Reparations and the Democratic Primary

[Mister Mets]

Ta-Nehishi Coates wrote an Atlantic cover story on reparations and the debt owed to the descendants of slaves. There is one policy suggestion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Will someone running in the 2016 primary endorse Conyers' suggestion? Should someone do it, either because it is right or because it will impress primary voters? What would be the effects of a Brian Schweitzer or a Hillary Clinton endorsing the study? Will this be like gay marriage in 2008, an issue none of the Democratic presidential candidates was willing to tackle as a way to distinguish themselves from the frontrunner because of the perceived general election harm?

[Cory]

Never. Gonna. Happen. Democrats struggle enough with white voters already.

[Never]

It is doubtful that any serious Democratic contender would endorse reparations, as it is a thorny issue that has the potential to spark animosity between ethnicities.

Within the Democratic primaries, if a candidate supported this measure, it might really hurt them in many states in several regions. First off, I doubt that Whites are going to be impressed with spending tax dollars to basically pay a group of people for something that happened over 150 years ago. Minority groups like Latinos and Asian-Americans might feel slighted by this measure. While the majority of African-Americans probably support reparations, there might be a subset of this demographic (perhaps 10-20%) that has justifiable concerns about whether it is fair to the nation to open up this can of worms, when there are arguably more pressing problems.

If Hillary Clinton endorsed reparations, it would probably help her in the Southern states in which the Democratic party is mainly comprised of minorities. These were the states that really hurt her by voting for Obama in the 2008 primaries. Still, the only way Hillary would support reparation policy is if she saw herself as being threatened by an upstart candidate who might seriously have a chance at winning the nomination, and even so, endorsing reparations would probably help Clinton if she did so before the South Carolina primaries. Other than that, I don't see any benefit for Hillary in this regard.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I could see a far-left candidate bringing it up as a way to drive up black support in a close primary, but I don't see it being a major issue.

Unfortunately, I think the Republicans would be more likely to use it as a wedge issue and pretend that it's a possibility, much like the Democrats lied about who was in favor of the draft in 2004.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm surprised no one on the far left (in seriousness) or on the far right (as talking points to oppose reparations) have suggested banning white individuals from holding office for x amount of years.

With this level of political someone (probably a Tea Party fueled talking points concept) might that suggestion (even if they their party won't do it).

[whanztastic]

I could see a far-left candidate bringing it up as a way to drive up black support in a close primary, but I don't see it being a major issue.

Unfortunately, I think the Republicans would be more likely to use it as a wedge issue and pretend that it's a possibility, much like the Democrats lied about who was in favor of the draft in 2004.

[Simfan34]

This is idiotic. Reparations have always been a fringe idea and they should and will stay that way.

[Lief 🗽]

And add to right-wing white folks' persecution complex? Unfortunately it's not going to happen.

[eric82oslo]

Better to secure a real welfare state, like say the ones in Denmark or Norway, than to start with reparations. Reparations is such a terrific idea theoretically, but practically it's so much better realized through a welfare state.

[Never]

Better to secure a real welfare state, like say the ones in Denmark or Norway, than to start with reparations. Reparations is such a terrific idea theoretically, but practically it's so much better realized through a welfare state.

Expanding welfare or reparations are non-starters. Either way, it is spending more money that we don't have as a nation.

[eric82oslo]

Better to secure a real welfare state, like say the ones in Denmark or Norway, than to start with reparations. Reparations is such a terrific idea theoretically, but practically it's so much better realized through a welfare state.

Expanding welfare or reparations are non-starters. Either way, it is spending more money that we don't have as a nation.

Why would it be non-starters when Denmark and Norway are by far the two best countries to live in in the world, shows almost every study? And it's exactly because of our constantly expanding welfare states of the past 70-80 years that we've become such well-functioning states as we are today.

One very important part of welfare states (like the Nordic ones) is to tax the rich btw (just like you yourself did to such an outstanding degree in the 60s and 70s, but which the hyped Reagan found to be communistic in its nature and thus removed with the stroke of a pen - I guess all of Europe is communistic then).

[RTX]

Reparations for something that happened 150 years ago makes about as much sense as compensating the Southern states for General Sherman's terrorism

[Lief 🗽]

Reparations for something that happened 150 years ago makes about as much sense as compensating the Southern states for General Sherman's terrorism

You need to read some books, guy.

Wait, are you the guy that's in seventh grade? Maybe your school just doesn't do American history after the civil war until 8th grade, that would explain it.

[RTX]

Reparations for something that happened 150 years ago makes about as much sense as compensating the Southern states for General Sherman's terrorism

You need to read some books, guy.

Wait, are you the guy that's in seventh grade? Maybe your school just doesn't do American history after the civil war until 8th grade, that would explain it.

Stick with your illustrious Czech history dude

[pbrower2a]

Reparations for slavery  is either an extreme position by Leftists who have no chance to achieve their quixotic dream... or a strawman argument offered by the Right.  (X is for expansion of welfare... could he also be for reparations? 

[Heimdal]

Why would it be non-starters when Denmark and Norway are by far the two best countries to live in in the world, shows almost every study? And it's exactly because of our constantly expanding welfare states of the past 70-80 years that we've become such well-functioning states as we are today.

Norway and Denmark are small homogenous countries. It isn’t given that you can export the political model of these two countries to a far larger and far more diverse country such as the US.

One very important part of welfare states (like the Nordic ones) is to tax the rich btw (just like you yourself did to such an outstanding degree in the 60s and 70s, but which the hyped Reagan found to be communistic in its nature and thus removed with the stroke of a pen - I guess all of Europe is communistic then).

That is only true to a certain degree. The richest people in Norway don’t pay that much in taxes. In that respect we are similar to the US. The welfare state is funded though the income tax, payroll taxes and value- added taxes. The burdens of these taxes are carried to a large extent by ordinary wage earners.

It may be possible for the US to have a welfare state like we have in Norway and Denmark, but the taxation of “the rich” will not be sufficient. It will necessarily entail a far larger tax burden for the “middle class”.

[Never]

Better to secure a real welfare state, like say the ones in Denmark or Norway, than to start with reparations. Reparations is such a terrific idea theoretically, but practically it's so much better realized through a welfare state.

Expanding welfare or reparations are non-starters. Either way, it is spending more money that we don't have as a nation.

Why would it be non-starters when Denmark and Norway are by far the two best countries to live in in the world, shows almost every study? And it's exactly because of our constantly expanding welfare states of the past 70-80 years that we've become such well-functioning states as we are today.

One very important part of welfare states (like the Nordic ones) is to tax the rich btw (just like you yourself did to such an outstanding degree in the 60s and 70s, but which the hyped Reagan found to be communistic in its nature and thus removed with the stroke of a pen - I guess all of Europe is communistic then).

I would genuinely appreciate reading one of the studies that you mention, but for now I'll introduce research refuting the notion that welfare states like those of Scandinavia are superior to America.

First off, if the Scandinavian countries are the best to live in, why do they have such high suicide rates? Finland has the fifth highest rate in the world, Denmark has the eleventh, Sweden the twelfth, and Norway the fourteenth? What about the U.S.A., you ask? Down at eighteenth, despite the fact that compared to Scandinavians, Americans have easier access to guns, which are very useful to killing yourself. It is also known that Scandinavians consume particularly high amounts of antidepressants, which might indicate that the people there aren't particularly happy with their way of life. Based on that, it is doubtful that Scandinavian nations are the best to live in.

If the Scandinavian model of government can actually provide for its citizens, why do the people there have so much personal debt? With the exception of Sweden, the personal debt levels of Scandinavian countries are even higher than those of America.

If Finland were an American state, it would be the fifth poorest one in the nation. In the economic sense, European nations are more like Alabama and Mississippi than New Jersey or Alaska.

Scandinavian countries don't really have militaries (Europe being defended by the U.S.A.), and they are more homogeneous than America could ever be. That is something to remember when comparing the two.

As Americans we did such a great job taxing the rich in the 70s that the economy became very weak. I don't know how Europeans view us in that decade, but here it was remembered as an era of gas lines, little economic growth, failed wars, and incompetent presidents (Ford, Carter). It was not a proud era for our nation. If America remained on the trajectory that it was on in that decade, we would be bankrupt like Greece. Reagan was right to change course. I wouldn't say Europe is communistic, but it is definitely socialistic (a tamer form of communism) in its attitude. The flawed attitudes that are generally present in Europe regarding welfare could be just as detrimental to America.

So yes, in my opinion the welfare state, like reparations, is still a non-starter.

[pbrower2a]

Better to secure a real welfare state, like say the ones in Denmark or Norway, than to start with reparations. Reparations is such a terrific idea theoretically, but practically it's so much better realized through a welfare state.

Expanding welfare or reparations are non-starters. Either way, it is spending more money that we don't have as a nation.

Why would it be non-starters when Denmark and Norway are by far the two best countries to live in in the world, shows almost every study? And it's exactly because of our constantly expanding welfare states of the past 70-80 years that we've become such well-functioning states as we are today.

One very important part of welfare states (like the Nordic ones) is to tax the rich btw (just like you yourself did to such an outstanding degree in the 60s and 70s, but which the hyped Reagan found to be communistic in its nature and thus removed with the stroke of a pen - I guess all of Europe is communistic then).

I would genuinely appreciate reading one of the studies that you mention, but for now I'll introduce research refuting the notion that welfare states like those of Scandinavia are superior to America.

First off, if the Scandinavian countries are the best to live in, why do they have such high suicide rates? Finland has the fifth highest rate in the world, Denmark has the eleventh, Sweden the twelfth, and Norway the fourteenth? What about the U.S.A., you ask? Down at eighteenth, despite the fact that compared to Scandinavians, Americans have easier access to guns, which are very useful to killing yourself. It is also known that Scandinavians consume particularly high amounts of antidepressants, which might indicate that the people there aren't particularly happy with their way of life. Based on that, it is doubtful that Scandinavian nations are the best to live in.

If the Scandinavian model of government can actually provide for its citizens, why do the people there have so much personal debt? With the exception of Sweden, the personal debt levels of Scandinavian countries are even higher than those of America.

The greater the security of income that one has, the more likely one is to go on consumer binges on credit. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are familiar with the deep South -- a few people are spectacularly wealthy, and many people are desperately poor. How poor are American's poor? Malnutrition, bad health, trouble meeting payments for necessities, poor education. The Finns do better with what they have than we Americans do with what we have. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sweden has had huge expenditures on military preparedness for years... likely with a long water boundary with the Soviet Union. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The USA has been a low-tax country since the 1960s.