HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Let's try this again. Re:...

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:17 PM

Let's try this again. Re: "...the Democrats' Racial Rift"

Let me start by saying that I think the vast majority of Clinton and Sanders supporters are decent and kind people, who wish to reduce suffering and inequality. That's certainly true of those I know personally. As great a tool as the Internet is, the anonymity does not lend itself to civility.

And let me add that I'm someone who recognizes the need for major systemic reform. But I also recognize the POTUS has limited parameters within which he/she can operate. It's up to the masses to expand those parameters. Too much focus is placed on individual actors in our very individualistic culture, while systemic forces are underestimated. I think the expansion of those parameters begins at the local level. As Julio Huato wrote, "I believe that the greatest promise lies, not in national struggles (where, IMO, one way or another, we'll be operating within the strictures imposed by the system), but in smaller scale local battles. Let's go local. Let's work seriously to take over PTAs, unions, municipal governments -- entities charged with managing resources for specific public purposes, even if those resources are meager and shrinking. Let's go after them. If we think we can change the system within our lifetimes, then this certainly will feel like small change. What I envision is taking over a town and turning it around. To the extent possible, converting that town into a small, democratically managed, proto-socialist island. Let's show the world and ourselves how the left can help people manage (and manage well) their public affairs at a local level. Let's go wherever the fruit hangs lowest. That is the kind of work that, sooner than we think, will ripen things at the national level."

I think, too, we must recognize the need to live our lives differently. For instance, if we crave cheap goods and relatively cheap fossil fuels, we can't very well expect much change in terms of international trade, foreign policy, etc. While understandable (given the pressure to make ends meet), let's face the fact that many who get amped up during an election continue to live day-to-day lives that contradict values they espouse.

With all of that said, I'll get to the point of why I started this thread. Much has been written about how POC are key to winning the Democratic Party nomination. I myself wrote about this here. And here. And also here.

Whenever this issue is brought up, there seems to be a defensive reaction based on the notion that Sanders or his supporters are being labeled racist. Have some made accusations of racism? Yes. And, yes, there is some disturbing evidence that white millennials are more ignorant about racial matters than they think. And, yes, implicit bias tests demonstrate that most people have prejudices against POC (thanks in part to a culture that has long promoted negative images of POC). I think we can all agree that racism, systemic and otherwise, needs to be tackled. It's certainly a passion of mine, which is why I'm deeply involved in 2 local racial justice organizations (I encourage everyone to get involved in local organizations focused on issues about which you are passionate--like Julio Huato, I think that's how we "ripen things at the national level".

***BUT*** the point of articles such as the one that was recently posted by bravenak is ***NOT*** to accuse Sanders or his supporters of being racist. There's no need to get defensive, especially if you haven't actually read the article. I'm going to post some lengthy excerpts (some of which may rub you the wrong way) and the link to the article, because I really think it's worth your thoughtful consideration.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948

Clinton won every contest with at least a 10 percent black population, except Michigan, and each state where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of eligible voters, except Colorado, according to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com. On top of that, they have been mocked by some Sanders supporters for supposedly “voting against their self-interest” because they refuse to believe a political revolution is at hand. That has been particularly galling to black voters who had to endure claims from conservatives in 2008 that they were voting for Barack Obama only because of race—even though they had spent their entire adult lives voting mostly for white presidential candidates. Now their preference for Clinton’s brand of pragmatism, something they’ve seen result in real progress time and again, is being questioned as well, this time by fellow Democrats.


Jonathan Chait came closest to recognizing the looming problem in a piece that was published in early April, detailing why black voters are pragmatists:

“That refusal to accept the necessity of compromise in a winner-take-all two-party system (and an electorate in which conservatives still outnumber liberals) is characteristic of a certain idealistic style of left-wing politics. Its conception of voting as an act of performative virtue has largely confined itself to white left-wing politics, because it is at odds with the political tradition of a community that has always viewed political compromise as a practical necessity. The expectation that a politician should agree with you on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.”

As perceptive as that analysis is, it fails to fully account for the racial divide. The tensions within the party aren’t only about purity vs. pragmatism; they have to do with how life is lived and perceived. And though millennials aren’t stuck in the mud on race the way the generations that came before them can be—in large part because they don’t have scars from the 20th century's contentious civil rights battles—they are not ushering the country into a post-racial age as some have claimed.

People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance. That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.

Minority voters are more likely than white Democratic voters to giddily give Obama credit for an economic recovery that has shaved the unemployment rate in half, produced the lowest level of jobless claims since the ‘70s, and an unprecedented monthly job creation streak that has lasted more than six years, all coming on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And he got Osama bin Laden, saved the domestic auto industry, ushered through the largest economic stimulus in history—one derisively dismissed as too small by many liberals—and the first significant Wall Street reform in a generation, while advancing gay rights like no president before him despite the initial reluctance by his numerous religious black voters to embrace same sex marriage.

Why? Because many white Democratic voters missed the sentiment shared among black Obama voters in 2008 that, once again, the “first black” was being handed a seemingly impossible task—two ground wars, a collapsing economy, a record deficit—and if he wasn’t able to perform a miracle, it would not only be his failure, but that of black people in general. To downplay what he has been able to achieve despite the obstacles, which also included an unprecedented level of obstruction from the GOP, confirms a fear shared by many people of color—Democratic or otherwise—that no matter what they achieve, it will never be enough. Sanders and Susan Sarandon may sincerely believe things are so awful only a revolution can heal the country’s ills. But their overwrought rhetoric, and no more than lukewarm support of Obama’s accomplishments, taps into that deeply-held frustration among minorities.

That’s why, despite what looks like intractable problems to white Democrats, minority voters are more optimistic about the future than their white counterparts. That Obama was able to become president and get stuff done is an enormous source of not only pride, but hope. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than half of young black and Latinos believe their lives will be better than their parents, compared with less than a third of young white people. On many measures, black people have seen much worse days—the black unemployment rate neared 17 percent at the height of the Great Recession and is less than half that now—even as they continue fighting decades-long struggles. Things aren’t perfect, but the progress that has occurred during the Obama era isn’t something they want ignored or downplayed.


Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.

Even if Sanders supporters come around to vigorously try to defeat Trump, as most expect to happen come November, the racial reckoning would only have been delayed. The GOP has whiffed on the emerging racial dynamics of the country because it seems stuck in a defensive crouch, borne of having to weather (oftentimes) unfair and exaggerated claims of racism. But the GOP remains willfully blind to the racial angst that animates too many in its party, or the disparate racial impact of some of the party’s signature policies, such as voter ID laws, and the hostility its base has for comprehensive immigration reform.

But Republican vulnerabilities are not automatically Democratic strengths. Democrats may end up whiffing on this issue, too, because the party may succumb to the myth that an increase in diversity is a balm for deep, racial wounds that date back to before this country’s founding. Diversity, they should realize, brings its own set of problems and tensions.

Many Sanders supporters believed his push to regulate Wall Street and solve economic inequality would resonate with minority voters. It didn’t because minority voters know that liberal policies alone won’t reverse decades of racial inequalities. They have been loyal members of liberal unions where white Democrats received plush jobs, even if they were no more qualified than their black colleagues. They’ve seen the same thing in liberal Hollywood and the supposedly liberal world of the media, whose top ranks remain mostly white.

Even though the senator from Vermont began speaking about criminal justice and other types of racial reform, minority voters weren’t convinced he would make those policies a priority. Democrats can waste time debating why minority voters should have connected better with Sanders—and get caught in a condescending discussion about why white Sanders supporters know what’s better for minority voters than minorities do themselves—or they can begin the more difficult work of coming up with strategies to deal with a divide that will show itself in a more pronounced and public way once Trump exits stage left.


And here's a link to a complementary article that was written back in January: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics

I very much get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and a valid critique of the US political system as a whole (and I suspect most supporters of both Clinton and Sanders feel the same way--really, I don't think there's as much of a divide on that score as some seem to think). But I encourage people to think critically about how best to bring about systemic change. I personally don't get real invested in national politics, as I think local organization is far more worthy of time and effort. And I'm not going to tell anyone else how to vote. I will say, though, that I can hold my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate for POTUS (little time and effort required), because the alternative will only make the local struggles more challenging. Bernard Chazelle wrote years ago that "America has lefties but no left." The groundwork must be laid for systemic change. That becomes a more difficult task if someone such as Trump becomes POTUS. It's a little less difficult if Trump loses by a slim margin. It's still a difficult task but easier to accomplish if Democrats retain the White House (by winning in a landslide) and gain seats in Congress (unity and coalition-building begins by sending a resounding message to the international community and the US populace that most people reject the bigotry of Trump and a Republican Party that gave rise to him through decades of toxic messaging). Yes, there will still be reason to be pissed off about how the US government conducts itself. Yes, a Clinton Admin (like the Obama Admin) will make decisions that disappoint. But that's why laying the groundwork starting at the local level is so vital.

Garrett

69 replies, 6411 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's try this again. Re: "...the Democrats' Racial Rift" (Original post)
Garrett78 Jun 2016 OP
brewens Jun 2016 #1
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #2
forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #4
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #7
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #9
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #14
Post removed Jun 2016 #20
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #25
Post removed Jun 2016 #27
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #30
bravenak Jun 2016 #35
rbrnmw Jun 2016 #46
bravenak Jun 2016 #47
rbrnmw Jun 2016 #52
bravenak Jun 2016 #62
Number23 Jun 2016 #56
Number23 Jun 2016 #55
rbrnmw Jun 2016 #58
bravenak Jun 2016 #59
Number23 Jun 2016 #60
bravenak Jun 2016 #61
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #36
etherealtruth Jun 2016 #34
Number23 Jun 2016 #54
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #29
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #31
brewens Jun 2016 #44
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #45
One Black Sheep Jun 2016 #3
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #6
jamese777 Jun 2016 #5
theboss Jun 2016 #8
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #10
theboss Jun 2016 #11
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #18
ieoeja Jun 2016 #21
highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #28
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #37
highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #39
GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #49
highprincipleswork Jun 2016 #65
mythology Jun 2016 #19
ieoeja Jun 2016 #23
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #26
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #12
Number23 Jun 2016 #57
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #63
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #64
randome Jun 2016 #13
Romulox Jun 2016 #15
randome Jun 2016 #16
Romulox Jun 2016 #17
pat_k Jun 2016 #22
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #24
pat_k Jun 2016 #33
Spacedog1973 Jun 2016 #32
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #38
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #40
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #41
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #42
lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #43
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #50
BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #48
peace13 Jun 2016 #51
Garrett78 Jun 2016 #53
LWolf Jun 2016 #66
chervilant Jun 2016 #67
LWolf Jun 2016 #68
blackspade Jun 2016 #69

Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:29 PM

1. Get the POC to hate the most liberal people. Not because it makes sense for a POC. Ask yourself

who exactly benefits the most from that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:32 PM

2. It's not about hating "the most liberal people."

Not at all. You've missed the point, I'm afraid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:48 PM

4. Again, liberals and progressives are getting the heat

 

because POC expect better. We KNOW the GOP would reinstate Jim Crow if they could. We expect the left to be more sensitive to racial issues and we're disappointed when they're not. The problem is white progressives get defensive when they're called out, which I get but that attitude won't win many votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:00 PM

7. I find it in bad form to tell a person what his or her priorities should be....

I find it in bad form to tell a person what his or her priorities should be regardless of their race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:13 PM

9. It's like you literally didn't read a word of the OP.

Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:35 PM

14. I just read a post in bravenak's thread, which exemplifies what I'm talking about.

In the poster's mind, the article is proof that The Nation of Islam has taken over DU and the article is suggesting that white people shouldn't talk about racism. Meanwhile, I'm wondering how anyone who actually read the article can think Mr. Bailey's piece even remotely suggests such things.

Bailey isn't calling anyone a racist, nor is he suggesting that POC are accusing Sanders or his supporters of racism. Not a single accusation of racism is made. Yet that's how articles such as his get interpreted. It's very unfortunate. So, I was hoping to encourage people to view the matter in a new light.

Be receptive, not defensive. Understand that a coalition that reflects the Democratic Party electorate is your best hope for bringing about systemic change. Understand that patience is required, even though it's undeniable that people are suffering right here and now (nobody knows that better than POC). Understand that incremental change can eventually result in seismic shifts. Understand that change starts at the bottom (local level) and roils upward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #14)


Response to Post removed (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:55 PM

25. So, you weren't addressing the message, just attacking the messenger. Got it.

I haven't seen a single person say white folks shouldn't fight/discuss racism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nor have I seen any mention of The Nation of Islam until I read your post.

But I suppose I could have missed those posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #25)


Response to Post removed (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:26 PM

30. I think the perception of accusations of racism don't match the reality.

As I said in the OP, pointing to the importance of winning over POC (in terms of winning the nomination and then the presidency) is not akin to accusing people of being racists. Yet it seems that's precisely how quite a few people responded to a very basic and benign point that was made throughout the primary season. As I also said in the OP, I'm sure there have been some accusations of racism. You can always find examples of just about anything (and some of those accusations were likely warranted). Exceptions prove the rule, but some have taken exceptions and made them the rule. DU is littered with straw man arguments, and a big reason why is that perceptions don't match reality.

And I don't think people were being told to shut up because they were attempting to discuss racism. I think it had more to do with people being dismissive of POC, particularly those who live in southern states, and the importance of racism.

The Nation of Islam stuff "may be a bit of a stretch." Uh, yeah, it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:03 PM

35. You just made up a bunch of nonsense about us black posters

 

Nation of ISLAM? Please! I'm an atheist. Trippin. Just inventing greivances. We owe nobody here anything so you can be mad all you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #35)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:51 PM

46. right? who has time to do all that prayin

just trifling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #46)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:57 PM

47. I love how people invent stories about us and try to spread them around like the gospel

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:58 PM

52. I just don't understand that thinking at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #52)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:55 PM

62. I wish it would stop

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #46)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:16 PM

56. Any excuse to play my favorite faux black Panther track from back in the day



Where's that damn afro pick smiley??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #35)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:10 PM

55. Y'all hungry??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #55)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:36 PM

58. bean pie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #55)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:46 PM

59. I haven't see a bean pie since I left LA!!!

 

I used to watch them TRY to sell them on Crenshaw. Never seen anybody BUY one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:48 PM

60. My mother was a Panther in the day but she never took to the NOI. Said that they were much

too interested in the "woman must be submissive" stuff for her tastes so I've never bought a pie from them or ever supported them.

Plus as someone who absolutely HATES sweet potato pie, the concept of a bean pie makes me want to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #60)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:55 PM

61. I met a guy once and liked him. Until he tried to 'convert' me to the Nation of Islam.

 

He stopped being cute that instant. I never knew that about your mother, now I see why you always see through this nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:15 PM

36. Hey ... Leave me out of your self-victimization. ...

 

And 1SBM's passive aggressive, "I didn't call you racist" as though a poster has to use the actual words in the proper order to make an accusation. That brand of intellectual dishonesty has always been the most infuriating strategy to me. If they are going to say something then they should have the fortitude to fucking own their words and not try to weasel out of them.


And, the point remains ... No one has called Bernie a racist and those Bernie supporters that have been called racist, have been done so with cause.

You want to talk about intellectual dishonesty that infuriates, how about your constant "interpretation" of what someone "insinuated" to arrive at a claim that wasn't made ... time and again, even after being corrected time and again. Then, you have the nerve to say that someone should have the "fortitude to own" what you have come to understand, even though it has never been said?

That is straight up intellectual dishonesty, at its best; but, bullshit, as it stands.

ETA two points: 1) I have no problem saying exactly what I mean, I don't need you, or anyone else to "interpret" what I am "insinuating", especially after I have told you what I did not say. 2) I am a firm believer in the maxim, "the guilty heart needs no accuser." Reflect on that every time you wish to insist that your "interpretation" of someone's "insinuation" has you as a racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:03 PM

34. I think you may have covered every base with regard to the following:

No personal attacks or flaming
Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:09 PM

54. Don't forget, make up stuff about black posters all while screaming about how the Nation of Islam

has taken over DU and we should never discuss racism... unless it's to malign black people!!

Who ARE these people???!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:24 PM

29. I was replying to reply #1.

I think your reply to me, might work better for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:27 PM

31. I was just echoing what you wrote.

There seems to be an epidemic of people not reading what is written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:38 PM

44. I read the OP and many others on the same subject. I found the whole meme that

Bernie supporters were somehow all old privileged white guys laughable. Classic projection. As far as POC's are concerned, the truly white privileged crowd will be saying, "thanks for the votes suckers!" Wall Street and the corporations will continue to have their way. But not to worry. At least the young will still be able to get jobs in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brewens (Reply #44)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:48 PM

45. "Bernie supporters were somehow all old privileged white guys laughable. Classic projection."

It literally says that nowhere in the piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:42 PM

3. I get suspicious of those who throw around the "racist" label

with abandon. Mainly because I tend to suspect, that, well, they may not be perfect people either, and may even have some racism in themselves that they wouldn't want to talk about. Meanwhile, they often seem to put themselves on a self-righteous pedestal, which they don't deserve, IMHO... that is about as delicate a way as I can put it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One Black Sheep (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:58 PM

6. And my point is that label isn't being thrown around nearly as much as some perceive.

Issac Bailey certainly isn't labeling anyone a racist, in spite of what defensive reactions to the article (and similar articles) might suggest. And that's true of most DU posts, as well. Pointing out that POC are key to winning the Democratic Party nomination is not akin to labeling anyone a racist. Not even close.

The question becomes, "How does a diverse coalition (that reflects the diverse Democratic Party electorate) get formed to bring about broad systemic change?" Failure to accomplish that task could lead to a long-standing divide, which will result in a devastating outcome that makes the goal of systemic change unachievable. That's the crux of Mr. Bailey's article (as well as similar articles). It's not about labeling anyone a racist. When people are defensive, they aren't receptive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:56 PM

5. I'm an African American

I have always voted for the nominee of the Democratic Party in general elections. This year the Democratic nominee will also be getting my wholehearted support and my campaign donation. If that nominee had been Bernie Sanders, I would be saying the exact same thing.
The idea that People of Color don't support liberals is absurd. Look at who makes up the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacifc American Caucus, many of the most progressive members of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jamese777 (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:06 PM

8. I'm probably going to get myself in trouble here, but....

 

I think one of the major issues is that POC have a lot more to lose if the political system goes completely off the rails even for a short time. Young, white progressives can toy with "revolutionary" ideas in the short term because ultimately they will be fine. If the government defaults because Donald Trump decided to "negotiate" with our debt holders....or if he declares that the Justice Department will no longer investigate urban police departments....or he starts deporting anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic....it's not going to be White Progressives who take the initial hit to the face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:22 PM

10. Which is a point Mr. Bailey made.

At the start of the 3rd excerpt in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:24 PM

11. I read about half of that to be honest

 

The Bible is shorter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:57 PM

18. I think The Bible might be a tad longer.

But I'm an atheist, so what do I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:29 PM

21. Most of Atheists got that way *because* we read the bible!

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:17 PM

28. So here's the real deal - will the Democrats be safer running a Conservadem campaign or something

 

more Progressive and Populist, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren might run?

I say the Progressive/Populist thing is the way.

Why is it so hard for Hillary supporters to get up on arms and convince your own candidate that this is the truth? Do you know think she could use a little urging from her supporters?

I sure do.

The dream that seems so unlikely but so cool to me is that Hillary runs and governs differently than Bill (bigtime feminist dream here, don't you think). I mean, why should she do things the same? She seizes on the opportunity of the moment, solidifying her more Progressive stances in all areas, including money issues. When she needs money to run her campaign, she can take a note or two out of Bernie's playbook, if the corporate donors get their noses out of joint. She unifies the party, getting rid of all this internecine unnecessary bloodshed, returns the Democratic Party to being clearly a "party of the People" and its Democratic roots, inspires and invigorates everybody and wins two terms easily.

That's my dream. Could it become true? Could Hillary supporters help it to come true? Especially if, as you say, you really don't have some big disagreement with the Liberal/Progressive causes that Bernie fights for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highprincipleswork (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:37 PM

37. You STILL miss the point ...

 

So here's the real deal - will the Democrats be safer running a Conservadem campaign or something more Progressive and Populist, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren might run?

I say the Progressive/Populist thing is the way.


That is the "real deal" for YOU ... not for (the vast majority of ) PoC, who, as many others have noted, will suffer the initial brunt of a failed revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #37)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:08 PM

39. No you miss my point. Hillary is not a safe choice at all.

 

And it's a shame that PoC have become enablers of the rich and famous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highprincipleswork (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:10 PM

49. Wow

This middle aged, southern white guy cannot believe I just read this on DU.

Please read your post, think about it and do the decent thing and delete. Your 2 sentences encapsulates two of the most insulting memes that whites in the south have used for 200 years:

- blacks folks are not capable of deciding what is good for themselves

- African American's are to blame for their situation

I will not attribute your post to racism, just being nieve.

Unless you are over 40 and Southern. Then it is racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:47 AM

65. I do not accept your name calling. Believe that what I said is perfectly true.

 

I ain't no honky whipping myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jamese777 (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:10 PM

19. In the 2008 primaries white liberals supported Obama over Clinton

 

I think the divide is highly overstated and is more a reflection of the specific relationship that the Clintons have with black voters from the 90s and the Sanders campaign approach to try to focus on states they felt they could win, which based on the polling at the start of the primaries were states with high white liberal populations, rather than investing in trying to limit losses in southern super Tuesday states. I don't think this is a racist strategy as the headline after a primary is Candidate A won, not Candidate B lost by less than expected.

I don't think the difference would be nearly as stark if either candidate was different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:48 PM

23. I think Sanders' strategists made a mistake in crunching the numbers.

 


Also, I think they thought they didn't stand a chance, so limit it to where he could win one or two to make a statement.

Back to numbers crunching. If you check out the early Democratic primary results for 1992, you will see that Clinton was not winning anywhere except the South. But anywhere except the South was divided among several different winners. So Bill's southern sweep gave him a commanding lead over 2nd place despite having fewer delegates than his combined opponents.

Had 2016 replicated 1992, but with Sanders sweeping the non-South, Bernie would have had those delegates by himself. And thus the win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:59 PM

26. Some did, yes.

Another excerpt from Mr. Bailey's article:

Obama saved the party from having to cope with that reality in 2008 because his liberalism was more liberal than Clinton’s, at least it was perceived to be. That attracted young white voters, as Sanders is doing this year. But he also had minority voters excited.

Clinton, for all of her supposed faults, has run a campaign so tactically effective she has been able to pull together a coalition similar to Obama’s. This may be even more impressive than what Obama accomplished given that she is the ultimate insider in an anti-establishment year. The things that have convinced white progressives, and a handful of high-profile black intellectuals and personalities, that she isn’t worthy of the nomination have not turned off minority voters, young or old.

She’s been so effective this year probably because she couldn’t ignore the racial divide during her bruising primary battle with Obama. In some ways, she exploited that divide. As she fell behind in 2008, she began talking about “hard-working white Americans” while her husband downplayed Obama’s important victory in South Carolina, where more than half of the Democratic primary voters are black. History has repeated itself, with Sanders and his surrogates seemingly dismissing the results in the South—a region that is home to a majority (54 percent) of black Americans. (The Northeast, by comparison, is home to 18 percent of black Americans.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:26 PM

12. Rep. Keith Ellison was one of the first to sound the alarm that Trump could be the GOP nom

He was on a George S.'s show, and two white liberal people laughed their asses off at his now proven-correct assessment that white Americans are just scary-racist enough to make that a reality. Ellison has history on his side and knew the score.



Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.



Fortunately I think the Bernie supporters who won't work against Trump, or even plan to vote for him, will be very small.

But I think it is true that voters of color perceived early on the existential threat that Trump poses--being able to yawn him off as some chimera of the "Powers That Be" isn't an indulgence that many can afford. It's also why women, LGBT, and other minorities banded together with people of color (who also include all of the other groups mentioned) to create a force to defeat him.

That force manifested itself in its vote for one candidate, and not for another. Different conditions might have created more of a space for a Sanders or Sanders-type candidate to gain more traction--it just wasn't going to be this election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:24 PM

57. Anyone who believes that Trump's rise is in response to anything but Obama's presidency is

in some seriously deep denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #57)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:59 PM

63. It seems obvious, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #57)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:20 PM

64. Trump's rise and The Tea Party's rise both undoubtedly have much to do with us having a black POTUS.

And Republicans have themselves to blame for Trump having so much success in the primaries. They've fostered his rise through many years of toxic, hateful messaging.

Paul Ryan and others can complain all they want about Trump, but their policy proposals and rhetoric are to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:32 PM

13. I wonder how things might have been different if Sanders had embraced Obama's accomplishments.

 

It's actually difficult to imagine him embracing anyone but maybe I missed something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:38 PM

15. Embracing the bankster bailouts, several wars of choice, "free" trade, corporate ACA, etc.

would have undermined Bernie's entire campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:39 PM

16. Without a positive message -only a negative one- he may have undermined his own campaign.

 

That's one way of looking at it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:41 PM

17. Hillary didn't campaign on the "positives" of war in Libya, TPP, etc. She just flip-flopped. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:31 PM

22. "more ignorant about racial matters than they may think" applies to...

... white people of any age, not just millenials.

We do need to discuss the implications of the differential in support for Sanders between PoC and whites, but any analysis needs to take the differential in support for Sanders by age in all demographics into account. I can't lay my hands on a major poll that breaks down Sanders support across all demographics by age, but according to an NPR article from March):

"Among African-Americans, who are 17 through 29, Bernie Sanders is actually leading that group, 51 to 48" he said. "Among 17- to 29-year-old Hispanics, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 66-34."


Something else that needs to be part of the analysis is the extent to which support for the Clinton "brand" among African Americans is a carryover from support Bill Clinton gained with them 24 years ago. That may seem like ancient history to some, but it's a factor. I'd like to find a break down of the support for Clinton relative to the combined support for Brown and Tsongas by race back in '92. If the differential then was also high, the implications of that needs to be part of the discussion. Were similar dynamics at play?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pat_k (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:53 PM

24. The point about white millennials is that they're perceived as being less ignorant than they are.

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the links in my OP leads to this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511829582.

We already know racism inflicts many older white folks. It's the surveys of white millennials that are more surprising and worrisome.

Bill Clinton was certainly popular and that may have helped Hillary Clinton make the 2008 race fairly close. The bottom line is that winning the Democratic Party nomination without strong support from POC (especially those who actually vote) is nearly impossible (when the electorate is increasingly diverse). And I think a very large and diverse coalition is key to bringing about systemic change, which won't happen via a top-down approach.

I think Bailey makes many excellent points, and one point I'll add is the perception of electability. Obama wasn't immediately viewed as electable, but once he was, he started winning over POC and others. Sanders is not viewed as electable by a sufficient number of people, and I think that's pretty understandable. At the very least, it's understandable that people aren't willing to take a chance on nominating Sanders when the Republican threat is so great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:59 PM

33. Thanks for highlighting the linked post.

Great articles that escaped my attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:44 PM

32. A very well thought out and presented post

Unfortunately, its wasted on this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:08 PM

38. Don't sweat it. It's not true, and third way douchebags know it's not true.

 

It is used in exactly the same way that "misogynist" has been used by this campaign; as a cudgel that it's victim dare not object to. It's a guaranteed way to get a liberal to cower. "Nuh-uh! I'm okay! I'm a real liberal, honest!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #38)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:09 PM

40. What's not true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:12 PM

41. It's not true that the progressive movement tapped into by Bernie is racist. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:13 PM

42. Who said it was?

Did you read the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #42)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:17 PM

43. "Have some made accusations of racism? Yes."

 

If there was a "nevermind" later in the article that I might have missed, I apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #43)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:21 PM

50. That really misses the point, especially out of context.

In context, what I was saying is that you may find some accusations of racism (some of which are baseless and some of which aren't), but the article by Mr. Bailey and the bulk of the DU posts on this subject have not had a thing to do with accusing Sanders supporters of being racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:03 PM

48. "voting as an act of performative virtue" This sums up modern "progressivism" quite perfectly. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:42 PM

51. We have had uniters in this country and we have had dividers.

 

Over the course of this primary various false talking points blossomed and grew in one campaign. No regard for the fallout was given. People Can get along, people of all races can get together. We saw this over and over again with Obama. The same people would have worked together had the seed of division not been sewn. It was necessary for a Hill win. The mem that rallies are for loser also sprouted from the same camp. Remarkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #51)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:01 PM

53. I don't think Clinton doing much better among POC was the result of a talking point.

I think Bailey's article touches on the real reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:07 AM

66. These are interesting reads.

For myself, I'd say that, while some good points are made, there are other points to be made as well.

First of all, I'm a white woman in her 50s, if you want my demographics. I wouldn't try to determine my level of unconscious racism by those factors, though, because it wouldn't be accurate. I freely admit that I have not experienced the racism I've seen directed toward others, including some in my family. I have, though, experienced bigotry leveled against me. Some of it, the sexism, has been systemic.

That said...

To begin with, I have to say that I was absolutely horrified by the whole debacle in '08. I was horrified that the Democratic Party, and Democrats, were willing to make politics about identity instead of issues. I thought the party should equally represent all, especially all oppressed groups. To make the battle race vs gender disgusted me. And, to make it worse, the black man and the white woman were both neo-liberals, which made neither of them my choice. And they were all that were left standing MONTHS before my late primary rolled around. I was dis-invested in the entire process, and I was angry. I'm an issues voter; I'm not about identity nor symbolism. Yet, when November came around I cast a symbolic vote, since that's what my party forced upon me. I voted for a black woman. Obama was safe in my state, so it was safe to do so. I voted for McKinney. On election night, I watched and cried as the first AA won the presidential election. I sent him a letter and a book. Both were returned unopened. Apparently, Chavez could give him a book, but I couldn't.

Then I watched the appointments with growing horror. By his inauguration, I was totally dis-enfranchised. I never experienced the "hope," and didn't get the change I wanted.

When Bravenak explained, more than a year ago, why criticisms of Obama offended the AA population, I understood. Even though I've been a vocal critic. I understood, even if I wasn't there myself. I was still about issues, not about symbolism or identity.

When this primary rolled around, I was thinking, "Well, at least this time it's not going to be identity politics, it's not going to be racially based, and there's a strong candidate who is not a neo-liberal that I can support."

Boy, was I wrong. The race card was pulled very early on, with an organized, concerted effort to paint Sanders' supporters as racists, while touting Clinton's support among the black community despite her clear, obvious racial problems. Yes, I'm sure there is a racist element among some of Sanders' supporters, simply because racism exists; there will be racists in any population of U.S. citizens. I don't think that reflects upon Sanders; his record speaks for him for those who allow it to.

And I understand that some minority voters weren't convinced that Sanders would make racial reform a priority. I just don't understand why they'd think Clinton would. Between the two, Sanders seems the obvious choice.

Then, of course, the gender card was also played. "THE FIRST WOMAN POTUS!!!!" I wasn't moved. While I really, really want to see a woman president in my lifetime, I don't want a symbol. I want the right woman. Hillary Clinton is not she. She's an embarrassment.

Another factor I considered: I recognize that AA as a group, if not as individuals, are more conservative than I am. If identity politics is set aside, there may be a larger number who actually prefer Clinton's neo-liberalism to what they'd get from a left-wing administration. I don't agree with them about that, obviously.

I agree with you that local action is the most important, and that's where my time and energy will be going. As far as Trump is concerned? No, I don't want him to be president. Neither do I want Hillary Clinton to be president. My votes this November will not be about Trump, nor will they be about Clinton. If and when Clinton actually becomes the nominee, the presidential piece is over for me.

If the Democratic Party, including the key PoC voting block you refer to, chooses to nominate a candidate that cannot inspire voters to support her, that cannot beat Trump (and that's what polls have been telling us for many months,) that's on them. There is no honesty nor integrity in then turning blame on the people who you knew wouldn't be supporting Clinton in November. It does mirror Clinton herself, of course, who has some difficulties with honesty and integrity. There is no respect to be had, though, in playing the blame game, in refusing to be accountable for your own choices. There's also no respect to be had from me, anyway, in using fear and guilt factors to try to get people to shut up, get in line, and vote for someone they oppose.

Trump is not a factor one way or another for me. All the rationalizing in the world won't make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:57 AM

67. This:

If the Democratic Party, including the key PoC voting block you refer to, chooses to nominate a candidate that cannot inspire voters to support her, that cannot beat Trump (and that's what polls have been telling us for many months,) that's on them. There is no honesty nor integrity in then turning blame on the people who you knew wouldn't be supporting Clinton in November. It does mirror Clinton herself, of course, who has some difficulties with honesty and integrity. There is no respect to be had, though, in playing the blame game, in refusing to be accountable for your own choices. There's also no respect to be had from me, anyway, in using fear and guilt factors to try to get people to shut up, get in line, and vote for someone they oppose.


I grieve for our younglings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:32 AM

68. So do I. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #66)

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:14 AM

69. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread