Not Your Sweetie

m berst  (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=171696&mesg_id=174010&page=
98. great post Sydnie
I would mention something else that people invested - their hopes.
Hopes, dreams, and time are not seen as valuable by far too many people. For those who are already at risk and are willing to be aware of the fact that they are at risk, hopes, dreams and time are all that they have left to give, short of giving their lives.
I think that we can gain a better understanding of the Bev feuds here - as well as the Kerry feuds that have arisen here because of Bev's comments about him - and all of the feuds at DU if we consider that the battle may be between the haves and the have-nots. I offer this for consideration in the quest for understanding and better communication, not as an assertion to be violently argued over as is to often the case.
Haves and have-nots don't so much disagree on positions and ideology as they have different views of reality. When I say "have" I don't just mean that they have money - it also includes having a sense of security and having a sense that they have a place in the society.
I think that behind all of the Fundamentalist moral values rhetoric, all of the liberal bashing and all of the right wing ideology is a have versus have-not battle. Unfortunately, many people who by any rational measure are have-nots are voting for the Republican party because they can believe that they are haves. And, unfortunately, many haves are in the Democratic party and bring all of the prejudices and world view of the ruling class into the discussion here masquerading as something else.
Whether one is a have or a have-not, then, partly depends upon what one actually has and partly upon what one thinks they have or wants to have. Part mindset, part bank account, in other words.
Both parties have become parties that represent haves. The Republican party represents those who may have money, and who have their religion, their jingoism, and their membership in the all-white all-Jesus club. The Democratic party has become the party of those who may have money, and who have position, status, security and membership in the elite, academic, and intellectual club.
Haves in the Democratic party will argue in favor of caution, patience, moderation, compromise, realism, intellectualism, practicality, meritocracy, status, qualifications and individual responsibility and blame.
All of that is anathema for the have-nots.
Have-nots in the Democratic party argue for solidarity, compassion, alertness to danger, creativity, suspicion of those with wealth, power and status, fairness, and collective action, responsibility and blame.
I think these two world views are what animates the two sides of almost every discussion at DU, and among liberals and Democrats in general as well. I saw a thread yesterday that highlighted this for me, and I may not have the facts exactly right about the particular debate, but it will serve as an example.
A poster said he had a problem with his driver's license and asked for help and advice. Now, you wouldn't think that this would be controversial, but sure enough two antagonistic camps started to form.
The one camp berated the poster for his irresponsibility, and chided him for wanting something for nothing by asking for advice at DU.
Now, a have-not might say hey, wait a minute, the guy made a minor error in forgetting about a traffic ticket, and got into a little jam here. The result is a draconian and arbitrary decision by the state to suspend his driving privileges (ironically the original offense was unknowingly driving on a suspended license as a result of a neglected or forgotten ticket for a minor traffic infraction). A have not would say that the fines and punishments are excessive - they are for most people. A have-not would say that this has more to do with whom the police pull over than it does anything else. A have-not would say that you are more likely to be pulled over if you are a certain race or a certain economic status or in certain neighborhoods.
Yet, a have would argue that it is all the poster's own fault. Some said that he was stupid for not doing the obvious and enlightened thing - hiring an attorney. Think about that one. The poster said that had the court and the DMV informed him of all of the facts, he would have opted for the alternative - 5 days in jail - rather than agreeing to a huge fine that also included (unknown to him when he made the decision)losing his license for 6 months. This was met with more ridicule - what kind of idiot would agree to spend 5 days in jail seemed to be the unspoken implication.
There are people in this country for whom the situation is already a dire emergency. They are already falling behind, they are already fighting off the wolves, living in fear and poverty, suffering from diminished opportunity and hostility from those around them. They were promised by various haves to put their faith and trust and hopes and dreams - and for many of them dollars and hours they could ill afford - into various people and ideas, from the Democratic party, to Kerry to Bev. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and giving Bev, or Kerry, or the Democratic party chance after chance after chance.
It is shocking to me to see every day Democrats speak with no compassion whatsoever for the people who are going under and going under fast as they are told what is wrong with them, how they are too emotional, too alarmist, how they should get over it and move on, or what famous or wealthy person they should pledge their undying loyalty to.
I would argue that their is a great unseen army of have=nots out there, and that army is growing every day. There are many who are have-nots but are vigorously resisting facing the truth and clinging to nay shred of evidence that things will be ok, and those are the ones who most vociferously argue the point of view of the haves. Soon, I predict that the majority of people in the country will be have-nots and will realize that they are.
Yet so many Democrats see the forgotten people as losers, defectives, stupid, emotionally disturbed, irresponsible, and as an irritant and an annoyance.
Look at every argument you see at DU again and tell me if you see an underlying dynamic at work - the haves versus the have-nots.