
Re: the far right=bunch of lying tossholes
Date: 11/4/10 02:34 (UTC)