Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
I started listening to the Thom Hartmann Program when it was on i.e. America, so that’s roughly in the 2003-2004 timespan. I don’t recall when Bernie Sanders started taking calls on the show, but it’s probably safe to say that I’ve been listening to him respond live to callers for about a decade.
The man is the real deal. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard him handle a question without making a caller, regardless of political persuasion, feel as though he respected them. I’ve never heard a weasel answer. When he doesn’t know something, he fesses up and says he doesn’t know an answer. I completely understand why Hillary is not eager to schedule more debates. Bernie is sincere and really good on his feet.
And I think this is why if you go to a Sanders rally, you’re gonna leave that rally in the tank for Bernie. I was in the tank before he formally announced, and as soon as I could, I committed to recurring donations. I want him to go all the way.
There’s something here though that I think is worth exploring or at least understanding. Bernie’s campaign can’t be like Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Bernie is not kidding when he says he needs a political revolution to be elected. That means he needs people on the ground spreading the word. We have to be part if this, not observers, so it’s important to tackle race questions head on.
One of the most remarkable things about Bernie and his positions is that I’ve found that people of various political persuasions tend to agree with him. It’s one of the reasons why Bernie can carry conservatives in his state.
I do think there is some racial dimension here that’s worth talking about. Reagan introduced a shift in America. Post Reagan, social programs became a bad thing and I think racism goes to the core of this. Conservatives are successful in getting people to vote against their best interests on programs like food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, educational spending. In Reagan’s America, social programs aren’t for the people by the people, they’re by the white people for the black welfare queens.
When conservatives attack social safety net programs, there’s an ugly racial subtext, heck it isn’t subtext at all. Nowadays they say “Makers vs. Takers” instead of “Welfare Queen”, but it’s the same racial undertone.
Welcome to "Post-Racial" America
What has been missed in the commentary and speculation about what lurks in the hearts of men like Bundy and Sterling is a wider critique about the connection between racial appeals and the other dominant right-wing trope: "makers" versus "takers." Central to the Right's ideology are the myths associated with rugged individualism, folks pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, and a wholesale fetishizing of Ayn Rand's fictional portrait of capitalist society. This way of looking at the world by those in power creates a welcoming atmosphere for the idea of white victimization and the use of stereotypes that blame deficiencies in minority culture as the root cause of poverty.
Racism is the driving force that has enabled the dismantling of the New Deal and Great Society programs.
The War on Poverty vs. Racism
Citing the need to replace "despair with opportunity" 50 years ago this week President Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty. His effort to roll back severe economic distress, along with a host of other Great Society programs, was the largest push to help Americans on the economic and racial margins since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many of Johnson's programs were key to creating economic possibility for millions who had never known it, and a whole host of them such as HeadStart, Medicaid, food stamps, and loans for higher education continue to do that. Given the success of the War on Poverty, and with half of all Americans either poor, near poor or at risk of poverty, a vast array of policies to promote economic fairness is needed yet again. But given the image of Johnson's programs in the public mind, it may be that much harder to achieve them.
The key barrier to embracing the War on Poverty and to building public support for a renewed poverty effort is the fact that right from the start Johnson's program has been maligned and stereotyped beyond recognition, with race forming a key part of the insult. Given the development of the War on Poverty, that's no surprise.
In the 1980s President Ronald Reagan, who'd taken up the conservative mantle of Barry Goldwater, rode to the White House on a promise to reverse the War on Poverty. While at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Reagan often used rhetoric that was racialized to justify his move to curb certain anti-poverty programs and end others. To that end, the 39th president asserted incorrectly that the War on Poverty increased the number of poor, or of "dependency" as he called it, and that it encouraged black women in poverty to have children as teens.
With Reagan's narrative holding sway, Democratic President Bill Clinton came under pressure in election-year 1996 to "mend not end" Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), commonly known as welfare. The bill he signed effectively cancelled AFDC and welfare as it was known no longer exists.
Regan’s legacy is turning America against programs that benefit the people. This is the core issue that Democrats and liberals have struggled with since the 80’s. But try though conservatives may, there are some programs that are hard to touch: Social Security and Medicare. Why? Well, in my estimation, it’s because everyone gets them.
I think we all recognize these signs. It’s hard to attack Medicare because everyone gets it. It’s hard to drive a racial wedge. Same with Social Security. Let’s put aside the fact that white people get most of the benefits from any sort of safety net program. In a sense, these programs are perceived as color-blind.
Now back to Bernie. Why on earth can Bernie sell the social safety net to Democrats and Republicans? Why can he win back Reagan Democrats? I think it’s largely because the core of his arguments have been about economic justice, the kind of justice that is shared by everyone.
Breaking up the banks is good for the 99%.
A living wage is good for everyone.
Stopping free trade agreements protect jobs for everyone.
Free tuition is for any student.
Increasing Social Security means everyone gets an increase.
Giving Medicare to everyone means everyone gets healthcare.
You can convince a racist that the Affordable Care Act helps “takers”, but you can’t tell them that the medicare they get victimizes them.
I’ve listened to Bernie talk about this core economic justice agenda for years, and everyone loves it, even people who think food stamps are bad. To a certain extent this core economic agenda is perceived as color-blind. In many ways, Occupy’s notion of the 99% is color-blind.
Now this isn’t to say that Mr. Sanders is racist, doesn’t care about race issues, is out of touch, or anything like that. I think Bernie focuses about economic justice because that’s been his core mission in life. And I think he’s the best salesperson for that message since F.D.R.
And then we have this:
My first reaction to this was don’t screw this up for Bernie. He is on your side. If he gets his economic justice agenda, we all win. You’re attacking the wrong person. He let you have the stage, he let you speak, why are you shooting down the one guy in the last thirty years who can turn the tide of Reaganism?
The thing that was hardest to reconcile is I consider myself on the protestors’ side.
I’m not going to go into the protestors’ tactics, their choice of target, or any of that. What I eventually accepted is maybe a color-blind agenda is a way to win back Reagan Democrats, but a program based solely or mostly on economic justice can’t be the answer. If we get the Sanders economic agenda, does it address the racist core that infects American life? Coming from Occupy and 99% thinking, I tended towards thinking it would all eventually shake out if we could solve the economic side.
BLM changed my mind. I was wrong. I’m not going to speak to where Bernie was at. I can tell you from listening to the man for 10 years that he is not a racist, but racial justice has not been the thrust of most of his dialogue. I’m not saying anything bad about the man, but I do think there was a valid critique of his campaign.
Bernie Sanders: structural racism needs to end for economic justice to succeed
It is time for the progressive movement to reckon with structural racism: its role in enabling it and its moral responsibility to actively dismantle it. It’s not a request: it’s a requirement for all presidential candidates that seek progressive votes, and for a political movement that seeks any hope for relevance in a diverse America.
There is a political cost to creating silos within movements: politicians and citizens end up speaking of the same issues with different languages, with a lack of empathy and connection. Though Sanders’s policy proposals likely align with number of black voters, his ability to address race is limited to the scope of wealth and the economy. But black voters and organizers need to know why they should fight for Bernie Sanders’ vision of our economic future when our humanity is in constant peril.
We do not need talking points. We need government to help save our lives, and we need to elect leaders who will champion our humanity.
This is what a fair critique of the Sanders campaign looks like, if not of the man personally. It’s a fair critique of me too. To Mr. Sander’s credit, he’s taken the message to heart. He’s added racial justice to his platform. Bernie’s added racial justice to his speeches. He’s met with Black Lives Matter. This is the good that’s come out of talking about racism.
Again, I’m not making any claims on Bernie the person, but Bernie the campaign is better for all this. I do think he could dial down on the racial justice side of things and be more likely to win back Reagan Democrats who don’t want to hear or think about race, but that would leave the job half done.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I probably won’t vote for her. She’s not interested in my economic justice agenda. And you know what? She probably doesn’t need me. She has name recognition, a pile of Super PAC money, and Democratic insiders who will protect her from debates. She’ll be just fine.
Bernie needs a movement. He needs people to contribute whatever they can afford. He need us to go door to door. We gotta talk to people. This isn’t a metaphorical movement, this is people on the streets. And we have to make sure that Bernie is addressing both an economic and a racial justice agenda.
So, I don’t want to hear Bernie supporters say let’s not talk about race. I don’t want us to tell BLM they’re attacking the wrong guy. If someone calls Bernie a racist, I don’t want to not talk about it, I want to say that’s bullshit, and here’s why. If Bernie’s campaign, or me, is not doing enough for racial justice, I want people who get it to tell me what we need to do. If we're gonna work from the inside of the system, we sure as hell better listen to our family on the outside. If we can consistently do that, no one can wield race as a cudgel against us.
We are the 99%, but that doesn’t mean we all have the same struggle. If we’re gonna win this thing, if we’re gonna be the movement we have be, then we have to let go of the perfect view of our candidate, of ourselves, and listen.