Americans kept re-electing him until he died.

What is it you like about FDR's values, or is that some sort of a dog whistle here? He was awfully Eastern Establishment, if you look at him carefully. I thought a lot of DU members had a problem with establishment politicians. What has changed?

I liked Truman as well. I admired Kennedy and Johnson, although they were as imperfect as FDR. Of course I liked Obama.

We need Presidential candidates who represent the present, not the past. We can build on our history without worshipping it.

OK, not everything about FDR was great, even at the time (e.g. Japanese-American internment, if that's what you're insinuating). And every Dem has had failings (Viet Nam, shift toward corporate sponsors, appeasing the GOP come to mind). But genuine worker/average American prosperity and decency will always sell if presented with heart. Those things are not subject to fashion - everybody wants to be treated fairly.

I see a lot of DU members posting about being FDR Democrats. It has been a sudden meme here. Dog whistle? Yeah.

Not. I have no idea WTF you're talking about. Why are you afraid to say whatever the hell it is?

Especially in FDR's era.

Those well paying jobs were made possible by excluding and underpaying women and POC. Even in the military.

That won't work now. And we see just how that vaunted "white working class" welcomes POC and women to the table when it comes to economic prosperity.

FDR (like every President before and after him) made some pretty big bad decisions, and had moral failings.

However, he saved the economy, and made things better for millions of workers, some of them POC. He did not make racial equality a major theme, and I certainly wish he would have, but he died 14 years before my birth and I can't change that.

because things were so "good."

POC gritted their teeth through the FDR years, being patriotic and watching how the New Deal didn't apply to them.

Eleanor was far more respected by civil rights leaders, and she was vilified by the general public.

And kindly remove your words from my mouth - I didn't say that you could change anything about the FDR era.

I simply suggested that you be more informed about what the actual cost of the New Deal was to everyone but white men.

Is that clearer?

You may not have meant it, but that's what the truth is when anyone who talks about "economic issues and average Americans" actually is talking about.

FDR's hand-picked successor (Truman) did support rights, and the FDR/Truman prosperity (and, oh, saving the world) gave him the credibility to sell it. FDR's wife visibly supported rights for POC and women; FDR was no doubt pleased to lend his cachet to that effort.

Where is the sudden FDR hatred coming from? Who is sponsoring it?

No hatred, just some correction of historical revisionism concerning the actual impact of the New Deal. There seems to be some "worship" of FDR however among certain factions on DU, when FDR is used like a baseball bat in false comparisons with certain contemporary politicians, and how they are similar... No one is "sponsoring" it, just because you don't seem to tolerate any nuance concerning FDR, and seem to be outraged at the thought.

It's not "hate" any more than pointing out the Viet Nam war when talking about LBJ's presidency. It's called a reality check.

And yes, relatives of mine gritted their teeth through the FDR administration, not demanding to be part of the New Deal, because they wanted to be good citizens in a difficult time. So, yeah, I know about that aspect of it, and I shared it.

You're welcome.

We won't. Mentioning the New Deal is not meant as some kind of (racist I guess?) dog whistle. It's meant as an example of putting workers ahead of billionaires. It would have been better if it had included all workers, but the other option in that era (at least in FDR's mind, apparently) was no workers. Once workers were stronger, they were more able to think about moral/social justice. I don't believe improvements in civil rights could have occurred all at once, much as I personally think that would have been better for all.

I think splitting progressives along racial lines now is about as dangerous and foolish a position as I can possibly think of. I will not be sucked into that kind of nonsense; it makes Putin cackle with glee.

Ignoring and dismissing the very different experience that POC and women have from the white male experience is not only white privilege, it makes "Putin cackle with glee," as we saw in 2016.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/13/17349670/facebook-russia-ads-race-house-democrats



So what happened in the 50's? White male workers enjoyed a golden era of wages and labor rights, and it was made possible by excluding women and people of color from those jobs. And that's why the civil rights movement revived in full force. The economic promise of the New Deal didn't make white male workers want to "think about moral/social justice" or share the boom with others. Quite the opposite. The Civil Rights movement didn't come out a vacuum...

Why do you think that the feminist and black power movements split off from the left? Learn your history. Dismissing issues specific to race and gender, which don't directly affect white straight men as "Identity politics" is what is dividing people down racial lines.

Thnk about it.

If you think that sort of golden era of labor will be acheived once again using the same strategies as the New Deal- without taking into account the deep racist revival happening now - you are not being realistic.

Take a look at Europe (which is far more homogenous racially) - did pro-labor policies and universal health coverage end misogyny, racism and xenophobia? No. And those things certainly aren't preventing a rightwing movement that is sweeping democracies there.

When you take a dualistic, no nuance, no grey area position on something, that's a sign right there that you are missing something - reality. When you call out anyone pointing out that a simple answer isn't as simple as you think it is as "sucked in by nonsense" or "trying to sabotage" progress, you are the one who has been "sucked in by nonsense."

"Sponsored." Really... If anything is "sponsored" it's the lapping up of the "if you aren't walking lockstep with me, you are CORRUPT and not a progressive!!!!" manifesto thinking that got us into this mess.

Than Social Justice because Economic Justice affects many more people. I am NOT saying that Social Justice is unimportant, rather it takes second place to Economic Justice. The fact that Sanders became so popular was because he articulated the view that Economic Justice was and is important. To me, he is the first candidate in a long time to explicitly articulate that view. The push back against him is very telling.

I think that many of the upper class / wealthy Democrats don’t give a damn about Economic Justice, because real Economic Justice would hurt their pocketbook. It’s easy for them to be in favor of Social Justice because Social Justice does not affect their pocketbook, plus it makes them appear to be Liberal / Progressive.

The real touchstone of anyone is how an issue affects their pocketbook. If a person is not explicitly in favor of Economic Justice, then they sure as hell are not a Progressive, no matter what they call themselves.

I also believe that one of the reason Democrats have lost support in the past decades is that they have appeared to be only in favor of Social Justice, while not caring about Economic Justice. This is because I have spoken to a number of people who have articulated just this position.

That's very, very clear.

And that's what's most important to so many. I know because I have spoken to a number of people who have articulated just this position.

As the saying goes "All politics is personal."

and a politician is focusing on what is relevant to you.

For the rest, not so much. It doesn't really matter what your paycheck is, if a police officer shoots first and asks questions later.

It really doesn't matter what your paycheck is if you won't get a promotion at work because you took time off to recover from childbirth.

But hey - focusing on "economics" and telling anyone who is not a white straight male that all will be made right once white straight men have the income they feel they deserve is certainly reasonable.

Because you know, things were great for women and POC in the 50's when organized labor was in its heyday.

Right?

Yes, No, No, No, No and No.

those distracting "identity issues."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/

So why do you think Ezra Klein just doesn't get your observation that problems that are solved with more money are the real "touchstone" of our Democratic base? Do you think you can write him a letter to get him straightened out? He's a dude, right?

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism

I mean, you can understand it when those shrill feminists are out there yammering on and on about how tertiary issues like reproductive rights are somehow intertwined with economic issues that white straight men find to be personally relevant.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/19/abortion-access-economic-justice-issue-democrats-remember/

It's not like women, POC and LGBTQs outnumber straight white men. Especially in the Democratic Party. We need to remember who the real progressive majority is, right? And those politicians who don't understand that "identity politics" are not really "progressive" but only "appear to be progressive," are gonna lose the dudes.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hey-democratic-candidates-pro-choice-women-are-your-base/

Totally.

Clearly white straight men and their personal interests have been ignored in the service of those 'fake progressives" who aren't really, really, really the ones whose personal politics are "universal."

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/7051950/6-reasons-why-life-as-a-straight-white-male-is-actually-harder

There are so many out there that just don't get how much white straight guys understand about what's really motivating Democratic voters. What matters to progressives like you is the future of the Democratic party, AMIRITE?

http://www.newsweek.com/democrat-need-black-voters-beat-roy-moore-why-losing-them-746407



Lord knows that true progressives avoid the Right Wing traps of pandering to non-progressives.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210805809

I will have to take time to read them. Especially the ones from Vox and rewire.news. Thanks for posting.

Here's another:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government

I think you may not understand how the federal job programs excluded women and all people of color. Certainly if you limit the well paying job opportunities to white men, then they are going to be happy.

Everyone else - not so much. Of course in that era women weren't competing with men for living wages in the workplace, and were relegated to administrative, janitorial, food service, nursing and child care - all jobs that were low paying.

There wasn't a civil rights movement starting in the 40's for nothing.

Eleanor was the true social progressive of the two and she was vilified.

LBJ did far more in the modern era for progressive and social policies.

...."progressive values" eighty years ago are completely different than "progressive values" today.

She's almost the anti-Bernie since she's able to properly articulate who she is and what she stands for without constantly shitting on the party in the process... The CNN anchors gave her multiple opportunities to start bashing the Dems and not once did she take the bait...

And kudos to Crawley for such a classy concession and immediately calling for his supporters to fall in behind Ocasio...

with platforms widely supported by Democrats and a growing number of Americans. We desperately need medicare for all; tuition free and debt free affordable college; living wages; decent jobs and more. In the gubernatorial race in Md. all the best to Ben Jealous and to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in NY's congressional race. Both emphasized critical issues previously supported by great Democrats like LBJ, JFK, Truman, Roosevelt and many others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-democrats-choose-between-insurgents-and-party-establishment-in-crowded-primary/2018/06/26/a3aabc9a-77a8-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.ba82a84870c3

https://www.thenation.com/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wins-democratic-socialist-21st-century-vision/

- Former NAACP President Ben Jealous won the Maryland Democratic nomination for governor on Tuesday. The candidate faces a popular Republican incumbent, Governor Larry Hogan.



- NY congressional candidate Ocasio-Cortez: When you know your community, it gives you an edge to win.
Ocasio-Cortez championed a single-payer, Medicare-for-All health-care system, declared that housing is a right, and called for sweeping criminal-justice reform. And she identified as a proud member of Democratic Socialists of America.

In many of the races in Republican primaries, the Trump anointed candidates did not get a majority of the votes. In South Carolina, for example, where Trump staged a much hyped rally for McMaster, 58% of the R voters voting against Trump's choice. If the next Pres election is all about Trump, which way will they go?