To some degree, but the wagons won't be completely unhitched. I watched an interview with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm after Biden picked her to lead the Department of Energy. She ended the interview with praise for the ideals of Bernie Sanders and AOC.

The ideals are fine.  It's the practicalities that suck.

I don't know how that makes any sense. If someone is charged with enacting national policy while embracing flawed ideals, it is not fine.

---

The ideals are fine.  It's the practicalities that suck.

I don't know how that makes any sense. If someone is charged with enacting national policy while embracing flawed ideals, it is not fine.

When I think of "ideals" I think of things like equal opportunity, saving the environment, etc.  When I say "practicalities" I think of things like affirmative action or the Green New Deal.  

That's why I say the ideals are fine, but the practicalities suck.

What Granholm was saying was that she wants the same things as AOC or Sanders.  What she did not do is endorse their solutions.

---

Good to know. What did you study?

Also, facts are facts. When we are talking about being spoon fed information, that's pretty much what happens at the University. I didn't start diversifying my knowledge until a few years after graduation. It's not so much a rabbit hole as much as it's a slow accumulation of knowledge that starts to challenge other bits of knowledge that I accepted without question.

I studied mostly American history and Ancient history.  

My original comment was, ordinary liberals, not far-left radicals, but the mass of liberals just to the left of center, are not racists and the policies they espouse are not racist, even though we may not like those policies.  

Personally, I think a lot of the policies liberals espouse are discriminatory, and for that reason very bad policy.  But racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because the policies they espouse are not based on the belief that one group is superior or inferior to the other; the policies they espouse are based on the belief that one group needs help to overcome external disadvantages and achieve equality.  

Then somehow, we went down a rabbit hole about whether LBJ was a racist and whether the Civil Rights Act was supported by racists, and whether the Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican Party, which is so far off topic from what I was talking about, that I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't think it's relevant, and it's a waste of my energy.  

That's like a lot of discussions on this political message board- people argue smaller and smaller points and go way off track from the original thing they were discussing.  And eventually it gets into name-calling and personal attacks as the participants get frustrated with being unable to "win."

I can agree with you that there is a difference between racism and discrimination. I am a personal believer that most forms of "racism" are discrimination biases that stem from cultural differences. I also can agree that many liberals are not racists. Where I disagree, is that there is a phenomenon that comes primarily out of the left that treats blacks like they need a white savior, because they are incapable of holding themselves to a "white" standard. You can see this same exact sentiment in the 60's and 70's when you watch the welfare debates. That's racism. 

To my specific points about the minimum wage laws, blacks were getting ahead because they were willing to work for less wages. Unions workers wanted companies to stop hiring the non-union blacks, but compromised on a law that would impose a minimum wage to all races. While it may have been a form of discrimination rooted in self-interest, it relied on a racist sentiment to pass and, more importantly, only worked because of racial animus: If an employer had to choose between a white or black at a higher wage, they took the white. That was by design. These laws decimated black railroad workers, farmers, and construction workers. How can you not say that law is rooted in racism? 

The Civil Rights Act that was passed by LBJ also relied on catering to the racist tendencies of Southern Democrats to pass. Everything LBJ said in private that was recorded or repeated indicates that he was a racist. So, the question I'd like you to answer is why would a racist implement a law that would help the people he saw as inferior? Either he believed they couldn't do it on their own OR he felt like it would ultimately keep them down. 

Now, there was a group that did make this about poverty over race, but a lot of those folks were being influenced by communist philosophy. Not all, but a lot of the elites and upper class in the democratic party were toying with the idea since the early 1900s. The result: laws that disproportionately affected blacks by making them permanently dependent on the government. We are seeing how government dependence keeps people from achieving their full potential. 

Some folks like to say that blacks are disadvantaged because they started behind whites. I believe they are disadvantaged because they are ahead of whites. If you want to see how this "Utopia" plays out, look at the impoverished black community. Blacks who have a nuclear family, graduate high school, and work a full time job have no problems entering the middle class.

---

I studied mostly American history and Ancient history.  

My original comment was, ordinary liberals, not far-left radicals, but the mass of liberals just to the left of center, are not racists and the policies they espouse are not racist, even though we may not like those policies.  

Personally, I think a lot of the policies liberals espouse are discriminatory, and for that reason very bad policy.  But racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because the policies they espouse are not based on the belief that one group is superior or inferior to the other; the policies they espouse are based on the belief that one group needs help to overcome external disadvantages and achieve equality.  

Then somehow, we went down a rabbit hole about whether LBJ was a racist and whether the Civil Rights Act was supported by racists, and whether the Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican Party, which is so far off topic from what I was talking about, that I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't think it's relevant, and it's a waste of my energy.  

That's like a lot of discussions on this political message board- people argue smaller and smaller points and go way off track from the original thing they were discussing.  And eventually it gets into name-calling and personal attacks as the participants get frustrated with being unable to "win."

The article was clearly written regarding leftist liberals/radicals even if the author simply referred to the as "the left". That's the problem most people have- they can't (or won't) distinguish the radical left (progressives and neo-marxists) from the traditional left, nor do they distinguish the far right (hardline conservatives with some of the more extreme religious groups, neocon?) from the traditional right. Then you have the mixed bag of crazy. 

You're trying to have a discussion about traditional democrats/liberals and the rest of us are talking about leftist liberals. It doesn't matter if, as you say and I partially agree, the majority of the left isn't racist when the ones who are racist are making the most noise and actually being endorsed by politicians by their silence. Those riots in Portland, Seattle, Wisconsin and other locations should have been firmly denounced by Biden as a presidential candidate, by Harris as VP candidate, and the mayors and governors of all those cities and states but they said nothing. Crickets. 

Until the two parties rid themselves of the radicals on both sides they will continue to be hijacked for a cause that isn't even theirs.

Small nitpick, but conservatives need to stop referring to progressives as liberals. Liberals are far more in line with conservatives. Liberalism is all about freedom and the individual. The debate between liberals and conservatives used to be based largely around federalism and anti-federalism, but we shared all the values around freedom of choice. Think Bill Maher. Progressives do not care about individual freedom. They think they have the answers, and if people comply things will get better. Think AOC. Two totally different animals.

---

Oh, btw, also included in the Civil Rights Act were laws that extended the minimum wage laws to farmers. It put 25,000 blacks out of a job in the Mississippi delta region. This just happened to coincide with more government handouts, right? Not racist at all. Give me a break. You don't think these people knew what they were doing? Now it's time to expand those laws and start taking out the lower middle class in America. Expect to see a lot more people get on welfare as the minimum wage law increases.

---

Oh, btw, also included in the Civil Rights Act were laws that extended the minimum wage laws to farmers. It put 25,000 blacks out of a job in the Mississippi delta region. This just happened to coincide with more government handouts, right? Not racist at all. Give me a break. You don't think these people knew what they were doing? Now it's time to expand those laws and start taking out the lower middle class in America. Expect to see a lot more people get on welfare as the minimum wage law increases.

We won't have to wait long in Florida. The consequences of the minimum wage law will come home to roost here very soon.

---

The article was clearly written regarding leftist liberals/radicals even if the author simply referred to the as "the left". That's the problem most people have- they can't (or won't) distinguish the radical left (progressives and neo-marxists) from the traditional left, nor do they distinguish the far right (hardline conservatives with some of the more extreme religious groups, neocon?) from the traditional right. Then you have the mixed bag of crazy. 

You're trying to have a discussion about traditional democrats/liberals and the rest of us are talking about leftist liberals. It doesn't matter if, as you say and I partially agree, the majority of the left isn't racist when the ones who are racist are making the most noise and actually being endorsed by politicians by their silence. Those riots in Portland, Seattle, Wisconsin and other locations should have been firmly denounced by Biden as a presidential candidate, by Harris as VP candidate, and the mayors and governors of all those cities and states but they said nothing. Crickets. 

Until the two parties rid themselves of the radicals on both sides they will continue to be hijacked for a cause that isn't even theirs.

Small nitpick, but conservatives need to stop referring to progressives as liberals. Liberals are far more in line with conservatives. Liberalism is all about freedom and the individual. The debate between liberals and conservatives used to be based largely around federalism and anti-federalism, but we shared all the values around freedom of choice. Think Bill Maher. Progressives do not care about individual freedom. They think they have the answers, and if people comply things will get better. Think AOC. Two totally different animals.

Liberal was an epiphet up until about 3 years ago.
They resurrected the term "progressive" so they could avoid saying "liberal".

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No way. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

---

No way. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

In fairness, the Reagan Years certainly tainted the term Liberal and it lasted throughout the next two decades, which is sad because most of us are truly Classically Liberal even though we have significant differences of some opinions.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No way. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

In fairness, the Reagan Years certainly tainted the term Liberal and it lasted throughout the next two decades, which is sad because most of us are truly Classically Liberal even though we have significant differences of some opinions.

True, but you have to take into account that ‘progressives’ had been hijacking the liberal moniker for the prior decade to get their nose in the tent. It culminated with big tax and big government man Jimmy Carter. 

Reagan beat them back but the damage was done by that point. Liberalism and progressivism became synonymous for years after that. It’s only within the last 10 years, or so, that progressives have separated themselves by their continuous march to the left.

---

No way. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

Here's an article from 2008 noting that "liberal" is still considered a toxic word and that "progressive" was claimed by Democrats both to the right and to the left of Obama.

https://www.salon.com/2008/11/21/liberals_2/

Article seems to say it was union bosses and machine politicians in the 1960s who incorrectly called themselves "liberal" and made the word toxic.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.