4 ms·

> when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed This sounds like a very big statement and probably something that can be

> when really we as a national don't honestly want to see marginalized groups succeed This sounds like a very big statement and probably something that can be a long post in itself. Would you be able to expound on that?

camelNotation 8y ago
There's a popular theory among the American left that classical liberalism (free speech, freedom of association, "equality of opportunity", etc) is actually an oppressive social structure devised by powerful white men to keep the poor and disenfranchised (minorities and women) from rising through the economic ranks. In the estimation of the American left, the "hands-off" approach of right-wing American politics is actually a "hold them down" approach since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own. Instead, they favor increased spending on public institutions (like more money for public schools) that will theoretically pull the poor and disenfranchised out of poverty and into the middle or upper classes. The American right, on the other hand, contends that providing social support to the poor and disenfranchised creates a "victim mentality" and a dependency on the system for advancement. They often accuse the American left of trying to make the United States into a communist nation akin to the Soviet Union and tend to favor the maximization of non-government power as much as possible. In practice, this manifests itself as a sort of "hyper-capitalism" where the American right grants tax breaks to the rich and large corporations in the name of both economic freedom and as a reward for their success in the free market. It is very hard to reconcile the two perspectives. EDIT: And just to add my own view here for clarity - I think both the left and right make salient points. The left is correct that there is no equality of opportunity without adjusting for the complexities of other aspects of life and financial constraints of a poor individual's starting position. I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. I think there is a centrist position to be held that works for everyone, but both sides despise centrists, so I am hated every time I talk about politics.
- ardent_uno 8y ago
  "since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own." That's where the liberal view collapses. The experience of history shows that many once disenfranchised groups can rise up.
- weiming 8y ago
  > so I am hated every time I talk about politics. For what it's worth, I think the U.S. (and the world) could use more centrists!
- padobson 8y ago
  I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. This can't go understated. Life is hard and often tragic. Everyone will be a victim of injustice, often grave injustice, at one point in their lives or another. The worst thing a culture can do is demotivate folks to face their tragedies because something about their personal identity (race, gender, geography, religion, etc) made it impossible to overcome.

camelNotation 8y ago

There's a popular theory among the American left that classical liberalism (free speech, freedom of association, "equality of opportunity", etc) is actually an oppressive social structure devised by powerful white men to keep the poor and disenfranchised (minorities and women) from rising through the economic ranks. In the estimation of the American left, the "hands-off" approach of right-wing American politics is actually a "hold them down" approach since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own. Instead, they favor increased spending on public institutions (like more money for public schools) that will theoretically pull the poor and disenfranchised out of poverty and into the middle or upper classes. The American right, on the other hand, contends that providing social support to the poor and disenfranchised creates a "victim mentality" and a dependency on the system for advancement. They often accuse the American left of trying to make the United States into a communist nation akin to the Soviet Union and tend to favor the maximization of non-government power as much as possible. In practice, this manifests itself as a sort of "hyper-capitalism" where the American right grants tax breaks to the rich and large corporations in the name of both economic freedom and as a reward for their success in the free market. It is very hard to reconcile the two perspectives. EDIT: And just to add my own view here for clarity - I think both the left and right make salient points. The left is correct that there is no equality of opportunity without adjusting for the complexities of other aspects of life and financial constraints of a poor individual's starting position. I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. I think there is a centrist position to be held that works for everyone, but both sides despise centrists, so I am hated every time I talk about politics.

ardent_uno 8y ago
"since no one that is poor or disenfranchised can rise from poverty to wealth on their own." That's where the liberal view collapses. The experience of history shows that many once disenfranchised groups can rise up.
weiming 8y ago
> so I am hated every time I talk about politics. For what it's worth, I think the U.S. (and the world) could use more centrists!
padobson 8y ago
I think the right is correct that a victim mentality is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. This can't go understated. Life is hard and often tragic. Everyone will be a victim of injustice, often grave injustice, at one point in their lives or another. The worst thing a culture can do is demotivate folks to face their tragedies because something about their personal identity (race, gender, geography, religion, etc) made it impossible to overcome.