How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency?

[JA]

You're taking this way too seriously my man, in an election between Trump and Harris I will most certainly vote the latter. I'm just saying that it would be clear that rural Americans aren't getting the President they want per se.

Alright then, I just don't get why you'd stop caring about national politics if Harris were to become. The world doesn't stop moving once the person you want to win does or doesn't get elected, and politics will certainly go on.

That's easy for you to say when your community's level of development hasn't stagnated in the '60s and been systematically ignored for decades by politicians from both political parties. Have you actually spent a lot of time in rural America? It's littered with dilapidated buildings, crumbling infrastructure, shuttered stores, and broken families. Don't even try preaching that right-wing "personal responsibility" bs. Every community and person has a right to dignity and development; our leadership has intentionally ignored these places and people and, when they occasionally make overtures towards them, its solely to gin up some votes then quickly ignore them again. Voter turnout is barely above 50% in our country due to justifiable cynicism aimed at a system that focuses exclusively on the interests of upper-middle-class people in metropolitan areas - everyone else can kick rocks.

White Trash isn't making some identity politics argument any more than you would be if the government let your community rot for decades and you demanded change. I know a lot of folks like you enjoy blaming rural and working class Whites for Trump's victory, but his base has always been the White middle and upper classes. Trump won the suburbs and he won college educated White voters. Congressional Republicans dominated among those same groups as well, even if they split the ticket between Clinton and the Congressional GOP. There may be more explicit bigotry among the White working classes, but they'd be more open to policies that benefit a multiracial, multicultural working class than the DLC's beloved suburbanites who're more interested in virtue signaling and balanced budgets than lifting people out of poverty. Based on social scientific research, latent racism exists to the same degree among college-educated White people as among non-college educated Whites. Yet, people still want to pretend like one group is deplorable and the other isn't.

Yes, this is a bit of a rant, but it's for a reason. Nobody but assholes dislike Kamala Harris because she's non-White or a woman; it's not even necessarily anything personal. It's simply that she doesn't have the background of working with rural communities, which is what dominates between the coasts. As AndrewCA pointed out, she also never bothered to support single-payer until she was pressured into it; Jacobin Magazine has a good article on her. They also have one on Kirsten Gillibrand. Folks like Bullock, Edwards, and Manchin aren't necessarily the most progressive of candidates, even on economic issues, but they're at least aware of rural issues and how to relate to folks from those areas. And it's not due to their race that they're liked by rural Democrats, who're largely White, it's their more working class and/or rural background. Give us a White, African American, Hispanic or whatever racial candidate who can connect with us, represent our interests and communities, and we'd turnout for them. Why do you think Obama did so well in '08 and '12 in rural areas, even compared to Gore and Kerry? He won freaking Indiana! Obama could connect with working class and rural White voters. Trump would've lost to Obama in 2012 at the same rate Romney did or even worse.

[JA]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

Maybe instead of talking down to people and wondering why they can't just move, we could respect them as people that are just trying to make their way in life like everyone else. Rural areas provide a lot of important things, such as ya know... food and minerals. Maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of people that enjoy farming and living in rural areas but just wish their life wasn't so hard. I know I don't wear the D avatar anymore, but when I did, I always thought that's what the democratic party was supposed to be about. Lifting people up by giving them that little bit of help so they don't have to live crappy lives. Not telling them to pick themselves up by their non existent bootstraps or telling them that it's all their fault that they are poor.

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

[JA]

Bernie supporters will probably irrationally weep over the election of a "corporate Democrat" or "centrist" or something, even though she is neither - and I say this as someone who preferred him over Hillary last year (albeit narrowly, but still).

Yeah, except that she is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harris also...

• Championed a state-wide anti-truancy law that she implemented in San Francisco that threatened parents of chronically truant children with $2,000 fines and a year in jail.
• Harris's actions in the Larsen case, which involved a man formerly convicted of burglary had been allegedly seen by police throwing a knife under a car, which caused him to be sentenced to 27 years in prison under the 3 strikes law supported by Harris. Police had wrongfully targeted Larsen, a witness reported that Larsen wasn't the one who threw the knife, and Larsen's later disbarred lawyer never bothered to investigate or present a witness on trial. After 11 years, the conviction was overturned, but Harris appealed that decision on the basis of a technically, causing him, an innocent man, to remain in prison for 2 more years. After 14 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, he was back in court 5 months after release because Harris challenged his release.
• Harris laughed at pot legalization as California's Attorney General in 2014. Again, her Republican opponent ran to her left on the issue.
• As District Attorney, refused to provide the names of police officers whose testimonies led to convictions despite the officers' arrest records and histories of misconduct. As California's Attorney General, she opposed the statewide use of police body cameras and a bill that'd require her office to investigate fatal police shootings.
• Harris attempted to dismiss a suit by inmates against the state's use of solitary confinement, with her office insisting the practice was not used. The result was a landmark settlement for the inmates.
• Harris attempted to block a transgender inmate's request for gender reassignment surgery.
• This year, Harris joined Rand Paul to write a NYT's editorial opposing the practice of using bail, arguing it unfairly harmed low income people. But in just June 2016 she was defending its constitutionality in court.
• Harris was a proponent and sponsor of a bill that'd allow California prosecutors to seize profits before charges were filed (which is civil asset forfeiture).
• Harris defended the barring of a Sikh man from working as a prison guard due to his religiously-mandated beard supposedly interfering with his ability to wear a gas mask. Yet, California allows guards to have beards for certain medical reasons.
• Harris's well staffed and funded foreclosure fraud Mortgage Fraud Strike Force prosecuted just 10 cases in 3 years, which was fewer prosecutions of foreclosure fraud cases than any other state in America, filed fewer lawsuits than many smaller states with fewer victims, and even less than some counties, despite California leading the nation in the number of complaints since 2010.
• The Intercept obtained a 2013 memo to Harris from prosecutors in the attorney general's office revealing they found evidence of widespread misconduct at OneWest Bank and urging her to conduct a full investigation - Harris never did. Yet, in 2016 she was the only Democratic Senate candidate to receive a donation from Steven Mnuchin, OneWest's former CEO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JA]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

[JA]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

Whatever. I'm not a left-winger. I like some tories, and am by no means a socialist.

Would you admit that if the GOP wasn't so bigoted, religious, and anti-science that you'd feel more comfortable in the party?

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that I might be one of the main suspects to be an upper-middle to upper class liberal, so I'm gonna answer this at length

I live in an industrialized city in Israel, and while I really don't feel like I can complain, seeing that I never lacked food or education or comfort, my family is still lower-middle class. Technically, I do live in an urban environment, but in Israel rural areas are mostly wealthy (as I know from many of my friends and former schoolmates, who do live in rural areas), while urban industrialized cities, usually full of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union (like my parents) or Arabic states and their children, are the real struggling areas.
Anyway, saying that living in such a place didn't affect my politics would be lying. I know, it's not even close to poverty and I'm grateful for that, but knowing, for example, just how important is the universal healthcare system in Israel for families like mine helped me full-heartedly support such systems elsewhere, including in America. But I still don't think that living in such an area means I need to hold socialist views. On the contrary. For example, my father works in a factory, and an alarming number of workers are being replaced because of both outsourcing and automation. And still, I strongly support free trade because I believe that isolationism we only lose a minimal amount of jobs because of it, and families like mine are helped by lower prices along with higher quality products. I believe that automation is an inevitable process we must embrace rather than try to postpone, and that instead of throwing money on poor areas to help struggling families directly we need to invest in new jobs in growing industried like high tech, alternative energy, tourism, and the ever-needed infrastructure, as well as free job training for these. I think that the state should try to offer help to poor populations, but we can't spoon-feed them. Things like subsidized higher education and job training help more in the long run than just giving them money.
I don't believe in the "personal responsibility" argument, though of course there are cases where it's right and there are some very specific populations (like the Haredi Jews in Israel) who are almost directly responsible for their bad economic situation by refusing to teach their children what they need to know to succeed in a modern economy. And I surely do not believe the silly "just relocate lelz" argument, because I know full well how unfeasible it is. So did I still have internalized right-wing rhetoric? Maybe, but I don't think so. These are just my views.

Overall, we really don't disagree on most things, based on what you've written. I think the confusion arises in your understanding of Socialism, which is likely due to failure on the part of Socialists to convey their beliefs in a more coherent form. For example, on the issue of trade, it's not a Socialist position to support isolationism or protectionism. Sure, many labor unions and working-class groups agitate for protectionist policies, but protectionism ultimately isn't for the benefit for the workers or their class interests. The most important issue in Socialist politics is simply power and autonomy, by which I mean that the lower, working, and even middle classes seize greater power and are capable of expressing their interests through democratic action. On an issue such as trade, our criticism against present free-trade isn't the free exchange of goods across borders, but rather how it's organized around, focused on, and serve multinational corporate interests, such as how the free flow of capital serves the upper class's interests, whereas the free flow of labor is blocked. Another issue is such as what happened with TPP and TTIP, which would've empowered corporations to actually shape trade and domestic policies in participating countries by taking them to court over policies deemed harmful to their interests. These trade agreements also disregard the exploitation and rampant abuse of workers in foreign countries, the negative effects and downward pressure on wages and benefits in developed countries, and disregard for the environment by taking advantage of lax regulations and corruption in poorer countries.

I'm not, nor are Socialists, as far as I know, opposed to automation and investment. The ideal goal of Socialism is to reduce the amount people have to work, especially menial jobs, thereby freeing up time for other pursuits. That's why UBI is often popular among us. Another goal is to redistribute the profitability of automation away from concentrating wealth into fewer hands (automation enables fewer producers to produce more at greater ROI) towards society-at-large. To oppose automation would be absurd; but to oppose automation that displaces workers while concentrating greater wealth and power into fewer hands, along with enabling greater monopolization of markets, isn't good nor acceptable. As for investment, we should always strive to improve QOL through higher education, increasing skills, and access to means of self-improvement, such as high-speed internet, improved infrastructure, and tackling poverty. Universal access to healthcare, higher education, trade schools, and so on are incredibly important to ensure everyone has equal opportunity and equal access so that upward mobility is available to all who want it. However, most who live in poverty, at least in America, are not those who're full-time workers. It's typically children, the elderly, the disabled, those who help ill family members, and so on; essentially, those unable to fully participate in the labor market. Direct financial assistance from the government is, along with other social programs like paid leave, affordable childcare, improved elderly care, and so on, the only means of achieving elevation out of poverty for these folks.