If an advanced modern nation, and one that strives to promote equal opportunity and advancement for all, fails to make social justice its key commitment for the future, then the nation has failed in its mission.
The battle in America is to strive to keep the advancements of social justice fought for over the century from the Progressive Era onward, but presently, we are seeing extremist right wing forces that wish to destroy the reforms and revert America back to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.
If it was up to right wing forces, labor would have no bargaining rights; racial and ethnic minorities would return to a pattern of denial of their civil rights; women would come under the dominance of their husbands and of religious extremists who wish to deny them the right to control of their own destiny; basic social programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and assistance to the disabled would be wiped out; and the wealthy would have no accountability to the nation that gave them the opportunity to prosper, and would use every trick possible to avoid paying a fair share of taxes, and would have no concern about the inequities of society, leading to a large portion of the population struggling to make ends meet.
So for a right wing propagandist to say that the Democratic Party is far left, when it is anything but that, is simply a sign of greed, selfishness, lack of compassion and empathy for those not born to wealth, or having unfair advantages in life without any accountability or conscience about the responsibility they owe to America.
The true danger in America is not a far left Democratic party, which does not really exist, but rather a far right, fascist oriented Republican Party, willing to sacrifice the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and obsessed with an obscene acquisition of wealth for the sake of self aggrandizement.
The topic of Social Justice has been mentioned in the recent days’ comments sections. I don’t have too much to add specially other than the fact that I do not dismiss the importance of this as well as the likewise importance of Economic Justice. But, at times, there has been an effort by self-identified Democrats to want to direct people’s attention and focus to Social Justice while ignoring Economic Justice. And I think that is because Economic Justice, especially for people who have no such personal problem, is not their priority. I think this goes to Class. Recommendation: https://www.euroyankee.com/2016/11/22/social-justice-vs-economic-justice-the-false-dichotomy-of-identity-politics/.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
In the meantime, with considering the first sentence of the first paragraph, I have been meaning to address something with Ronald.
Ronald has lately been posting a given blog topic either nearly daily or daily. I have a suggestion for a near-future topic.
The scheduled date of the 2020 United States presidential election is Tuesday, November 3, 2020. In this current year, 2019, that day falls on a Sunday. I want to suggest that, if interested, Ronald may want to come up with a topic in which he posts what he may be anticipating (it doesn’t have to go so far as with predicting; but it can) what will become the results of Election 2020 for U.S. President, most especially, but perhaps with further consideration of U.S. Senate and U.S. House. (You can include mentioning who you think will be the Democratic presidential nominee; but, you would not have to do that if you want to focus more on prevailing political party or parties.) It would be more about looking ahead—one year in advance—to Election 2020. What can be interesting with doing this is to come back to that November 2019 blog topic entry on November 3, 2020, or the day after, to compare one’s anticipations/predictions with what will actually become the results.
I hope you, Ronald, do not mind the suggestion. The timing—that we are nearly in the middle of October 2019—occurred to me. So, I thought I should mention this. (I’m not in the general habit of making suggestions because this blog belongs to Ronald. But, I made an exception with this particular suggestion.)
Actually, D, you have made a great suggestion, and I have been planning to do exactly that, a prediction on the election, a year before.
I wish to remind you that I was correct in 2008 and 2012 on the election results, although in 2008, I predicted Missouri would go for Obama, and instead, Indiana, with one more electoral vote, supported Obama, so I was off the final electoral vote total by one vote–365, not my predicted 364. (See my November 2, 2008 entry.)
In 2012, my prediction was totally accurate, (see November 4, 2012 entry and also November 9, 2012 entry)) but of course in 2016, just about everyone was off, but then no one knew that there would be foreign interference in the election, and corruption on a wide scale.
Of course, I fully realize predicting a year ahead is much more a gamble, as so much can change, and it is hard to project now who will be the Democratic nominee, and whether Donald Trump or someone else will be the Republican nominee.
But I will work on this soon, and try to judge what will happen, but will certainly revise it before the election next year on November 3, 2020.
Also, D, when I say “social justice”, I actually mean “economic justice” as well, as implied in my statement here, without actually saying that term specifically.
Heh. i think it would be much more interesting, informative, fruitful, and potentially sobering to predict whether or not there will even BE an election next November, particularly if impeachment proceeds, whether or not there is a conviction. This is not a “post-Vietnam Nixon’s America,” but a “Trump’s ‘truth’ trumps Truth’s America.”
And it will be particularly interesting to see how Alexis weighs in on this whole “Social Justice” v “Economic Justice” v “Plain Old Justice” conversation, given her Set Theory-based proof that Social Justice and Plain Old Justice at the same time in the same place for the same people are mathematically and thus logically impossible.
Jeffrey, the purpose of this post was precisely to make it clear that Alexis is a right wing ideologue with lunatic theories, which I totally repudiate.
Nothing matters more than social and economic justice if we are to remain a nation that is seen as a beacon for the world, which under Trump is certainly being destroyed by a mentally deranged person who needs to be removed yesterday, as he is a danger to the nation and the world!
Good morning, Professor!
As much as I like to be agreeable, I’m afraid I can’t accept this thesis.
I find the opposite thesis to be more defensible – that social justice is inherently incompatible with advanced modern nations; any already advanced, modern nation, which does adopt social justice as a creed, by doing so sets itself on a path to losing the claim to being an advanced one.
Social justice has relative to political organization, the same fallacy pointed out by Bastiat relative to theories on economic organization: the “Broken Windows” fallacy.
Generalized, this is the fallacy of pointing out all the benefits of a policy while ignoring its negative effects. An extreme version of this fallacy would be to implement a policy that made one person wealthy at the expense of all others, then to tout the policy’s virtues based on its effects on that one individual, in defiant ignorance of the policy’s ill effects on all others.
Fortunately for our mutual search for truth, we have an excellent real-world case study unfolding in real time to see what the actual effects of social justice on a society is.
Welcome to San Francisco. If there is any place on earth that is the physical instantiation of this vision of an “advanced modern nation” pursuing social justice, San Francisco is it. It is one of the wealthiest cities in the world, and known for its high technology sector.
Let’s lay out some political facts concerning San Francisco:
– San Francisco has been solidly controlled by Democrats for generations; last Republican mayor George Christopher in 1964. 55 straight years of unbroken Democratic Party control.
– The State of California has had Democratic governors for the past 8 years; before that was Schwarzenegger who while running on the GOP line touted policies that would have made him a Democrat anywhere else. Based on his stance on Prop 8, it is reasonable to say he was not against social justice.
– Before the election of Trump, the federal level was controlled by Democrats (Obama), and for two of those years had supermajorities in the House and Senate.
Almost to a person, these Democrats have lectured the nation and the world about the virtues of pursuing social justice. Softly committed to this ideology they were not.
And here’s what happens when we apply the lesson of the Broken Windows fallacy and look for the unintended consequences.
Here are some of those consequences that show California is now losing its claim to advanced modernity:
1.5 million people in California are as we speak without electrical power, most of these in the Bay Area.
This in turn is the direct consequence of the state having lost its advanced-nation capability to cope sensibly with natural disasters, combined with the loss of the advanced-nation capability of providing a legal framework conducive to the continued operation of basic utilities.
The streets of San Francisco are famously covered in human feces. This has been known worldwide for years now and the problem remains.
Thanks to a Gini coefficient that would be shocking in most of Brazil, alongside its great wealth San Francisco has the worst homeless problem in the nation, another longstanding issue which is only getting worse.
In addition to the feces problem, the streets are also strewn with things like used needles due to a rampant drug addiction problem.
So there you have it: Social justice has produced electricity blackouts, extreme levels of homelessness, extreme disparities in wealth, and turned a blind eye to the suffering of its addicts.
San Francisco is the real-world, real-time refutation of everything social justice aims to achieve – hard proof of unjust outcomes directly caused by the champions of social justice, who are systemically blind to the unintended consequences of their policies.
When even the proudest, most actualized black transgender still lacks refrigeration and air conditioning for no reason other than living in the wrong suburb of San Francisco, you do not have an advanced and modern society.
Also, D, when I say “social justiceâ€, I actually mean “economic justice†as well.
————-
That’s what we mean too. The two are tied together.
@ Doc: Gee, Doc; if Alexis is “a right wing ideologue with lunatic theories, which You totally repudiate,” what does that make me?
Just curious. )
As predicted, Jeffrey, Alexis wrote and published precisely at the same moment as I just did.
Alexis is demonstrating further her lunatic theories, picking on San Francisco.
She ignores areas controlled by Republicans and conservatives, such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, and other areas and states in poverty, harming white working class people, as well as minority groups.
It is the conservative movement since the late 1970s, the Republican Party, and the evangelical movement, that has caused most of this nightmare situation in America, and with GOP control of Congress most years since 1994.
Only two Democratic Presidents were in office, and conditions were improved under both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, but of course, reversed by their successors. And of course, they are labeled Socialists or worse, far from it, and both derailed by Republican control of Congress most of their years, but still some major accomplishments.
So Alexis has lost all credibility, and will rant and rave on, but the truth is clear, that we have not had true social and economic justice due to the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and the evangelical hold on the GOP!
I do not intend to go back and forth with Alexis, and she is wasting her and our time with her rants, but loves attention, a little like Donald Trump, when one thinks about it! 🙁
Jeffrey, you come across as “different”, lol, but somehow, you are not what Alexis has demonstrated, but who knows, over time, I might have to reassess! HAHA LOL! 🙂
@ Alexis. Howdy. i was waiting for You to weigh in. Do You plan to respond to my critique of Your Set Theory-based “proof” that Social Justice and Plain Old Justice are incompatible? Particularly the part about SJ being a subset of POJ, as opposed to Your making it a superset?
@ Alexis: i’ve only glanced at Your rant about California in general and San Francisco, in particular. And a couple of things in particular stood out:
1. “1.5 million people in California are as we speak without electrical power, most of these in the Bay Area.”
Go to PGE’s Outage Map at http://critweb-outage.pgealerts.com/?WT.mc_id=Vanity_pge-outages , and show me where and how “most of the 1.5 million California without electrical power are in the Bay Area.” That part of Your statement is demonstrably patently false. What’s Your source on Your numbers?
2. “This in turn is the direct consequence of the state having lost its advanced-nation capability to cope sensibly with natural disasters, combined with the loss of the advanced-nation capability of providing a legal framework conducive to the continued operation of basic utilities.”
WHAT “legal framework conducive to the continued operation of basic utilities” was lost by California, and how was it lost? That sounds like politician/bureaucrat/lawyer bullspittle to me. And very Trumpian.
And WHAT ” advanced-nation capability to cope sensibly with natural disasters” was lost, HOW was it lost, and most importantly, WHEN was it lost?
Has it ever occurred to You and Smokey Bear Trump with the Norwegian shovels that maybe this set of natural disasters might be just a little different than what has been confronted in the past?
And did it also occur to You to look and see how many of those fires were on lands that were under Federal, as opposed to State management?
You concluded: “So there you have it: Social justice has produced electricity blackouts….. .”
You may be strong in Set Theory, Alexis, but Your logical and critical thinking need a little bit of work. Have a great day. ~ jeff
Jeffrey, CLAP CLAP CLAP! LOL
So much space is being wasted on totally preposterous utterances by Alexis, and I do not intend to respond ever more to her rants!
@ Ronald
> Alexis is demonstrating further her lunatic theories, picking on San Francisco.
Ad hominem doesn’t suit your stature, Professor. You expect better of you than that and I agree. Regarding San Francisco, if the single wealthiest example of social justice implementation in the real world can’t stand up to a little picking on, it exposes the theory as non-robust.
> She ignores areas controlled by Republicans and conservatives, such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, and other areas and states in poverty, harming white working class people, as well as minority groups.
West Virginia and Kentucky are big coal mining states. Obama waged an 8 year war on coal with the full support of social justice. With those policies reversed, these states are experiencing improvements in their situations.
Both Oklahoma and Alabama are also on the uptrend thanks to GOP policies that have caused rising wages and greater economic opportunity. Obama had 8 years to do something and did nothing for these places.
> I do not intend to go back and forth with Alexis, and she is wasting her and our time with her rants, but loves attention, a little like Donald Trump, when one thinks about it!
I just came here for an honest conversation about politics. I thought a person sporting the title of Professor, a list of academic and media credentials, and presenting himself as an authority would be capable of providing a robust and logical rebuttal to my concerns.
Instead, I see a persistent failure to adhere to basic academic standards. You persistently refuse to define your terms. You make no citations.
Most alarming is the demonstration of innumeracy with your interpretation of the impeachment poll. Any look at the internals at that poll would have instantly revealed to you that a mere 3% of the entire universe of non-Democrats agreed with impeachment; any understanding of the electorate would have instantly alerted you to the disparity in party affiliation in those internals. You touted as great news something that was absolutely horrible news for your team.
I’m not the one with a credibility problem here.
If we are to play a game of Humpty Dumpty, and I as Alice must contend with ever-changing definitions of words as suits one’s arbitrary pleasure, then I agree, I am wasting my time here, for lack of a partner able to rise to the level of serious intellectual discussion.
I did not open this conversation for that purpose. I intended to learn more about the nature of your doctrine to facilitate a civil conversation that is healthy and important for the future of the nation and isn’t happening anywhere near as often as it should be.
Presenting a rigorous case to support your thesis is your line of work… is it not?
@ Alexis: FYI: “PG&E shutdown latest: Power restored to 97 percent of customers” Updated 10:59 pm PDT, Friday, October 11, 2019. [https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/winds-PGE-shutoff-second-phase-delayed-weather-14504575.php]
Guess maybe somebody emergency delivered some “advance-nation capability,” eh? That, or the Fire Threat has reduced.
@ Jeffrey
I think I could make a reasonable case to you that the GOP is offering a better deal where your priorities are concerned.
The caricature that you described of the GOP the other day is one that is nearly identical to the one I described almost five and a half years ago today: https://web.archive.org/web/20140619221415/http://thebullelephant.com/end-of-line-failed-gop-leadership/
The grassroots basically declared war on the kind of politician to whom that caricature still applies. Sure there are a lot left but they are fewer and fewer each cycle and their days are numbered. The Ron Paul liberty phenomenon is the underlying proximate cause of this substantial change in what the GOP now is.
@ Alexis. That’s a whole different blog-thread, Alexis, and totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. This is about “Social Justice,” “Economic Justice,” and what You termed “Plain Old Justice.” And i’m still looking forward to Your answers to my questions about Your Set Theory-based proof on the incompatibility of SJ and POJ.
And that’s without even considering “Economic Justice.” Or how about “Political Justice”? Or “Environmental Justice”? Or other kinds and categories of “Justice,” of which all other forms are but subsets?
@ Alexis. And please don’t waste Your time rying to “make a reasonable case to me that the GOP is offering a better deal where my priorities are concerned.” Especially a GOP that has Trump as its candidate in 2020, and any candidate [Republocrat or Demican] for any office that doesn’t agree with and endorse the following statement:
“The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE……..IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE!”
@ Jeffrey
Thanks for the news update. Nevertheless, for three days large parts of CA were without power for the reasons enumerated, and the underlying cause remains unresolved, so the point stands.
With regards to your questions on set theory I just gave you full answers on the other thread. Regarding the additional questions about additional sets to which the theory may apply, the answer is yes, any set of elements that can be defined is subject to set theory and the same rules of mathematics apply.
On the topic of the statement to which you demand agreement from politicians in exchange for your support… you would find no less than 70% support for that statement on the GOP side and perhaps as high as 90%. I share your horror that the same is not true on the Dem side.
@ Alexis. i just scanned a bit more of Your CAL/SF rant, and would like to ask:
1. What nation on Earth today do You identify as manifesting [or comes closest to manifesting] that “advanced and modern society” that California is no more?
This is sort of like Trump’s MAGA. “Great Again” implies that America was once great, and is no more. So…. When, How, and Why did it stop being “Great”? And while Your at it: When, How, and Why did it become “Great,” in the first place?
2. How does Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy apply to anything You are talking about? Is shit on San Francisco’s streets an example of “unintended consequences”?
3. And, of course, the mantra for 2020 is “KEEP AMERICA GREAT!!!” .Which implies that America is “Great” Now, does it not?
Wow….. So America has become “Great” in the mere three years of The Age of Trump. And exactly When, How, and Why did THAT happen?
Was it when Trump had the biggest Inauguration Day crowds in history? Or when Mexico agreed to pay for the Wall? Or when Farmers out there is all them Red states got bribes in the form of a $15.2 bailout to make up for the tariffs that China ~ and not American consumers ~ is paying for? Or when Trump declared that ISIS was dead, gone, defeated, and no more?
From MAGA to KAG to Gag.
@ Alexis. The point does NOT stand. You have demonstrated nothing but that Your conclusion is totally dependent upon Your premises and definitions.
And You did not explain what happens when “Social Justice” is a SUBSET of “Plain Old Justice”; only when it is a SUPERSET, which, of course, makes Your conclusion inevitable. How convenient. Or if You have, i haven’t seen it.
You wrote: “You would find no less than 70% support for [Trump’s anti-War Tweet] on the GOP side and perhaps as high as 90%.”
Name five Republican Senators and five Republican Congressmen who have publicly, on-the-record formally and officially agreed with that Statement.
Hell; can You name even one? Especially one who said: “By golly; You know something? He’s right!!! That does it… No more AUMF. The troops are coming home before Election Day!!! We in Congress can and will make that happen.”
Name one.
@ Alexis. Your post re my questions re Your Set theory proof just came thru. Sometimes we have the same quality of i-net service up here in Alaska as they did in 3rd- and 4th-World countries, 3 and 4 years ago. i have errands to run and will look at it later and respond even later, sometime tonite. Have a good one. ~ jeff
@ Alexis and Anybody else on this thread: Can You name one politician or talking head ~ Left, Right, or Muddled Middle ~ who has endorsed Trump’s closing salvo? “We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE!â€
Can anybody name even one neoliberal/neoconservative corpratist Demican or Republocrat? Or one neo-socialist-proto-progressive Green New Dealer?
Don’t volunteer to hold Your breath until You can find one.
@ Jeffrey
> Name five Republican Senators and five Republican Congressmen who have publicly, on-the-record formally and officially agreed with that Statement.
> Hell; can You name even one? Especially one who said: “By golly; You know something? He’s right!!! That does it… No more AUMF. The troops are coming home before Election Day!!! We in Congress can and will make that happen.â€
Not anywhere as difficult as you imagine, assuming it’s fair to include the universe of those consistently on the record as wanting to bring the troops home ASAP, who may not have responded to that particular tweet directly.
The House is easy… I could probably find dozens, but I’ll give you five since you asked for five. 1) Matt Gaetz (R-FL) 2) Thomas Massie (R-KY) 3) Jim Jordan (R-OH) 4) Jeff Duncan (R-CA) 5) Tom Cole (R-OK). Virtually every member of the 31 strong Freedom Caucus can be depended on to oppose AUMF. Go ahead and cross check names and AUMF statements – they are reliably skeptical and opposed to how it has been used.
The Senate is much harder for a few reasons, one, lots fewer to pick from, two, turnover is far smaller. However, we have one go-to here that is undeniable, Rand Paul (R-KY). Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is also consistently on the record against AUMF. I really don’t know the position of most of the rest of the Senators in the GOP caucus but I wouldn’t be surprised if research revealed a few more.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Did any of those 5 Freedom Caucus Republican Congressmen or their unindicted co-conspiring cohorts vote AGAINST the last AUMF? Or the extension and expansion of the PATRIOT Act? Or demand that Obama’s DIN be sent to jail for perjuring himself before Congress on whether ot not the NSA was conducting warrantless mass surveillance? Or against this year’s TRILLION dollar global war, national defense, and fatherland security budget? You sure about that?
But, You did not answer my question. Has any Republican come out and said that Trump’s Tweet was right; that going into the Middle East was the worst foreign policy decision in history? And that Cheney the Chancellor and Bush the Lessor [and their best Black Boy Colin Powell, who got his start toward a top spot in the corporation helping the Army cover up My Lai] LIED to America and the World about Saddam’s WMDs?
Have any of Your Freedom Caucusers actually come out and made a formal, official Statement to that effect?
Like i said: Name one that did that; that responded to that Tweet directly.
If they don’t have the balls to agree with “their” President and Commander-In-Chief on this matter, then when will they get and show some?
GMAFB.
Professor said: Jeffrey, you come across as “differentâ€, lol, but somehow, you are not what Alexis has demonstrated, but who knows, over time, I might have to reassess! HAHA LOL!
——————–
We’ve read enough of them to see that they are both loony.
@ Former Republican. Well, old boy, in lite of the contribution You have made to this conversation, i suppose Alexis and i should take “loony” as a compliment, eh?
That’s not a compliment, dumb dumb.
It’s not? Oh. Well….; dang. Well, thanks anyway.