Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Wokeness

Here's an article from James Caraville. I have followed him probably since the Carter years when he first appeared on shows like Washington Week, McLaughin group, etc and then later on CNN. I'm interested to see what you all think of his interview and what he had to say about Wokeness.

“Wokeness is a problem and we all know it”
James Carville on the state of Democratic politics.

https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

He is flat out right. I have been preaching that one for years. I have no idea of the solution but I do know they have people in charge that have been at it for a very long time. They have been in charge of a mess that has not changed much either. I often wonder what would happen if they had somebody in charge who actually had a plan and was willing to get it done. All that being said, its unlikely that's gonna happen.

The Woke thing has always confused. I think its what was once thought of as being "with-it", maybe "cool" but maybe not. One of them mysterious things.

Wokeness is nothing more than awareness of what's going on around us.

Recognizing racial and economic inequalities.

Recognizing that the effects of climate change are going to be devastating.

Recognizing the gay and transgendered people have the same rights as everyone else.

Recognizing that masks and social distancing were and still are needed.

It appears Carville wants everyone to go back to sleep...bury their heads in the sand and vote for democrats.

But without wokeness the democratic party is no different from the republicans...

I think what James was getting at is stupid things and sayings like Defund the Police. Most Americans like their police, they don't want to see their police done away with. A choice of words can make all the difference come election time. One reason Republicans were able to pick up 14 house seats is the fact they like their police and were afraid if the Democrats won, their police force would cease to exist. These folks voted for Biden, but voted republican down ballot to keep their existing police force.

Now who ever heard of communities of color? Why not just say black neighborhoods. Then everyone knows what the heck your talking about. I think many Democrats, progressives in particular forget that politics is the art of the possible. They continue to push things that don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades. Stuff most Americans oppose or I should say may support if it was worded differently and presented in plain English instead of very stylish jargon the average American doesn't understand.

I'm trying to remember how Reagan put it. He granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. But he didn't call it amnesty. He called it 'legalization." His act passed. A survey at the time showed a majority of Americans against granting amnesty, but a majority had no problem with legalization. A play on words for sure, but it worked.

Has The Democratic Party come out in favor of defunding the police?

Has Joe Biden mentioned defunding the police n his first hundred days?

What's the difference between a neighborhood and a community? Is community another word we need to remove from the lexicon because voters are too stupid to understand it?

We used to call it the "Quarters".

Let's don't legalize the foriegn interlopers! Just give them documents so they can be properly taxed.

Who the hell is calling for the defunding of police? I think the point is to de-militarize the police so maybe they'll quit acting like black people are the enemy who must be killed.

Why then can't the Democrats say that? Why always defund the police. That's on the news all the time. When one hears that, how are they suppose to take it? This is what Carville was talking about. Coming up with slogans and saying things that they don't mean, that has one meaning to them, but entirely different to others.

What does defund mean? Prevent from continuing to receive funds. So defund the police means one thing to most Democrats,de-militarize the police in your words. But to others especially independents who can't read Democratic minds, it means to stop funding the police. Who ever came up with that slogan was a complete idiot.

It's peoples perspectives, observations and hearings, hear this, see this, then think what you hear and see is what is meant.

I hear that Biden doesn't support defunding the police, that Democrats don't support defunding the police, but that is what the Democrats on TV and in the news are saying. Yeah, just saying that cost them 14 house seats last election.

Just a simple question, why not say what you mean? Reorganize, retrain, change the way they operate, something akin to that instead of defund the police? This is what Carville was getting at. You can't get upset at people if they take what you say is what you mean.

Using phrases like defund the police, this is what you end up with.

Fewer than 1 in 5 support 'defund the police' movement, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds

From the article: Only 18% of respondents supported the movement known as "defund the police," and 58% said they opposed it. Though white Americans (67%) and Republicans (84%) were much more likely to oppose the movement, only 28% of Black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...pport-defund-police-movement/4599232001/

Did you get the end of that, in case you didn't, "only 28% of Black Americans and 34% of Democrats were in favor of it." Yet this is what you see on the news all the time, Democratic congress critters and other talking about, shouting defund the police.

Keep saying what you don't mean and you'll lose congress in 2022. The answer is simple, say what you mean. If you mean to de-militaize the police, to make them more responsible for their actions, then say it. Don't say, defund the police.

James is right.

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard anybody say that. Haven't seen it in any headlines or read any reports about anybody saying it.

Back during the riots I think somebody floated the idea. Not sure it was a democrat unless you define everyone who isn't a republican as a democrat. More likely a lefty of some sort.

Oh...wait! Carville is actually attacking the lefties isn't he...?

The foolish young social justice warriors who don't understand just how important it is to maintain the status quo!

No. what Carville and I are saying is rather simple, say what you mean.

It's the slogan itself that is defeatist, not the idea. Most folks will take defund to mean defund, not reform. A slogan of Reform the police in my opinion would be much more popular, much more able to attract supporters, having more people to to recognize the problem and do something about it.

Defund, doing away with funding of the police isn't something most Americans want. Words have meaning. In this case defund the police as you pointed out, doesn't mean defund the police. But reform and make them more responsible for their actions.

So why not say that and have a slogan that implies and means that. Not one that is opposite of the original meaning? The SJW's don't realize how they are hurting their own cause with that slogan since most Americans like their local police and support their local police.

It isn't keeping the status quo, it all about saying what you mean.

I'll add this, I don't think we're holding the right people responsible for the police actions. It's the local officials who hire the police, who train the police, who set and supposedly enforce the rules and regulations the police operate under, who fund the police, who pay their salary, who appoint the police chiefs and approve promotions and much more. Yet, we're giving these elected and appointed officials a free ride. they're in charge, so perhaps it's them who are failing and letting the police run amok in some localities.

I think you are right on! They just have to keep on running their mouths and losing elections and then whining about it. Its very strange. The Democrats used to have some control over their party and controlled the stupid stuff but, apparently, no longer. Eventually, with luck, they might figure it out but, right now, they are determined to "defund the police", have public arguments about silly things, claim the mantle of socialists, and brag about how Biden is the furthest left of any president in history, etc. its loonacy and I fear there is more to come.

Then there is the argument over whether individual police or the entire force should be sued. I really don't understand that one. Right now, when a cop goes rogue, and gets caught, and the city pays the bill. I think the argument is actually a way to get cities off the hook.

At the risk of repeating myself there are millions of tax dollars are spent on rogue cops every year and, I guess, the cities don't care or they would have fixed the problem. On the other hand it seems, now, a good number of them seem to be starting to do that (a good thing). Its kinda interesting. The cities are very careful not to mention the costs of not fixing their police problems. On the other hand those trying to fix our healthcare system are, finally, noting how expensive our existing system is and how our outcomes are not all that great - finally! (I think those two thing just might get it done?)

Winning and losing elections is all about messaging and presenting your message in a manner that is easily understandable. People must know what you mean, understand what you mean. Defund is not Reform. One also has to hold the elected official who are responsible for their city's police force accountable also.

I'll give Atlanta credit. That city has added funding to their city police. Added additional training, add yearly mandatory classes, recruited from the neighborhood that the new police officer will patrol. Increased the salary of police among other things. I think it's working. Time will tell on that. But is was like a light bulb went off in the mayor's office and city council. It was hey, we hire these folks, we train them, we give them the rules and regulations they must follow, we pay them, we appoint the police chief and other officials, it's our job to ensure they behave, act, police, in the way we want them to.

You're always going to have a few bad cops, even with the best oversight. But one needs to act as soon as one is seen, found. If the elected officials of Minneapolis, Portland, Louisville realized the police force belongs to them, they're responsible for it, perhaps what happened wouldn't have. Do these police forces run themselves without any oversight? It sure seems so at times.