The Diversity Hustle

Leave a comment

The Diversity Hustle

A merry-go-round that has different colors and genders of jackasses and elephants is pure deception.
“Putting new mannequins in window displays and keeping policies intact does everything to perpetuate fraudulence and does nothing to fix the underlying problems.”
There is only one thing more reprehensible than overt racism and that is exploiters who use the pains of marginalized people to advance their own agendas. There is a reason I find myself being more and more repulsed by Democrats, I’ve come to accept the mendacity of Republicans, however the hypocrisy of Democrats and their enablers in mainstream media is something that truly gets under my collar.
A few days ago, Nancy Pelosi reclaimed the Speaker’s gavel eight years after leading the Democrats to a resounding defeat. Yet again, she used the plight of women as a human shield to at once justify her campaign and intimidate anyone who did not want to support her. Let’s get one thing straight, Pelosi is to the struggles faced by women as Donald Trump is to grace and humility.
Identity politics is nothing but a diversity hustle, For the record, it’s not only Democrats who use this scam to get elected, Republicans deploy the same game of grievance and feigned concern to wield power and dupe their constituents. After all, Trump got elected President by treading on the hopes and frustrations of his supporters the same way that Barack Obama hoodwinked his believers.
“Pelosi is to the struggles faced by women as Donald Trump is to grace and humility.”
Just because they look like us does not mean they are for us. We have to stop falling for the slick marketing schemes used by Democrats and Republicans, one where they parade new faces and personalities to make us believe that we are making progress. A merry-go-round that has different colored and different genders of jackasses and elephants is pure deception, putting new mannequins in window displays and keeping policies intact does everything to perpetuate fraudulence and does nothing to fix the underlying problems.
Sadly, this dubious ruse keeps working every election cycle. The first black president ended up being nothing more than a puppet of banks and Wall Street, the first woman Secretary of State ended up being another warmongering maniac, the first Muslim Congressman did nothing to ameliorate the plight of the poor and oppressed, the first transsexual representative will just fall in line and be another reliable vote of neoliberalism. Establishment voices use identity to hide the insidious policies that are being pushed by both parties, amazingly countless Americans keep falling for this bullshit.
“The first black president ended up being nothing more than a puppet of banks and Wall Street.”
Mary Antoinette was the last queen of France who lived lavishly during the dawn of the French Revolution, did her gender give her any special insight into the burdens of countless millions of Parisian women who were being crushed by hunger and homelessness? Idi Amin was a Ugandan leader, did that mean that he had the interests of tens of millions of Africans in mind just because he shared their complexion? Hitler was part Jewish, did that mean that he should be lauded just because he shared the ethnicity of the millions of Jews he murdered? At what point are we going to judge people by their deeds instead of falling for their identity driven shakedowns?
I don’t care about the successes of the first (insert identity here) if their achievements do not lead to the betterment of the people they supposedly represent. This year is being lauded as the year of women because Congress has the highest number of women Representatives and Senators. Who cares! We can have all 535 positions being held by women or “people of color” but what does it matter if the economic and foreign policies they keep enacting never changes? What does it matter whose face is in power if the masses she/he represents is languishing in abject poverty or pervasive hopelessness?
“We must find a way to dismantle the two factions that have monopolized power and commandeered government.”
If we truly want to change the structural issues that gash at humanity and lessen inequalities that permeate throughout society, we must find a way to dismantle the two factions that have monopolized power and commandeered government. Doing so requires that we stop being a cult of personality and that we cease being transfixed on political parties. The people we keep sending to DC to speak on our behalf—most of whom have no idea what are struggles or lives are about—are never more powerful than the institutions that they are signing up to serve. Until we focus on policies instead of being hooked on the narcotic of parties and personalities, we will keep getting diversity hustles and social justice bamboozles and getting the same results no matter who is in power.
2020 promises to reach a crescendo of absurdity when it comes to diversity hustles being unleashed by two faced candidates. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and a slew of “I’m one of you” scam artists will flock to Iowa to push their qualification through the prism of identity. They will promise change, pander and throw out platitudes, each one throwing crumbs to marginalized groups. They will go toe-to-toe with a Donald Trump who has also perfected the swindle of speaking to people’s grievance. If you found yourself getting upset because I included one of your political heroes, just know that is how the diversity hustle works. It’s easy to see when others get jived, a lot harder to understand when you are the one being hustled.
“They will promise change, pander and throw out platitudes, each one throwing crumbs to marginalized groups.”
The diversity hustle is nothing more than emotional manipulation, con artists are ruthlessly targeting specific demographics by changing the makeup of the parties without changing the foundation of the institutions. I used the word demographic for a reason, in marketing, the most vital step is to understand specific audiences based on age, race, gender, orientation and the various ways we are sliced and diced as a society. Politicians are using diversity as a business plan; they don’t care about our concerns, they are just hoping to capture ratings by using our pains as catnip.
It is high time that we stop falling for this bamboozle, just because they share our skin don’t make them our kin and just because they resemble us does not mean they represent our interests. Keep this in mind the next time some politician or pundit talks about the year of women, gays, blacks, Latinos or whatever other identity they choose to manipulate.

From BAR

Posted by The NON-Conformist


Voters are Fired Up for Single Payer Creating Dilemma for Democrats

Leave a comment

On Sunday, June 4, the same day that Our Revolution, a Democratic Party group that arose from the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, organized rallies and die-ins to highlight the number of people dying in the United States due to lack of access to health care, the New York Times published an article, “The Single Payer Party? Democrats Shift Left on Health Care“, prominently on the front page and above the fold.

The article quotes RoseAnn DeMoro, head of National Nurses United, saying, “There is a cultural shift. Health care is now seen as something everyone deserves. It’s like a national light went off.” Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan was also quoted, saying that rank and file Democrats “are energized in a way I have not witnessed in a long, long time.” Nolan is correct in stating that following the Democrat’s large loss in 2016, the party needs “a more boldly ‘aspirational’ health care platform.”

Democratic Party voters have been strong supporters of single payer health care for a long time. Polls have consistently shown that super-majorities of Democratic Party voters want single payer, but Democratic Party candidates keep telling them that they can’t have it. The Democratic Party has refused to add Medicare for All to its healthcare platform despite resolutions introduced by single payer advocates. Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus refuses to include single payer health care in their “People’s Budget.”

In 2009, with a Democratic President and majorities in the House and Senate, single payer health care was off the table. Instead, the “public option” was used to divide the Democratic Party voters and convince them that they were asking for too much. Democrats were told that the public option would be more politically feasible and would create a “back door” to single payer. Many were fooled. And the joke was on them because even the public option, which I call the “Profiteer’s Option,” was never meant to be in the final legislation.

While the New York Times wrongly blames the liberal and centrist Democrats for not supporting a public option, it was actually the White House and Democratic Party leadership that kept it out of the final bill. In December of 2009, public pressure was working to convince the Senate to include a public option in its healthcare bill. That’s when leadership stepped in to stop them. Glenn Greenwald writes:

I’ve argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn’t want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did.  … it is the excuse Democrats fraudulently invoke, using what I called the Rotating Villain tactic (it’s now Durbin’s turn), to refuse to pass what they claim they support but are politically afraid to pass, or which they actually oppose (sorry, we’d so love to do this, but gosh darn it, we just can’t get 60 votes).  If only 50 votes were required, they’d just find ways to ensure they lacked 50.  Both of those are merely theories insusceptible to conclusive proof, but if I had the power to create the most compelling evidence for those theories that I could dream up, it would be hard to surpass what Democrats are doing now with regard to the public option.  They’re actually whipping against the public option.  Could this sham be any more transparent?

I was present at the Center for American Progress in March of 2009 when Senator Max Baucus stated that the public option was a bargaining chip being used to convince private health insurers to accept more regulations. It was Baucus’ staffer, Liz Fowler, a former senior vice president for one of the largest private insurance corporations, WellPoint, who wrote the framework for the Affordable Care Act and shepherded it through Congress. The scam was revealed early and though progressive groups knew it, they were complicit in the scam because they accepted being controlled and silenced by the White House.

Jim Messina, a former Baucus chief of staff, was hired by the White House to be “the enforcer” for President Obama’s agenda. Ari Berman described the situation in this enlightening article:

The administration deputized Messina as the top liaison to the Common Purpose Project. The coveted invite-only, off-the-record Tuesday meetings at the Capitol Hilton became the premier forum where the administration briefed leading progressive groups, including organizations like the AFL-CIO, MoveOn, Planned Parenthood and the Center for American Progress, on its legislative and political strategy. Theoretically, the meetings were supposed to provide a candid back-and-forth between outside groups and administration officials, but Messina tightly controlled the discussions and dictated the terms of debate (Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake memorably dubbed this the “veal pen”). “Common Purpose didn’t make a move without talking to Jim,” says one progressive strategist. During the healthcare fight, Messina used his influence to try to stifle any criticism of Baucus or lobbying by progressive groups that was out of sync with the administration’s agenda, according to Common Purpose participants. “Messina wouldn’t tolerate us trying to lobby to improve the bill,” says Richard Kirsch, former national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the major coalition of progressive groups backing reform. Kirsch recalled being told by a White House insider that when asked what the administration’s “inside/outside strategy” was for passing healthcare reform, Messina replied, “There is no outside strategy.”

The inside strategy pursued by Messina, relying on industry lobbyists and senior legislators to advance the bill, was directly counter to the promise of the 2008 Obama campaign, which talked endlessly about mobilizing grassroots support to bring fundamental change to Washington. But that wasn’t Messina’s style—instead, he spearheaded the administration’s deals with doctors, hospitals and drug companies, particularly the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), one of the most egregious aspects of the bill. “They cared more about their relationship with the healthcare industry than anyone else,” says one former HCAN staffer. “It was shocking to see. To me, that was the scariest part of it, because this White House had ridden in on a white horse and said, ‘We’re not going to do this anymore.’” When they were negotiating special deals with industry, Messina and Baucus chief of staff Jon Selib were also pushing major healthcare companies and trade associations to pour millions of dollars into TV ads defending the bill.

This was the Democratic Party’s deal with the devil. They rejected their voter base and went with the donor class to create and market a health law, the so-called Affordable Care Act, that protected the profits of the medical-industrial complex, and it backfired. In the 2010 election, 63 Democratic incumbents lost their seats in Congress and the party has been in decline ever since with a record low number of elected officials nationally. On issue after issue, the Democratic Party betrayed its base and voters finally gave up, choosing either to vote for other parties or not vote at all.

The question now is whether the Democrats will change.

So far, despite the title of the New York Times article, the answer is no. Although there is widespread voter support for single payer, Nancy Pelosi says the party is not going there and is funneling advocates’ energy to the state level, even though state single payer systems are not possible without federal legislation. At the national level, Democrats are paying lip service to Medicare for All: “We need to get there eventually but right now our task is to fix the ACA” is the current talking point.

The reality is that the political currents have shifted. The public is not going along with the con. People want solutions to the healthcare crisis, not more tinkering with the current failed healthcare system. Across the country, the message is clear that the public supports National Improved Medicare for All. And whichever political party in power embraces this will see a surge in popularity.

Our task as advocates for National Improved Medicare for All is to stay fired up – continue to speak out about Medicare for All, write about it in local papers, meet with members of Congress, organize in our communities and run for office. We must be clear and uncompromising in our demand for National Improved Medicare for All to create a visible tsunami of support that will wake our legislators up.

When the people lead, the legislators will follow.

• First published in Health Over Profit

By Margaret Flowers/DissidentVoice

Posted by The NON-Conformist


%d bloggers like this: