I support reaching out to bigots (serious, not snark)

Everyone has their prejudices, and the Perfect People Party would have no hope of electoral victory.

I support reaching out to bigots on every conceivable issue in the world other than their bigotry.

Some white working class people are racists to some degree. Many of those folks belong in the Democratic party. The Democratic party should reach out to them on issues of poverty, class, child care, education, health care, unionization, etc..

What the party must NOT do is to reach out to them specifically on their bigotry.

This is so simple, yet seemingly elusive.

John Edwards is a southern white male with a populist message. He could easily could use a racist appeal to attract a segment of poor white people to a rally, but that would be wrong. And he knows that, because it is so obvious.

That doesn't mean those people should be ignored, just that we should seek COMMON ground.

The minimum wage IS common ground. "Keep our schools white" is NOT common ground.

:sarcasm:

K&R

What common ground do you have with the Phelps family, who are reported to be registered as Democrats? What common ground do you share with homophobe christians both black and white?

And one final question, who are you willing to sacrifice to get to that common ground, because nothing in politics is free, and the homphobes and racists are going to want something in return for their support!!!

That's the point. The Phelps family are professional bigots. There is no common ground, because what defines them is wicked.

Donnie McClurkin is a professional bigot... it's part of his gig. He is a symbol of evil.

But a lot of traditionalist black church go-ers are not professional bigots... just people with some bad attitudes. It is just a fact of life to have some bigoted attitudes represented within the hearts of some people that vote Democratic.

If they DEMAND that we accede to their bigoted attitudes to win their votes then there can be no outreach. We cannot throw away our core principle, human equality, for a few votes.

But when Bill Clinton told those groups he wanted to have policies that reduce the total number of abortions, that was not wicked. It was common ground. Sure, a little pandering, but not at the cost of our collective soul.

If Obama wants to get a little preachy to connect with conservative black church goers, that's politics. He crossed the line by sending a signal that he was reaching out to their bigotry, not their common humanity.

re: "And one final question, who are you willing to sacrifice to get to that common ground, because nothing in politics is free, and the homphobes and racists are going to want something in return for their support!!!"

I am not willing to sacrifice much of anything. That's the point. If a person is defined by bigotry there can be no outreach because he is a single-isssue bigot voter. But most people with some bigoted attitudes are not wholly defined by them. If someone demands you say you hate blacks before they will listen to your tax policy speech, then you would have to sacrifice something to get their attention, and that's unacceptable.

But if you are speaking to a southern male working class group you are not required to challenge them or confront them. Just explain your economic policies and explain how those policies benefit the audience. As long as you do not promote or imply racsim to reach them, I have no problem with seeking their votes.

... although I think that ignorance combined with pandering was probably the reason that everybody is saddled with that abominable "safe, legal and rare" meme. It did embrace the misogyny of the anti-choice / woman-haters, even if it wasn't meant to.

I think the Howard Dean thing with the Confederal pick-up truck decals may be more on point, and if I may just repeat what I said about that, I think the message is:



“Class consciousness is knowing which side of the fence you are on.
Class analysis is figuring out who is there with you.”

I don't see sharing a platform with bigots -- which is pretty expressly embracing their bigotry, not denouncing it (as Dean really did implicitly do) -- as helping them to figure who's on their side of the fence.

I visited his website and did some searches on him. Far as I can tell a) he sings songs about Jesus and God, and b) he wrote a book about his own life experiences.

I did not look at his discography. Does he do alot of anti-gay songs? Does he give a little anti-gay homily in all of his concerts?

I guess he has also worked to promote certain ballot issues that he supports. Did he get paid for that?(the criteria for being 'professional') Did doing so further his music career?

Maybe he did it as part of his concerts, but still, if he had worked to put measures on the ballot to keep marijuana illegal, would you define him as 'a professional bigot'? Does he become a potophobe by opposing the legalization of marijuana?

Also on your OP. You said that everyone is somewhat bigoted, but then your only example of a bigot was a 'working class white person'. It seems kinda racist and/or biased to single one group out as a typical example.

I have a lot of experience with southern working class folks, so it seemed most apt.

By "professional bigot" I don't mean someone who makes their living being a bigot. Maybe a poor choice of words... but anyone who performs for Bush at the 2004 RNC convention and announces his support for Bush's "war on the curse of homosexuality" (citing only one example of McClurkin's advocacy) is a political figure who is defined by his bigoted stance. He's an advocate, not just someone with private bad views.

Maybe something akin to the "public figure" standard in libel. He is a public advoate of those views.

Though I will grant he is probably better known as a singer than a TV homophobia advocate. He has a lot of albums!

although I do not get much further than DU and an occasional LTTE.

I read that he also performed at the Democratic national convention in 1992.

I just don't think he is single minded about those views. The issue came up and he took a side, especially as it was close to home for him. I don't think we should demonize the other side for speaking and being an activist any more than the other side can legitimately demonize us for speaking and being active.

If, for example, some fundies were up in arms about fund-raisers using Elton John or Melissa Etheridge, we might see that as an example of their obsessive bigotry. They are popular singers. Some people just wanna hear them sing.

The fact that he performed at the Democratic national convention in 1992 (which I attended, come to think of it... I hadn't realized until just now I've seen him perform!) has been tossed about as a pure smear of the Clintons.

He was gay, then in 2002 he became "ex-gay" and started appearing on the 700 Club and such. It is his right to be whatever he thinks he can manage to be. But he was on the show to demand that NYC close the Harvey Milk school.

Which is essentially what you're saying here. Wow, what a radical, tolerant concept.

NGU.

Obama was going for votes and donations. There was no "reaching out" on the issue of homophobia involved in having McBigot on the tour.

at least not on the McClurkin issue.

What's sad is that it is assumed someone is trying to defend Obama mistake, and are not being honest or trying to disregard someones anger over this, whenever they mention tolerance and reaching out.

I made my own comment. Not everyone is so obsessed about who is supporting who

It's obvious that this OP was motivated by the McBigot affair and IMO "reaching out" is just an excuse

my OP is actually anti-Obama. It is about why seeking the traditionalist southern black church vote is cool, as long as you are not reaching out to them specifically on their bigoted attitudes. Even by wink-and-nod symbolism.

That's the line Obama crossed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was responding to your OP. I disagree with the idea that Obama is "reaching out" to homophobes for anything besides their donations and their votes

progress. By including them and their reactionary/conservative views that enables the politicians to pander to them and ignore real Democrats.

Why would you want to water down and compromise your views to "maybe" accomodate someone who represents everything we should be fighting against?

I guess the distinction I am drawing is between outreach and pandering.

A lot of Obama supproters maintain that have a high profile bigot play a fundraiser is legitimate outreach to the SC black churchs, because we should not be "exclusionary."

I disagree, and maintain that if the ONLY way to reach out to a group is bigotry then that group is defined by bigotry, and is beyond outreach.

I doubt many black groups are defined solely by bigotry, so there should be common ground on other issues. But common gound is not compromise. If they say, "pander to our bigoted attitudes of we will not vote for you," then their votes are too expensive (in moral terms) and you have to move on to another group.

""Keep our schools white" is NOT common ground." would you please clarify as to whom this is directed?
I fear you are misinformed.

go both ways? and was the comment directed at a particular candidate?

:wtf: Can a Black person hate white people? Hate is hate, it goes BOTH ways.

hate black people. but no black people hate white people?

hate goes not just both ways between white/black but in all directions. From and too all different colors of people. some times people will use their hate as blinders and Jump at the slightest perceived infraction. (like a homophobe getting offended at the complement from a same sexed gay person).

The op used that phrase. so if the (former) Governor of Alabama (Wallace) who repented for his barring the path of those kids to go to school, He still wouldn't be forgiven? after all ""Keep our schools white"" Was Wallace's mantra?

"The Man?" police? a Boss? or the percieved Power holder?

The statement "oppressed white man school of thought" is racist in its self.

shop the reverse racism, oppressed caucasian crap elsewhere.

Thanks for the reinforcement though.

I agree with the op, I was reaching out... sorry I got to close to your truth.

percieved bias...

to participate in the rally (not by airing his views, but simply by performing music).

I hadn't thought if it that way. The more I think about it, you are advocating a secular version of 'love th sinner but hate the sin.' I support that 100%.

Its possible to include people without condoning what they are doing wrong.

The example of southern white working-class racism was chosen as an analogue of southern traditionalist black church community disapproval of homosexuals. (And chosen because I am a white man born in the deep south, so I feel more comfortable generalizing about my own general group than spinning out a hypothetical about someone else's experiences.)

The post is anti-McClurkin... using someone like him is pandering to the the SC black churches precisely ON their bigotry. It is what the Republicans do... find hot button issues to make quick-and-dirty connections with people by appealing to the worst in them.

That is just what the OP is against.

I have no problem with Obama reaching out to a community that has some bad attitudes, just not by reaching out to them by playing on those same bad attitudes.

And that is what he was, and is, trying to do. By refusing to change his plan to feature on of Bush's gay bashers from the big "defense of marriage" election is lower than low, Obama has sent a powerful message to a community that to some degree he shares their worst values. Then he pitches out some hollow words to the blogosphere.

But the action is the symbol. He is standing up to the homosexuals to show his down-home christian values to a group that would, for some reason, be mortally offended if a performer was bumped for having been a flak for Bush in 2004. I have no idea why would that be such an insult to them, but the Obama campaign has apparently calculated that it would.

just as I was trying to point out Hate Flows everywhere in diffrent directions. to and from All groups. "content of character"~MLK is what should be the determining factor in all relations. not anything else.

and abundant with worthless ends.