The DLC's National White Man Conversation

http://www.blackcommentator.com/51/51_dlc_pf.html


The right wing of the Democratic Party is once again threatening to secede. Our fervent wish is that nobody tries to stop them.

Historically speaking, Charleston, South Carolina would have been a better locale for the Democratic Leadership Council’s secessionist-minded “National Conversation,” this week. Instead, the party’s corporate extortionists chose Philadelphia to make a stand for the American White Man, whose every idiocy must be accommodated lest the party fall into the hands of…you know who: them!

White men are terrified of them – which explains why the poor fellows get all confused and vote against their own interests every time it is imagined that they – “special interests,” Blacks, unions, and the dangerous people who call for health care, jobs, peace and justice – are about to intrude on the “national conversation.”

White men are insecure, especially the young ones. “"If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," said Mark Penn, the snake oil pollster for the world’s most boringly repellant white man, Senator Joseph Lieberman, the DLC’s standard bearer in the Democratic primaries.


According to Penn’s poll numbers, white men feel more secure with George Bush in charge. This is quite curious, since Penn also finds that, overall, “Fewer than half of those surveyed (48 percent) think deserves to be reelected and 53 percent said the economy is heading in the wrong direction.” Nevertheless, white men are increasingly Republican, indicating that their fears and insecurities get the better of their brains, every time.

Fearful white men and confused white women, says the DLC, must be retained at all costs within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Just in case these “swing voters” are not fearful enough, DLC chairman Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) warned: “The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left.'' Since this is clearly an outcome unacceptable to the DLC and its corporate funders, it must be assumed that the DLC is preparing to bolt from the Party if rich white men don’t get their way.

they would be calling for an end to NAFTA, the WTO, and World Bank while at the same time looking to stop the US from hemorrhaging jobs overseas.

to a world organization.

Well, you can, but nobody will listen.

so that way we can clean up are party and stop being Republican ass kissers. We need to go back to the FDR and JFK ass kicker:kick:

...

I'm a white man...but a white WORKING CLASS man, so I have a reason to vote for the Democrats...if they stay the party of the working class. In fact the only candidate I would not vote for ironically is Joseph Lieberman, of the DLC. As long as we're in this DLC disgusting "white man" thing, I'll up it one notch, over at Stormfront, who are supposedly keeping the flame for white people, Lieberman is not considered white because he's Jewish. So if the DLC wants to be disgusting enough to talk about white men, you can point out that a lot of the conservative white men they're concerned with would not think the DLC's candidate, who is a Jew, is white. I on the other hand would have no problem voting for a Jew - it's too bad Wellstone is not around to run for president - but I have a serious problem voting for a Democrat for the Leisure Classer like Lieberman. I absolutely would not vote for Lieberman, he's the only one I've already made up my mind not to vote for. Dean is too fiscally conservative in my opinion as well...but...with a conservative Congress in both houses and a conservative Supreme Court I'd be more on the fence on whether to vote for him or not.

I could see someone saying the Democrats should Machiavellianly focus on worker issues instead of "identity" issues affecting non-whites (affirmative action) or women (abortion) to woo white men. Not that they should, but it makes some kind of coherent logical sense as a strategy...maybe not a good one, but a logical one. The DLC strategy makes no sense. Working class issues are what the DLC wants the Democrats to abandon, which would rid a heterosexual, working class white man of any issue to identify with the party - he doesn't fit in an "identity" category and the party under the DLC is not for the working class, so, what would be in it for him? Nothing.

I feel dirty even considering the DLC's disgusting appeal and writing this. The DLC is not an island, they're an eyesore for everything that is wrong with the Democratic party. No wonder thousands of people voted for Ralph Nader instead of Gore in Florida.

It all has to do with class and the manipulation of one by the other.

In addition to identity issues, Lieberman uses environmentalism to "differentiate" himself from Bush when there is little to no difference whatsoever.

Here I come to save the day!

or Bob Graham and John Edwards for that matter. We need someone who can fight for everyone. Bob Graham and John Edwards have talked about helping everyone. The poor rural people, the middle class, and those in the inner cities.
Lieberman, Al From, Bruce Reed, and Evan Bayh are talking RACE here. They are injecting it into the conversation!!!
If this is the DLC's great scheme to win then we have just lost big time next year. The Dem's will get under 200 electoral votes with this strategy! By the way, John Kerry is pro small business (the backbone of the American Economy) and very liberal/progressive socially and domestically. He will fund head start.

These three have a goal to unite everyone on a common front of the economic stability!!! They are not talking about race like these idiots. On the other hand Evan Bayh does come from Dan Quale's state.

Good Luck.

Again that simple "White men" this, "White men" that, clearly trying to claim that it's ALL white men this and that. I wish race war mongers of all races were put on an island somewhere and let them sort their irrational rages among themselves...

We are all just one big color-blind family.

:-)

We are all just one big color-blind family.

Sadly, no... and we'll CERTAINLY NEVER be so IF racist ranters of any race are tolerated and even admired instead of shunned and despised.

the assumption of colorblind is to deny the institutional expression of racism. If the truth is racist then it is not racism to point that out.

the assumption of colorblind is to deny the institutional expression of racism. If the truth is racist then it is not racism to point that out.

The "article" is not talking about "institutional expression of racism" but about "white men". Is the "truth" to you that ALL white people are so evil racists that they deserve to be called racists all the time? As I said, that's really making friends and gaining influence...

White male domination...you deny it?

White male domination...you deny it?

Just for you, a desperately needed example of a simple and clear answer: no, I don't deny it. Preaching that "ALL white men are racists!" is counterproductive and plain idiotic... you deny it? You're avoiding the issue here and spewing straw men... you deny it?

BTW, if you're going to evade again by something about institutional racism: by all means start a thread to discuss institutional racism. This thread is about an article which in standard idiotic racist manner claims that everyone of certain race is this and that.

It's about how the DLC is basing it's claims on a need to appeal to white swing voters, mostly male, mostly in Southern states. It's about how the DLC has dominated the Party, while African Americans, who are loyal voters, have been shunted aside.

Although the article does say that many of these white swing voters in Southern states are racist, it is not in any way an argument that "All white men are racists."

I don't think you can deny that many whites who vote Republican in the South are doing so for racist reasons, or that many whites are racist. Do you accept that many whites are racist? Not all, not most, just enough to talk about as a group? If you accept that, then you can ask about who they will vote for, which party is more aligned with their interests.

You see, Rainbow/PUSH, which bc supports, wants white votes too. They just want to focus on progressive and liberal whites who will be loyal to the Dems and not demand that blacks remain invisible.

Although the article does say that many of these white swing voters in Southern states are racist, it is not in any way an argument that "All white men are racists."

Direct quotes from the "article":

Historically speaking, Charleston, South Carolina would have been a better locale for the Democratic Leadership Council’s secessionist-minded “National Conversation,”this week. Instead, the party’s corporate extortionists chose Philadelphia to make a stand for the American White Man, whose every idiocy must be accommodated

That says pretty clearly that they should have been in the south because ALL whites are racists AS in the south.

White men are terrified of them – which explains why the poor fellows get all confused and vote against their own interests every time it is imagined that they – “special interests,” Blacks, unions, and the dangerous people who call for health care, jobs, peace and justice – are about to intrude on the “national conversation.”

What exactly in that refers to any subgroup, not ALL white men?

White men are insecure, especially the young ones.

What exactly in that refers to any subgroup, not ALL white men?

According to Penn’s poll numbers, white men feel more secure with George Bush in charge.

What exactly in that refers to any subgroup, not ALL white men?

Nevertheless, white men are increasingly Republican, indicating that their fears and insecurities get the better of their brains, every time.

What exactly in that refers to any subgroup, not ALL white men?

etc. etc. etc.

You see, Rainbow/PUSH, which bc supports, wants white votes too.

Rainbow/PUSH would do wisely to say that they don't want "support" from anyone who only spews racist claptrap.

the party’s corporate extortionists chose Philadelphia to make a stand for the American White Man, whose every idiocy must be accommodated

That sounds like a criticism of DLC strategy to me. They're saying that the what the DLC is really concerned about, to the exclusion of other concerns, although they won't say it directly, is white men. Maybe the caps can give you a hint about the tone of the piece, you know, acerbic.

White men are terrified ofthem, Note that in the original, them was italicized. Once again, acerbic, acerbic. That's an ironic comment, meant to suggest that while the DLC believes white men are terrified of them, in truth only racists are terrified of them. bc is arguing that African Americans, along with unions, and smart people in general are part of the Democratic base, and should not be labeled as "special interests," which in some instances is codespeak for them.

Nevertheless, white men are increasingly Republican, indicating that their fears and insecurities get the better of their brains, every time. Are they saying that all white men are racist? Of course not. No more than that all white men are Republican. I don't have to guess at what they're talking about. They openly criticize the DLC's strategy by arguing that these swing voters aren't really potentially good allies to the Dems. Rather, they're people whose racism aligns them with Republicans: "The relative liberalism of Dixie's suburban "swing voters" is over-rated," they say. They're talking about "swing voters" here and how they're defined, not all white people. How is that not obvious? If you said that they implied that all "swing voters" were racists, then you would be accurately reading their point of view.

White men are insecure, especially the young ones. Once again, acerbic, that's a sarcastic jibe at Penn's poll numbers and the conclusions he wants to draw. Of course, Penn doesn't say "White men are insecure." But bc wants us to think that that's what Penn means. They're giving a different reading of the issue of "security" than the DLC wants us to hear. See it in context. It's a polemic against the DLC, not white people.

You're just not taking in the whole context of the piece. For example, you missed the statement "Fearful white men and confused white women, says the DLC..." You see, they are characterizing the DLC. That is not their view they are professing. Maybe you disagree with their characterization, but don't attribute to them views which they themselves are offering up for ridicule. That doesn't make sense.

Or take another statement: "The DLC makes even more of a public fetish of white males than do the Republicans, who have a secure lock on the core, racist vote." That's their view. Attack that if you want to, but don't go saying that this is a missive against white people. It is not. It is anti-racist, anti-Republican, anti-DLC, but it is not anti-white-people.

should ebonics be an issue?