Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be mandatory reading for all Dem politicians. This is common sense, but for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

That’s racist. No thank you. We are a melting pot and always have been a nation of immigrants. White people are just throwing a tantrum because they are no longer #1.

Anonymous wrote:This could be true in theory.
But practically, if you live in a pluralistic society. The melting pot of America. You have bikers and orthodox religious practitioners. You have native Americans, 1st gen, 2nd-3rd gen, and Americans so long they don’t know when they came….

There is nothing to do. There is no homogeneity. It’s creepy to think about “making” it so.

Are you just trying to say Democrats will never have a progressive society? Because that’s not true. Can you see the difference of 1900 to 2000 alone?

Op, I can’t get into your argument. It’s theoretical, impractical, and nonsensical.

Anonymous wrote:This should be mandatory reading for all Dem politicians. This is common sense, but for some reason people like to pretend otherwise.

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you are debating this when everybody knows this.
There are no bad schools in Japan and it has nothing to do with money. There are schools with no money in rural areas and schools with plenty of money in urban areas. But all of them are good because they are all filled with Japanese children.
So many urban households will donate their taxes to a rural area. Because they don't see it as "The other" siphoning away their wealth. They see it as a helping hand for a family member having a rougher time.
An immigrant coworker from another country said that no one is depressed in her home country because "you step out of the house and you make a friend. Here everyone is guarded because everyone is so different. We (ethnicity) are all very similar in personality so we all like each other." And when you all like each other you want to help each other.

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Anonymous wrote:The homogeneity thing is racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows that countries with culturally homogeneous populations generally have a stronger ability to maintain the social contracts that sustain progressive policies. This is not controversial.

When cultural values are highly divergent within a country, of course people will not be as willing to support the sort of redistributionist policies that are part of progressivism. The reason the US has been able to stick around so long with a lot of immigrants is because it did not have those sort of left-wing policies.

Your logic: the reason we don't have progressive policies is because racists won't support them. Well there's a vote in favor of progressive policies.

It's not "social contracts", it's "the social contract", and its' from Locke. Locke did not believe that the social contract was based on culture but on philosophical truths that are inherent to all of humanity.