What are progressive democrats?

Progressive Democrats Are No Different Than The MAGA Hat Wearing Far Right

Sounds about white.

67
views

Recently I came across this Instagram post by an account ran by Kat Brezer, a Bernie Sanders supporter who ran for the New York Senate seat in 2018.


At first glance, I thought, "well isn't that sweet, Bernie isn't afraid to hire women." Then I wondered how many of these women happened to be black. Seemed like a legitimate question. So of course, me being me, I went ahead and posted my question under the comments.

"Quick question...how many of these women are black?" and I wasn't surprised to see it all go downhill from there. I was called everything from racist, to an asshole, to prejudiced against other women of color.

Someone said I had a "very fucked up belief system," whatever that means, and I was reminded that this was about "all of us, not just [me]" because of course asking if out of 100 or so staffers, a handful happened to be black women, was excluding white men (or women.)

One comment that gave me pause was from a black man who responded with, "why does it matter as long as they're filling some sort of quota? We can't afford to let perfect be the enemy of the good," and it was amazing to me (major sarcasm) that none of these "progressive" Democrats knew how to check their own damn privilege.

I've said before that it would be very hard for the black community to find the perfect candidate. For two reasons, the first is that the black community is extremely divided on fundamental issues such as LGBTQIA rights, religion and feminism/womanism, and the second is that any black leader who got up and stated that "black lives matter," would be assassinated on site.

But that doesn't mean all types of black women---or even black people--- can't be represented in government. No, it isn't enough that women are getting these positions, black women specifically need to be in them as well (and to make anyone who needs to feel better, feel better. Latinas, Muslim women, Asian women, Native American women, LGBTQIA women etc... need to have a seat at that table as well.)

Around 15% of the U.S population is black or African American, and of that 52% are women. If employers followed ethical and fair hiring practices, questions about diversity would not be raised. Black women are incredibly vocal when it comes to community and politics...and we know this from the civil rights movement. Now, I still never got the answer to my original question, but I do know that unless these campaigns purposely exclude black women, there would be plenty on staff.

It is easy to call for unity when you are normalizing your own position, whether it be race, economic status or both, but unity will always rely on diversity when we live in a system that benefits certain groups more than others.

The fact of the matter is that progressive politicians have not aligned themselves with the black and African American community in a significant way. Some may argue that Bernie Sanders marched on Washington and participated in the civil rights movement of the '60s and '70s, but what is he doing specifically for black folk today? We already have voting rights and integrated schools, so is he or any other politician prepared to be allies in the next steps?

Now, I'm not saying that the problem solely lies with these politicians and their campaigns, it lies with their supporters as well. You can be a progressive democrat "economically," and still be anti-black, anti-women, and anti-LGBT, among other things. So why should black people, black women, in particular, join a movement whose supporters are bigoted?

Fundamentally, there is little difference between the new wave of the democratic party and the MAGA hat wearing trolls.

Popular Right Now

This Is How Your Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me As A Catholic Woman

I hear you over there, Bible Bob.
325737
views

It won't.

Wait, what?

I promise you did read that right. Not what you were expecting me to say, right? Who another person decides to marry will never in any way affect my own marriage whatsoever. Unless they try to marry the person that I want to, then we might have a few problems.

As a kid, I was raised, baptized, and confirmed into an old school Irish Catholic church in the middle of a small, midwestern town.

Not exactly a place that most people would consider to be very liberal or open-minded. Despite this I was taught to love and accept others as a child, to not cast judgment because the only person fit to judge was God. I learned this from my Grandpa, a man whose love of others was only rivaled by his love of sweets and spoiling his grandkids.

While I learned this at an early age, not everyone else in my hometown — or even within my own church — seemed to get the memo. When same-sex marriage was finally legalized country-wide, I cried tears of joy for some of my closest friends who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community.

I was happy while others I knew were disgusted and even enraged.

"That's not what it says in the bible! Marriage is between a man and a woman!"

"God made Adam and Eve for a reason! Man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman!"

"Homosexuality is a sin! It's bad enough that they're all going to hell, now we're letting them marry?"

Alright, Bible Bob, we get it, you don't agree with same-sex relationships. Honestly, that's not the issue. One of our civil liberties as United States citizens is the freedom of religion. If you believe your religion doesn't support homosexuality that's OK.

What isn't OK is thinking that your religious beliefs should dictate others lives.

What isn't OK is using your religion or your beliefs to take away rights from those who chose to live their life differently than you.

Some members of my church are still convinced that their marriage now means less because people are free to marry whoever they want to. Honestly, I wish I was kidding. Tell me again, Brenda how exactly do Steve and Jason's marriage affect yours and Tom's?

It doesn't. Really, it doesn't affect you at all.

Unless Tom suddenly starts having an affair with Steve their marriage has zero effect on you. You never know Brenda, you and Jason might become best friends by the end of the divorce. (And in that case, Brenda and Tom both need to go to church considering the bible also teaches against adultery and divorce.)

I'll say it one more time for the people in the back: same-sex marriage does not affect you even if you or your religion does not support it. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex. Really, it's a simple concept.

It amazes me that I still actually have to discuss this with some people in 2017. And it amazes me that people use God as a reason to hinder the lives of others.

As a proud young Catholic woman, I wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ community with my entire being.

My God taught me to not hold hate so close to my heart. He told me not to judge and to accept others with open arms. My God taught me to love and I hope yours teaches you the same.

Disclaimer - This article in no way is meant to be an insult to the Bible or religion or the LGBTQ community.

Cover Image Credit: Sushiesque / Flickr

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

No, David, We Should Not All Be Progressives

The Founding Fathers may have been progressive FOR THEIR TIME, but the progressives of today are not the same

30
views

I was scrolling through Facebook when a David Pakman video showed up on my timeline. The video's title was "The Founding Fathers were Progressive, and You Should Be Too" and let me just say this: It actually wasn't a bad video.

But you just said we shouldn't all be progressives. Why are you contradicting yourself?

The reality is that while the video itself is informative (although I do wish the sources were linked in the description instead of just shilling his social media, I digress) there are some serious problems.

The biggest problem with this argument (among others) is that Pakman is relying on what Progressivism would have meant during the 18th century. Keep in mind, many of the big European powers were, at the very least, constitutional monarchies. To be a conservative in colonial America would have meant staying under the oppressive tyranny of the British Empire. The founding fathers established a government system that would have promoted liberty, property ownership, capitalism, etc.

It is also important to remember that the Founding Fathers also held a wide array of beliefs in how government should be run. Some were even willing to uphold the institution of slavery (which is not very progressive at all) in the name of ensuring that a central government would not rule in the same tyrannical way the British did. Others were fiscally conservative. Others still were social conservatives, and so on and so forth.

The bottom line is that, in the sense of the word during the 18th century, any form of liberalism would have been considered progressive. And all of the Founding Fathers were liberals. So yes, at that time, they would have been considered progressives.

Of course, definitions change. Movements change. As time goes on, the Progressive movement began to reject the founding principles more and more.

At the turn of the century, a time that became known as the Progressive Era, the likes of Woodrow Wilson declared that the Declaration of Independence was "irrelevant", and many in his camp began to reject natural law as arrogant. These rejections spurred the massive government expansion under Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal.

Progressives today want to take this rejection of natural law even further. They openly embrace socialism, a system that has killed over 100 million people in the span of a century, and has caused countries like Venezuela to become absolute dung holes.

Progressives today are calling for censorship on college campuses on social media. They conflate legitimate criticism with bigotry, calling anyone who disagrees with them racist, sexist, or homophobic. They use the terms "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" or "Nazi" just to shut down any arguments before they can even begin. They are sowing division to keep us distracted from their failings

The progressive media peddles fake news and propaganda. They will bury news stories that go against their narrative. They are keeping information from the general public. Does any of this sound like a society changing for the better?

The founders would be appalled if they saw what was happening today. So no, David, I'm not going to be a Progressive.

Related Content

Facebook Comments