Does the Left cater to minorities?

Post Reply New Topic

I realize that the Left has helped enact many laws and protections that have benefited minorities in America and have helped lift them up in society. However, and especially during this last election, it seems like they perpetuating this idea that minorities still need protection, and that they won't get it unless they vote for Obama. They even attack minorities that hold right wing views.

So I ask you guys, is the Left really catering that much to minorities, and if so, should they keep continuing to do it?

Disclaimer: I'm not American so I might have been barking up the wrong tree.

Traditionally, left-wing parties are stereotyped as champions of the underdogs while right-wing parties are stereotyped as champions of the elites. If society deems minorities as underdogs, left-wing parties are supposed to reach out to minorities and enact policies that benefit minorities. (I have overheard people blaming certain left-wing parties for overusing affirmative action.)

Well if you go by the Democrat/Republican dichotomy, almost certainly yes. Republicans support mostly anti-LGBT policies while Democrats generally support LGBT folks, it's a no brainer. There isn't as much of a difference in regards to race directly, but Democrats also support more lenient immigration policies that benefit racial minorities.

Furthermore the other poster has a point. Generally Republican policies support the rich (give them tax breaks) while Democrats support the middle-class and the poor (give them tax breaks). Poorer folks are generally minorities (with a considerable number of exceptions but still) so those economic policies support them more.

The left never caters to the gifted and the excellent, and they are certainly in the minority.

The folks on the left have a soft-spot for the dead heads, the free loaders, the congenital and chronic failures. They want to hug a cuddle these losers and make them theirs forever.

ruveyn

"No Child Left Behind?"

I think I'd answer this in two ways...

First, the left is largely composed of minorities - I don't have statistics but I think you'd find that far more minorities would self identify as left wingers than what you'd find for the right wing. So the question might be "are people catering to themselves?" (of course they are, which is true and not surprising, I'd say), or maybe you mean are the people on the left that meet whatever definition you want to use to define being non-minority (I assume some combination of white/caucasian, christian, straight, male) actively trying to cater to people who don't meet that definition and are therefore minorities. For that I'm not sure except that in a democracy it makes sense to try and build a coalition of as many people as possible, as that's how you win elections and thus win power, so I wouldn't be surprised that they are, except that I think the people who meet the definition of being part of the majority would in fact be a minority of the left.

The other way I'd answer is that I think the answer is more that the right goes out of its way to NOT cater to minorities - and by that I mean I think they cater to white/christian/straight/male people to the point that they're willing to exclude and even offend people who are not those things - thus making the left the only "safe haven" if you're a minority. And that happens in two ways - first, economically they tend to cater towards upper-middle class and wealthy people, and the percentage of minorities in those categories is simply smaller than the percentage of minorities among the middle class, lower middle class, and poor. But then I think they have positions that are very much "anti", or offensive", to people who find themselves as minorities for one reason or another. For instance, their stance on religious freedom in this country seems to favor the idea that everything should be done to allow the majority Christian population to display religious imagery and bombard everyone else with their religion via school prayer, etc. They've also adopted positions including being against equality for lesbians and gays, are against most forms of women having any control over their own bodies or equality in society or in the work place, and their policies towards people of non-white races is also exclusionary - no immigrants, racial profiling, anti-affirmative action, etc. The sad part is that on one hand you might say it would possibly make sense if you want to appeal to white/straight/christian/males by favoring policy positions that would help these people at the expense of everyone else, but in reality many of the policies I've mentioned above seem to cater to these people's biases, phobias, etc., but don't really offer them any material benefits. No white male's lot in life is going to be improved because women can't have abortions. No straight person is going to get richer or anything else because gay people can't get married. And unless the idea is to make the police too busy pulling over every Hispanic or black person to ever bother any white people, this too offers few benefits to them, just harms the minorities.

Last edited by ScrewyWabbit on 16 Dec 2012, 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

And, I'll be glad when Whites are no longer the Majority.

Does a bear snort in the woods?

Which minorites are we talking about. The right caters to the never raise any taxes minority conspiracy theorists and the republican base. I don't think these people make up the majority.

In the case of the United States what will be accompanied by a general decline in intelligence and invention. Perhaps you won't be glad when that happens.

ruveyn

Racist much?

Not much. Just realistic and factual. Look who is doing most of the inventing and the scientific work. It is not the Sons of Africa.

ruveyn

havent you forgotten a few social and human factors there ruveyn?

or shallwe start treating everyone based on the actions of others?

it cer5tainly would make alienation and dehumanixation much easier wouldnt it?

I will leave mawkish sentimentality to you. I have better things to do.

ruveyn

Ah, well, lets assume we believe (I don't, but I'll humor you) that white people are the only ones with the capacity / motivation to innovate. If that is true, then the rate or amount of innovation ought to be proportional to the absolute number of white people. It would have little or nothing to do with the number of black or other groups of people, and little or nothing to do with the ratio between the number of white people to the number of people from different groups. Therefore, what group is the majority and which groups are minorities is basically irrelevant to innovation given the notion that white people are the only innovators, and so long as the absolute number of white people continues to grow rather than shrink, everything ought to be just peachy in your world.

In any case, to innovate you have to be in a position to do so - you generally need a job that allows you to innovate at work, or enough economic success to have the spare time and resources to innovate. This generally comes down to education and opportunities in life. Maybe once some other groups gain an upper hand in our democracy, they'll start having more of these opportunities for themselves and they might (gasp!) surprise you with what they can do, given the chance.

All physically normal human beings have the capacity (in some degree or other) to invent and innovate. However for primarily cultural and historical reasons not all groups of human being (organized into societies, ethnicities and nations) do equally well. For the longest time Europe was Dead City. Than for accident and cultural reasons they had an awaking The Renaissance the the Enlightenment and became bright again. the Islamic domains started off very energetic and some domains, for example, those in al Anadalus (Spain) became super bright and creative for a way (800-1100 c.e.) then they went dark.

Africa had its advanced kingdoms at one time, and if you count Egypt it was brilliant for a few thousand years prior to 700 b.c.e.

They built the pyramids, a brilliant feat of engineering, design and construction.

Ancient Greece and later the Helenic Domains (Alexandria) had their Bright Times.

All humans, individually, are quite smart, but some cultures accelerate and enhance that or they inhibit it.

ruveyn