This topic has come up a handful times and is one of few areas where this community seems split.
(Note: I’m using social justice here as a pretty broad term, encompassing political issues related to racism, sexism, transphobia, religious discrimination, abortion, etc.)
I think all here advocate for a “big tent” approach that would welcome all voters, with some arguing that the way of achieving this goal is by relaxing the emphasis on social justice. The argument here is that emphasizing economic justice (e.g., healthcare, minimum wage, progressive taxation) could draw socially conservative voters to our tent, whereas emphasis on social justice / social liberalism may alienate these voters.
There are varying degrees of this argument: are we OK with our tent including politicians who actually include social conservatism in their platform or do we institute some sort of “purity test” and limit our tent to politicians that believe in social justice (i.e., would vote for it), but don’t actively emphasize those policies?
I generally disagree with this, though I’m much more open to the latter argument than the former. Throughout history, social justice has continually drawn the short straw: slaves can have their freedom someday, but not yet. Women shouldn’t have the right to vote because they’re too emotional and belong in the home. Sure, we are on board with civil rights, but we don’t like your methods of fighting for them so we’re going to make you wait.
I don’t think it’s enough to just fight for economic justice and ignore social justice with the hope that it will eventually come. In fact, I don’t think we can have true economic justice without social justice, and I’m not willing to compromise the social justice message of the left just to assuage the racist concerns of the white majority. It would just be another instance of postponing social justice for the sake of short-term gain.
No. But we can’t make ID pol our first priority. End poverty and so, so much of that stuff will resolve on its own. But compromise is out of the question.
I feel like in the money = value wold that we inhabit economic justice is social justice. The suffragettes were founded in 1903 but my (admittedly limited) understanding is that “women’s lib” didn’t really get fully into gear until after WW2 forced workplaces to accept women and they started gaining a measure of financial power.
Economic solidarity is obvious (once you break through the mantra of individualism) and an easier sell than pure empathy based altruism. You and I team up against the boss because we are weak apart but strong together. When teaming up with you is in my personal financial interest it turns out it doesn’t seem to matter that much if you are black or trans or whatever. I’m not on your side because its some nebulous #right thing to do. If you’ve got my back I’ve got yours.
Nothing to add right now as I’m about to jump into a meeting, but wanted to note that in addition to this, some of the primary forces fighting against women’s suffrage were outwardly anti-socialist, likely because they realized the ties between social justice and economic justice.
The question really comes down to what kind of coalition you want to build. Different voters value different things to different degrees. You also have to decide how much you value gaining the necessary political power to actually get stuff done.
I think that we could easily treat social issues the way the GOP treated racism for the last 40 years. Something we’re definitely for, and will work tirelessly to push, but we don’t talk about as much (except in extremely socially liberal districts by reps running for those seats of course! Much the way the GOP candidates from Alabama have always practically been open members of the KKK)
I think that we need to flip messaging and substance. Message about economic liberalism and then deliver socially liberal substance. I think LGBTQ people want real progress not pandering. Ditto for POC’s. It definitely helps that LGBTQ and POC’s are often massively economically disadvantaged, which means that economically liberal stuff hits their actual lives really really hard.
Keeping people poor and scared benefits the GOP politically. We can fight their control over the nations politics in a big way by helping poor people become middle class people, and by helping middle class people become downright prosperous. You do that and a lot of people mysteriously won’t give a shit about whether they have to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding or not… and if they do we can figure out ways to argue against them that are based on things like ‘everyone should be treated equally in this country’ instead of ‘you’re a filthy homophobe’.
You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind honestly. That’s not the goal. The voters aren’t players in the game they are the board. Our job is to figure out how to win the game (by making the whole country objectively better off… I guess I’m a utilitarian at heart) on the board we have, not transform it into the board we want.
I obviously agree that economic justice and social justice are intertwined, and that economic justice can solve a lot of social justice issues. But social justice issues have always taken a backseat to other then-contemporary issues, and I’d prefer the left coalition keep social justice issues front and center.
As an example, I think prison and law enforcement reform is an important social justice issue that could get lost in an only-economic-justice agenda (such jobs / wages / health care). This issue is supported by movements like Black Lives Matter, which have the potential to alienate white voters. I still think the left should embrace the issue and the movements fighting for it and should amplify their message.
What is the actual question here? Is the question whether you should vote for or support a politician who opposes social justice but is good on economic issues? (It depends!) Or whether the DNC or some other party org should expel politicians from the Democratic party for being insufficiently progressive on social issues?
I was just trying to summarize some versions of the argument I’ve heard on this board. I suppose the fundamental question is “should the left be quiet about social justice to avoid the risk of alienating voters,” with a follow-up question “if yes, should the left also invite/embrace social conservatives if they support left economic policies.”
In my opinion the answer to the latter question is a clear no, but some may disagree. The answer to the former question is more often debated, and I think I’m in the minority by saying “no.”
The above sloppy reasoning, and the sloppy use of the words “the left” in the thread title, set up a pretty obvious garbage-in-garbage-out situation.
First, in the context of the USA, those who pine for such a ‘“big tent” approach’ are exclusively Donkeys y/o Donkey lovers… and absolutely nobody else.
Second, the Donkeys are the majority party in the all-time greatest capitalist empire in the history of history. Calling the Donkeys “the left” makes about as much sense as calling the old CP in USSR “the right”, or some ruling religious political party in some country “the secularists”.
Now sure, you folks could all want to strat chat about, say "If we pretend the voting even matters, what should the US Donkeys do regarding messaging pro-“happy face” capitalism -vs- pro-human rights (as long as the capitalists retain all their profits). In fact, such a thread already exists: our old “Messaging” thread.
IDK why you folks feel a need for another thread about the same exact topic.
On the first question, it would be insane for a person on the left to “be quiet” about issues they believe in because of the electoral impact.
It’s unclear to me who “the left” is and how they decide whether to embrace social conservatives. Is the question whether Chapo should have Ross Douthat on to talk about the poor state of the social safety net? Who knows, and it’s not any of our problem.
My problem with this question is that it abstracts away from actual decisions into very broad generalities. No one is deciding, as a general matter, whether to deemphasize social issues to focus on economics. American political parties don’t have that degree of control. Individual candidates decide how to run their campaigns, and PACs decide how to spend money, but they have their own idiosyncratic goals.
I would argue that social justice issues started taking the front seat in Democratic party politics right after the Great Society got done… and we haven’t accomplished a single thing of note legislatively ever since. Our two big wins on social justice since the civil rights act got signed (in an era when the Democrats were basically still the baddies lol) both came through the courts, which the voters had next to nothing to do with. Gay marriage’s key supreme court vote was a Reagan appointee ffs.
Really good analogy. Using it, my question above could be rephrases as…
Is this thread meant to be a very specific strat-chat regarding if the Chefs [Donkeys] should talk about running more [Message more about “happy face” capitalism] -vs- talk about passing more [Message more about capitalist friendly SJW stuff]? With the further understanding that talking more != necessarily doing more, as some are in favor of what is fundamentally a “bait-and-switch” Chef [Donkey] messaging policy to fool the opposition [Elephant inclined voters, yeah the analogy only goes so far].
Of course, and IMO more interesting, there is an underlying issue here, an issue far outside of internal Donkey messaging dynamics. How should football teams, in general, mix running -vs- passing. I could speak to that, but IDK if this is the correct thread.
Campaign on whatever message your political consultants and your experience with the electorate lead you to believe has the best chance of winning your specific election.
Yeah maybe ignore the political consultant though. Those guys fight the last war to a greater degree than the military.
Particularly as a first time candidate authenticity is the single most important commodity you have. The choices you have to make are which issues that genuinely matter to you should be spotlighted.
I think running on economic issues is basically always a bigger vote winner than campaigning on social issues, but that’s because 60% of the population in the US right now is living in very difficult economic conditions.