In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
Comments
This speaks to the thread on Delaware's (uppercase)democrat / fake liberal blog.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2012/09/13/reconnecting-de-voters-to-the-democratic-brand/#comment-299809
Other than their obsession with protecting abortion under any circumstance and a very brief flirtation with criminal defendant protections around the 1970's the Democrats have never known a civil liberty they wouldn't toss overboard in a heartbeat to advance government power and their control.
Now that they have finally just come out as full-blown national socialists the absurd pretense that they ever gave a shit about civil liberties has actually become counterproductive to their lying, scheming and propagandizing.
Ironically this admission (or omission really) is probably the only honest thing their party platform has ever revealed about what their true value are.
Good catch, Steve. Vote Green Party this year. Gary Johnson is just another sore-loser republican, as have been all of the Libertarian Presidential Candidates.
I would consider voting for several different Greens around the country, including Andy Groff, but not based on their platform.
Platforms are generally useless, but I thought it was interesting that Democrats would find it necessary to strike out their support for civil liberties.
Platforms are useless except as running statements of what the party wants the world to believe they're about, i.e. their bullshit.
They can be very very instructive however insofar as how they change, particularly when it involves a significant departure from or reversal of what was long a standing plank, and even more particularly when it concerns a broad, consequential question or issue.
If the GOP, for example, omitted national security from its platform it would be a damn significant statement revealing far more about them than anything you'd learn from any party platform claptrap.
And with the Democrats, their lack of giving a shit about civil liberties is now so pervasive that even their most shallow pro forma propaganda has finally caught up with the reality of who and what they really are.