Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
So I'm reading Eschaton, where Atrios is whipping on somebody named Jonah something for misrepresenting a Dean debate answer and this thing jumps out at me:
It was the dream of Martin Luther King when I was 21 years old at the end of the civil rights movement that if one of us was left behind, then this country was not as good as it could be or as it should be.
And what my campaign is about, something else that Martin Luther King said, which is that, "our lives begin to end when we stop speaking up for the things that matter." That's how we are going to change America.
We're going to invest in small businesses, not just in the Latino community, but in every community. We're going to invest in people who need help. We're the only industrialized world -- country in the world that doesn't have a universal health care system that includes every single person. We can do that and we can do all these things if we're all in this together...
I would like Mr. Dean and every Democratic candidate running for every office in the nation to please, please include white people when you run down the list of ethnicities you want to help out. If you don't say it the wingnuts assume you're excluding them. Or will claim you're excluding them, favoring minorities at the expense of the NASCAR dads (alias Angry White Men, who are, by the way, still angry for some reason). And the hordes without number that react rather than think end up opposing you because you didn't say their name.
I feel weird as hell saying this out, but on reflection I realized lose nothing if you guys say this out loud because you ain't going to leave them out anyway.
LATER: Mithras adds a reason for mentioning white folks:
I hang my head in shame. Well, not really…but I do hate missing the obvious stuff.
Posted by P6 at October 10, 2003 10:50 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1941Hi Prom,
You have put your finger upon the main problem of the Democratic Party. The cultural alienation between the upper-class white liberal elites from the good schools who run the party( in alliance with the civil rights, feminist and big labor leadership)and working-class/blue collar/LMC white guys who 50 years ago, were the Party's core constituency.
There is a striking inability of white Dem elites ( you will hear this from Black Dem elites though. Clinton was the rare exception among white Dems) to include this subgroup in *anything* positive or empathize with their problems in any way in public rhetoric outside the context of organized labor. The exclusion is almost weird and probably relates in part to white liberal guilt on race mixed with class condescension for the mullet-haired, gun owning,Miller Lite drinkers they imagine inhabit the trailer parks of America. This subgroup, accurately or no, hears the Democrats assign them blame for both racism and sexual harrassment so they drop out of politics,or drift into the GOP.
I don't think you'll have too much success getting the Dems to change their rhetoric because part of the problem is ideological. This subliminal signal is sent because the party elites do not generally connect with or much like this socioeconomic class of white voter unless they are at an AFL-CIO local meeting.
Mark:
The exclusion is almost weird and probably relates in part to white liberal guilt on race mixed with class condescension for the mullet-haired, gun owning,Miller Lite drinkers they imagine inhabit the trailer parks of America.
I don't know. when we did the Identity Blogging thing, and in other race discussions aout White Studies and such, do you know how many peple just say there's nothing specific about being white? How can you indicate them when there's nothing distinctive about them?
Of course, that's nonsense…white folks know good and damn well they're white.
Strictly my opinion here, but I think it has more to do with whiteness being the default assumption. I think they felt you were just supposed to know. But there are still class divisions that are recognized within the white communities even though they tend to close ranks when minorities show up. So when they're not mentioned they take offense, even if they can't quite put their finger on why. And when the neocons focus their attention on the widening gap between white and non-white, the white guys feel a sense of inclusion…regardless of the fact that the fissure between have and have-not is growing too, just not quite as fast.
Mark - The exclusion is almost weird and probably relates in part to white liberal guilt on race mixed with class condescension ....
There is some of this still going on. I think it's less a product of guilt and condescension and more one of unfamiliarity. However you're born and raised, that's what you're familiar with, and it's omnidirectional across class and racial lines. (Of course, if you're a racial minority you're almost compelled at some point to get familiar with white culture, whether you like it or not.)
P6 - When they're not mentioned they take offense, even if they can't quite put their finger on why. And when the neocons focus their attention on the widening gap between white and non-white, the white guys feel a sense of inclusion�regardless of the fact that the fissure between have and have-not is growing too, just not quite as fast.
Are you saying the neocons find it easier to polarize on the basis of race? Or that the Democrats' inability to really reach across class lines leaves the whites who feel left out looking for somewhere to belong, and they find it in the Republican party?
Mithras:
I'm saying both things.
Neocons are polarizing the country intentionally, and race is the easiest issue that can manipulate. And white folks believe the class gap is bridgeable but the race gap isn't. Their choice looks like to join the rich guys or get caught in the middle.
Democrats can reach across the class gap simply by saying that's their intent. They don't because they don't believe it necessary. And this leaves a large swath of the white population feeling their needs aren't being addressed because they hear Democrats speaking the name of minorities but not theirs (though most claim not to have such a name).
The reason that they don't mention white people is much simpler than all this. They are in full politico pander mode when they bring that up, and white people as a group don't give a shit about being a group. There is nothing for them to gain by doing it. Race isn't seen as a weakness to white people.
The people who pounce on them doing it already know that this as simple pandering, and instead of playing the "you didn't pander to us" defense, they will say, "we know you are pandering because you included us and you never did before." (Which misses the entire point that they don't do anything on the Dem side but try to buy votes by pandering.)
Phelps:
white people as a group don't give a shit about being a group
Aren't you the one who, when I asked:
"And why do you feel attacked by association when you haven't really shown any signs that would make me associate you with Limberger?"
replied:
"Because the only qualification I've seen for the statements that you made was that Rush was white. I'm white, and therefore associated."
hmmmmm?
And remember, I said over and over before you made this statement that my problem was "white" AND "racist."
Don't even TRY to say that white people as a group don't give a shit about being in a group.
The Progressives aren't the ones who started the whole "Angry White Men" deal, or the "Soccer Moms" deal or the NASCAR dads" deal.
I'm not suggesting pandering. I'm not suggesting any change of message. The only suggestion here is to make clear that everyone, including the aforementioned groups, are included in the existing vision.