I like Coates but I don't agree with him here. For one thing, shouldn't the Native Americans be given reparations first, in the form of all the real estate that was taken from them and then used rent-free for centuries? There's a huge difference between supporting reparations and supporting expanding Medicare to cover everyone, and that difference is not just ideological. The second proposal is far less radical and far more practical, as far-fetched as it might sound - they're not remotely equivalent issues.

Reparations worked in the case of Israel because the Holocaust was a specific event that took place within a specific timeframe (1933-1945), because West Germany was a defeated and divided nation, and because there was an existing baseline (of Jewish property value lost) which could at least be estimated. There was probably some international pressure as well. The situation in the US is far bigger and messier. Limiting reparations to specific instances would make them a lot more manageable, but people are already filing and losing lawsuits over those instances, so I'm not sure what would change that.

I'm going to turn Coates's argument around - if he can't convince a democratic socialist who was arrested in 1962 for organizing protests of segregated housing and has spent his entire career fighting the establishment that reparations are the right thing to do, how the fuck is he supposed to convince anyone else? Hillary's insistence on incrementalism drives me crazy, because I think most of the time she's really just stalling, but I agree with Sanders here.

Very good points. Reparations might have made some sense 120 years ago, but not now. If done then, it could have had a profound influence on the degree to which our current social stratification depends on race, but I think it's far too late. The problems have grown so systemic that trying to target individuals wouldn't fix anything.

And in the US today, how do you define the descendants of slavery? Or is it just having any African ancestors? What fraction of African blood do you need to qualify? How far back do you have to prove your lineage? I have no idea where my great grandfathers and great grandmothers were actually from. I can only make some guesses based on names, and there is little if any documentation. How many African Americans are descended from people who immigrated to the US after the Civil War? Does that still count?

As much as it feels morally just, I don't see any practical way to make reparations work. At this point, we need to decide as a society to help all disadvantaged people, not just those people society has especially screwed over.

His original piece about reparations makes it clear he isn't mostly talking about slavery, but the legal, institutional, and systematic denial of the ability to fully participate in the American economy. Not something that was fixed back in the nineteenth century, but stuff that is still happening. Exclusion of blacks from Social Security, exclusion of black veterans from GI Bill benefits, real estate redlining, and much more. The reason so many non-white people live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty services and shitty schools and have no accumulated family wealth.
Maybe reparations is the wrong word, cuz it makes people think of paying back debts from long ago, and who could figure that out? What Coates is talking about is much more current. Not hard to figure out so much as hard to face.

I've gone and read that piece since my previous comment. Yes, it's a lot more than just slavery, it's long-term systemic problems that are deep in our culture and our economy. I still don't see any morally acceptable way to target African Americans for special aid while not doing the same for non-African Americans who are in similar circumstances. I don't see any fair way to make it better other than changing the systems themselves, indiscriminately. It's the whole problem with affirmative action: how can you discriminate for someone without discriminating against someone else? I don't think it's that hard for many people to accept our horrible treatment of minorities, black people in particular, but it is very hard for me to figure out how to make it better with more discrimination. And yes, that really sucks. I'm no socioeconomic expert, though. I'm all for Congress trying to come up with something, but I'm not optimistic.

I also just disagree with the premise; that opposing reparations is synonymous with seeing white supremacy as a serious issue or a failure to recognise the moral debt owed to african americans.

What Sanders seems to be saying is that reparations arent realistic, would lead to backlash against the black community, and wouldn't address the far more difficult and more important structural issues that perpetuate poverty and disadvantage - and gave some other suggestions on how it might be done.

I think thats a pretty sensible approach. You could give every african american 100k, an equal portion of the entire US budget, and what? They still couldn't buy a house, or go to college, or drive down the road without being stopped by police. Predatory businesses would close in and target the uneducated. Health outcomes would still be affected by maternal education, mental health problems.

I believe the african reparations counsel placed a much higher figure on suggested reparations to africa- almost 800 trillion. Or you know, 80 times the size of the entire US GDP.

Only problem I have with Sanders statement is it doesn't recognise one of thw big mistakes often made by governments thay attempt to address this stuff. Taking a paternalistic approach and dictating how to improve disadvantage communities' welfare without involving them usually is a waste of time.

800 trillion Zimbabwe bucks is about $4 American. Very doable.

There is a difference between conquering(Native Americans) vs enslaving(Primarily African). Conquerors don't pay reparations. That said, numerous treaties (again - Conquerors and those conquered) with various indian nations were signed and land allocated... Some indian nations got screwed and some did ok. During the the revolution various tribes were both friend and foe. The Oneida Indian Nation in NY was promised land for allying with the colonists. Some would argue that it took 200 years for them to get much of their land back but now they are a very prosperous indian nation in Central NY State.

So your point about Native Americans has merit, but I would wager slavery as being more offensive and deserving of reparations... If we could go back 160 years then would be the time to pay it. Now? No.

It's not about 160 years ago.

Could you summarize that, please?

Pretty much all talk about reparations is in regard to reparations for slavery.

If you are going to cover everything from then on through Jim Crow then I suggest you also pay reparations to the Irish Americans as well as any other ethnic group that was brutalized and marginalized in our history as well.

The Irish were treated badly, but they were allowed to participate in the economic and political system so they could raise themselves up to positions of wealth and political power. They were not systematically locked out of the system for generations.

Check out the history of Durham, North Carolina, and its "Black Wall Street". Tulsa, Oklahoma had something similar, that was literally bombed out of existence in the 1921 Tulsa race riots. Being "locked out of the system" meant avoiding the worst of the Great Depression and staying off the ((((wheel of debt)))).

(The success of Durham to this day is not an argument for segregation, btw.)

Very funny.

I just taught Coates's original essay "The Case for Reparations" yesterday. His conception of reparations isn't necessarily financial, though it could be. He calls for a congressional committee to look into the long-term impacts of slavery on black life, to even look into it at all.

His problem is really the lack of honesty about the American past and no formal apology. Or investigation. Or even ability to like ENTERTAIN that something is owed. Historical records during this time period were awful and Coates is very aware of this. I'm not sure why most of you are arguing from the idea that this could or would ever be accomplished monetarily?

People are assuming there would be a financial component because that's what reparations usually mean (see WWI, WWII, South Africa, etc), because he discusses the Contract Buyers League, who explicitly asked for money, and because the central example of successful reparation he himself uses in the original essay is the monetary reparation paid to Jews by West Germany in 1952. I'm not sure why you're not sure.

Most of us are in agreement that the United States has treated African-Americans horrifically and that the system continues to treat them extremely unfairly; for me the issue isn't whether or not something should be done but what and how. What you're talking about is some sort of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which would be a much easier sell than financial reparations, but I think there'd still be a lot of resistance even to that (look at how upset people got just because a black man was President) and for a lot of other people that would be insufficient (for instance, the people asking for $800 trillion). I also don't think it would be enough - the institutions themselves need to change - but it would be a start.

If preferential consideration for college, education grants, and government jobs isn't institutional and systemic reparation, what is? Also, your class needs to know about Nehemiah Adams' A South-Side View of Slavery . Tl;dr: Unitarian Universalist abolitionist visits antebellum Georgia, comes back conflicted.

Another rebuttal, this time with more teeth. I think he goes a bit far in the opposite direction, but he makes some interesting points.

The same problem exists on the Right. Extreme views from both ends of the spectrum are detrimental to us all - left, right or middle.

Except relentless promotion of extreme views has worked pretty well, to those on the far right. They're apparently in charge of the Republican party now.

Maybe, Coates is expecting that Bernie will lose, but his issues (income inequality, etc) will survive and be part of the future discussion. Coates just wants to tack on some more bits for that future discussion. He sees Bernie as the logical choice for this, since he's going to lose anyway.

Really the article is kind of funny in trying to tie together two hopeless causes. The chances of reparations ever happening is about the same as Bernie being elected president.

Bernie is about where Obama was at this point in his campaign. He has a real chance.

But not if he pushes reparations.

Eh, sorry no. Reparations or no, Bernie's support remains exceedingly narrow- not even close to the broad, diverse coalition Obama built in 08. Realistically he has no chance (barring some kind of catastrophe that breaks Hillary). Hope and dream all you want, but I'd strongly advise against putting money on him.

No catastrophe need befall Hillary. No one wants her to be President. If she is nominated, a Republican is guaranteed to win. Bernie at least has a chance.

I'm glad that we can at least agree on the depressing conjecture that the 2016 US presidential election is the GOP's to lose.

Considering their current frontrunners, they seem pretty determined to lose.

Any warm body would beat Clinton.

I like your plucky attitude, despite it's total lack of statistical basis.
We'll see.

This isn't news.

If you ask any republican or democrat what they think about reparations, I'm sure most would be opposed to it. I don't get why this article singles out Sanders... Perhaps because he's the only candidate that answered the question???

He takes up a lot of the black vote. Anything to decrease his lead, I guess.

??? have you been to a Bernie rally? it's all white liberals. And even in progressive spaces online, it's white liberals circlejerking over what is Bernie and telling people of color that he's the best candidate for them. But Bernie's following with people of color is laughable at best for many reasons, not limited to Clinton's popularity or berners.

Do the dems have a better candidate for people of color?

Bernie is polling high with millennial progressive women. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, whatever.

Older POC associate with Hillary, but not much in the younger crowd.

The fact that Trump is beating the establishment (on the polls, at least) is a cause for concern.

Hillary is blatantly trying to win the black vote (The Nae Nae on Ellen, Run DNC Twitter logo, off-color Rosa Parks Twitter logo, Off-color Kwanza Twitter logo, etc.). It's not a slam dunk for her.

I'm for Bernie, but no, he does not have the black and latino vote yet. Most of them still don't know who he is.

The case against Bernie Sanders.

Chait is a Third Way fuckwit who promoted the mass murder in Iraq. He has zero credibility. The less voters listen to people like him the better off we'll all be.

This may be true, but he likely has a lot more in common ideologically with the mainstream majority of Democratic voters than Sanders.

Democratic voters are defeatists? You know, people are pretty sick of pessimism in politics, which is just another way of maintaining the status quo. If Bernie loses you still lose.

Debunking the case against Sanders

Moderation and pragmatism are not the same as defeatism. I don't subscribe to Chait's political viewpoint but his assessment of the electorate as a whole and Bernie's grim prospects of actually implementing his agenda if elected is perfectly reasonable. Sure, I'm glad Bernie is running and I'll support him for as long as his campaign is tenable, but of course I also happen to be in that exceedingly narrow demographic of educated left-wing white people. The difference between us is that I already recognize the limits of that support.

There are very few educated liberal white people? How do you know that?

Where did I say there were very few? What I said is that it's a very narrow demographic, and it's concentrated in underrepresented urban areas, especially on the coasts. How do I know this? Take a look at Congress, state legislatures, and current governors.

I'm starting to think you're a parody account.

Most democrats (or leftists) seem to be defeatist today, because that would require them to admit they were wrong about the horses they've backed. Most of the politicians on the left are practically shoving their hands under their constituents' faces to show how badly their hands are tied. But very few of the constituents bother to check those ropes or they might notice how weakly tied the ropes are and how they might very well have been slipped on just moments before.

For example, in Sunday's debate Hillary made it very clear that she felt that to go for a Medicare-for-all program would be the death of the ACA - the exact opposite of single payer - because the republican's would suddenly accomplish what they haven't been able to do in 5 years, repeal the ACA. The democrats use the republicans like a freaking boogieman. Meanwhile, the Patriot Act gets renewed despite a filibuster and the TPP fast track manages to pass after multiple attempts. Amazing how the Causes our politicians are for get multiple tries, but all it takes is the threat of a filibuster and the Causes for the people are left dead in the water.

Legislation is brought up repeatedly by politicians who are rewarded for doing so. That's why there have been 60+ votes to repeal ACA. It seems pointless to us, but those guys get re-elected. Guys on our side take suicide votes, because they know voters on our side won't bother to vote in off-year elections, and they won't get re-elected. Obama lost the congress over health care reform. The voters who elected him didn't bother to vote in the next election.
Conservatives are fewer in number, but they support their causes when it counts. Politicians on the left know they can't count on that kind of consistent support.

Perhaps they could if they had the backbone to fight dirty like the right does. Why bother voting when even if your side wins, they're just going to phone it in?

Perfect illustration of my point. Why bother voting? Because if you don't vote, your opinion doesn't mean zip. Because the other side votes every fucking time, that's what backbone is made of.

The other side has representatives willing to fight for their cause.

Because their voters make them. There is some effort involved.

Which is why you should vote for Bernie.

60+ votes to repeal the ACA doesn't seem pointless to me at all, they're pandering to their base just as much as the left is. But what kind of support is the lesser of two evils supposed to expect? Obama didn't lose congress over healthcare reform, he lost because the Koch Brothers, Fox News, and other groups spent millions in AstroTurfing the Tea Party into place. If it wasn't Health Care, it would've been gay marriage, abortion, guns, drugs, or the myriad of standard issues the right uses to incite their base. They use the left as a boogieman even moreso than the left uses the right. The difference is they have people being paid to take stances on the extreme right whereas the left gets to point out how their hands are tied as they "compromise" in a way that is getting to be further and further to the right, all the while "receiving funding" from people that benefit. Not to mention their own proifts... Healthcare industry stocks explode as bill progresses

The reason Bernie, a guy who really is not that far left compared to the rest of the world, is doing so well right now is because people want a leftist candidate, someone that's genuine. Leftist ideals almost consistently poll higher over the general population, that's why the dems do better when there's a higher voter turnout. And yet the dem candidates are mostly moderates, almost right of center, as the farce continues. People come out for someone they believe in, not for the people they feel they're forced to settle for. Blaming people for not coming out for the dems is like blaming a kid for not standing up to defend the bully that gives him wet willies from the bigger bully that holds him upside down and gives him swirlies.

Leftist ideals almost consistently poll higher over the general population, that's why the dems do better when there's a higher voter turnout. And yet the dem candidates are mostly moderates, almost right of center, as the farce continues.

And then the off-year election comes and leftist voters just don't show up. The Koch brothers turned out their vote, but they didn't make the left stay home. When the right panders to their base, they get re-elected. When the left panders to their base, they get to find another job.
More people like leftist ideals, just not well enough to vote every time. The right plays a long game, and the left just watches.

I feel like my point isn't really getting across so I'm just going to headline it for you.

More people like leftist ideals, just not well enough to vote every time. The right plays a long game, and the left just watches.

BECAUSE THE LEFTISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN THE DEMOCRATS

Look, from my own point of view, when I look at the average Democratic candidate, I don't see someone that represents my ideals. I don't see someone I believe in. I don't see someone that will fight for me. Or as the kids would put it, #NotMyCandidate. A winning democrat is not what I would consider good for me, it's just less bad. And I know for a fact I am not alone on this. The dems have not been the party of the leftists for a long time. The dems get by because the system is rigged against a third party and the majority of people on the left that do feel obligated to vote don't see themselves as having any other choice. #ThisIsWhatAnOligrachyLooksLike

You don't want to vote for the person who's less bad for you? That's what elections are, choices between two not-perfect candidates. If one candidate supports gay rights and a questionable trade deal, and the other side is against gay rights and supports the questionable trade deal, you pick the best option. And then you try to fix the trade deal. Otherwise, the worst option wins, and keeps winning.
Lincoln did some pretty questionable stuff, but on balance, he was probably our best ever. Voting for him was still choosing the less bad option. FDR even more so.

As long as you are settling for the lesser of two evils, you always be moving further away from good. The line doesn't magically reset itself back to center after every election. What you're describing is the sunk cost fallacy that guarantees the two party system. And unless someone from the relative far left comes along and helps pull that line back towards the center, the system will continue to move further and further towards the right. And so will you, because that's how the sunk cost fallacy works.

Maybe we're talking past each other here. Even the guy from the relative far left is the lesser of two evils, isn't he? Unless he's without flaws.

You can have flaws, you can even make mistakes over your lifetime, it's about what you say and making sure it's backed up by what you're doing.

Using Bernie as an example, as I've said, he's practically a centrist compared to the rest of the world, but a leftist in the US. But here's the important thing, not only is he trying to pull the nation back to the left, he's genuine, I trust him. His behavior and history is congruent with what he says he believes and what we wants to do. He claims billionaire money is corrupting our democracy and then doesn't take money from billionaires. He's spent his lifetime fighting for other people and his character reflects that. Even people that don't agree with him often come to admit that he's a genuine man. To me, that's not settling for the lesser of two evils, that's a step towards good.

I also love Bernie, and I'd like to see him win, but if he doesn't win the nomination, I'm still going to vote. Not voting for the lesser of two evils = supporting the greater of two evils.

Again, sunk cost fallacy. You vote for the lesser of two evils and your thoughts change to support your behavior. The country shifts farther to the right, yourself included.

So if you were a Bobby Kennedy supporter in 1968, faced with Nixon v Humphrey, you'd choose to not vote?

I don't know, I don't remember enough to about Humphrey to say, but if I couldn't find a third party candidate I felt represented me, it's entirely possible.

Any democrat or republican ever that you could vote for?

There's been a handful over the years. Currently, Elizabeth Warren comes to mind.

I like Liz Warren too. I wonder how her fans on the left will feel when she endorses Hillary, as she's expected to do very soon.

But no actual presidential candidates?

I did vote for Gore, mostly because of his stance on technology and climate change. Almost voted for Obama the first time, but held back at the last minute, though I was happy that he won and was hoping he would prove my hesitance wrong.

I'm not a Hillary fan but if she's the nominee I'll vote for her without reservation or regret. Despite all of her flaws, ideological and otherwise, all I need to consider is the idea of a 6-3 hard-right SCOTUS majority and what that would mean for civil and voting rights, reproductive rights, big money's influence on politics, health care, etc etc etc.- for at least a generation to come. One thing we know about the Roberts Court is its unabashed conservative activism. With a larger majority they'd be empowered to further expand their agenda.

This is correct. It's by far the main issue of this campaign.

Yeah. The "Sanders won't be able to get anything through Congress" argument is likely correct (unless enthusiasm for him miraculously returns control of Congress to the Dems; they have a shot at the Senate but the House is almost certainly out of reach). But Hillary is so hated by the GOP she's not going to be any more effective than Sanders, so that's a moot point. The Supreme Court is the crucial issue.

That said, it's been pointed out to me that there's no requirement to seat 9 justices. The Republicans could just refuse to confirm *any* nominees and run out the clock, in which case guillotines really are our only hope.

The number of SCOTUS justices is determined by Congress, and by current mandate is now set at 9. Basically it would require an act of Congress to change this number.

SCOTUS can still function with less than nine. Sometimes one or more recuse themselves.
How hard it is to get a new one appointed kind of depends on which chair has gone empty.

Why the next Supreme Court vacancy will favor liberals

It doesn't sound like there is a time limit on how long Congress has to replace a vacancy. There are many lower court judicial appointments that have been empty for months or even years.

I live in a very blue state, my vote for President is meaningless and I can't in good conscience vote for a war criminal. Those in purpler states should resign themselves to the lesser evil, but that's not what primaries are for.

I'm assuming you're referring to Hillary Clinton as the 'war criminal' here. Just curious as to what war crimes you're accusing her of.

OK, that's what I figured.
But no, she's not a war criminal because she voted to authorize military action in Iraq, by any practical or legal definition of the term. By your definition, not only the majority of Congress but the majority of the US population at the time could be considered war criminals. You are of course entitled to your own personal definition of that accusation, even if it vastly diminishes actual instances of war crimes.

There are really only two explanations. She was either stupid enough to fall for the Bush administration's transparently contrived case for invasion (Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us), in which case she shouldn't be trusted with the office of President - and I don't for a minute believe she's that stupid. Or she knew they were most probably lying and made the calculated decision that the political fallout from going against the prevailing war frenzy would be worse than the consequences of supporting an unjustified war. She took her sweet time acknowledging that she made a "mistake", long after the truth about Iraq was evident to all but the most bloodthirsty hawks and intransigent Bush supporters. I've never seen any actual remorse from her, unlike (for example) David Kay, who seems to recognize the moral culpability he bears.

Yeah, I absolutely consider the majority of Congress to be war criminals, along with (especially) the Bush administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the PNAC gang knew perfectly well they had no solid case for an invasion, but they plowed ahead with their insane plan to remake the Middle East in their own image. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were murdered (along with a number of soldiers who were merely defending their country against a foreign aggressor) because of the decision to illegally invade Iraq without legitimate cause. That's an actual war crime; if it's not, then the term doesn't mean much. Everyone who voted for that fiasco has blood on their hands. The only reason the US isn't facing international war crimes tribunals is the fact that the US is too powerful militarily for anyone to stand up to us. As it is there are a number of countries Bush and his co-conspirators won't risk visiting.

No argument the Iraq invasion was a wasteful fiasco and even a criminal exercise, at least on the part of those who conceived and executed it. I'd certainly go along with the culpability of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons who made it happen. But I'd also remind you that it's mighty easy in hindsight to cite 'the Bush administration's transparently contrived case for invasion' when in fact it had the support and endorsement of most media outlets, including the historically left-leaning, not to mention an overwhelming popular majority. So once again, you're casting a mighty wide net in your 'war crime' accusation. I'm willing to consider this label for the deceivers, but not to the deceived. Congress was clearly misled into believing Saddam was a threat, if you want to call this 'stupidity' then it's fair enough, but the fact is that in the panicked times following the 9/11 attacks, a lot of people were stupid.

It was easy in foresight, too, for those of us who were paying attention and thinking rationally.
Stupidity is not a defense for murder, and as I said I don't believe Hillary was stupid. She wasn't just basing her decision on the cable TV propaganda show, I think she knew what was going on and didn't care. Groupthink is not a defense for murder either.

The invasion of Iraq was the great moral question of our time and Hillary failed it completely. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are dead because of her cowardice.

(This isn't a pro-Sanders thing, btw. I swore in 2002 never to support anyone who voted for that crime.)

OK, problem is I have no reasonable answer to overwrought hyperbole. "The great moral question of our time"? Certainly an important political decision in the context of a particular time, with great moral repercussions. Frankly I can think of a whole bunch of greater, more important moral questions.

Global warming is undoubtedly bigger, probably the biggest; institutional racism, sexism, and income inequality are also very serious. But those are all still ongoing problems and none of those have the same kind of direct, clear connection between a single vote and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Feel free to list some of what you consider greater moral questions, but realize that you just called mass murder "overwrought hyperbole". I'm glad that many deaths is so trivial to you, it certainly must make your life easier.

Oedipus killed one person by mistake, blinded himself and went into exile. Hillary won't even resign; she thinks she should be promoted.

If you seriously think single-payer has a snowball's chance in the current political environment (aka hell) than you're a lot funnier than I could ever hope to be. Call this defeatism if you want, but just look at the fucking Congress.

There is plenty a President can do without Congress.

He could, for example, direct the Justice Department to put most of Wall Street behind bars.

Ha, good one. Just FYI, the DOJ operates as an autonomous agency within the federal government. The Attorney General is directly appointed by the president, but answers to constitutional law over the president. So, to take your wishful example, the AG could initiate an investigation into 'Wall Street', either independently or at the request of the president, which might result in imprisonment if federal laws were broken. But the president most certainly cannot "direct the Justice Department to put most of Wall Street behind bars". Such an order would directly violate constitutional statutes of due process and presidential powers. Basically such an attempt would result in pretty swift impeachment proceedings.
What else you got?

Look at how quickly they found something to use against Martin Shkreli. They've all done something.

Actually a good example of what I said. It's highly doubtful Schkreli was arrested through any presidential order or suggestion. His prominence made him an easy target for investigation, and you'll note that even this douchebag is entitled to due process.

Sure, give them all due process. But not bail.

That's defeatism all right. :)

...rent-seeking involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline.

Then there's the whole income inequality, national thing.