2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFor those who've STILL say that Bernie Sanders doesn't care about anti-oppression issues...
...what do you need to hear from him that would make you decide "ok, he's committed on this...we can stop treating him like he can't be trusted to fight for our issues and move on"?
He just announced he would speak more directly to the anti-oppression struggle in the campaign and one of the people who'd been attacking him on this took the announcement as proof that Bernie deserved to be attacked about it and that he had to be forced to address police violence, personal bigotry, and institutional bigotry-despite the fact that he's been in struggles against all of those injustices for decades now.
What does it take before this is put to rest regarding Bernie? What does it take before people stop acting as if fifty years of committed work against all forms of oppression is not proof enough that he's committed to an oppression-free nation and world?'
All of us, whichever Democratic presidential candidate we might support, are equally committed on a personal level, to fighting all forms of personal and institutional injustices.
Holding Bernie to high standards is fine, but the other Democratic candidates need to be held to the same standards-the standards of deeds, not words.
The candidates' records in office or public life on anti-oppression issues should be considered far more important than stump speeches given in the last two months.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I say Dear Ken, because I am deeply touched by your assumption that the people who have called on Bernie to speak up on issues of equally are honorable and that they were actually concerned about the issue. This makes you look like a very nice and good person. But, I have followed many conversations on this in many different threads and I assure you that this is not an honorable attack on Bernie. If they had any honor they would have been apologetic when faced with the facts of Bernie's record. But, they were not in fact apologetic. They did in fact double down and scream louder even as facts were presented. This leads me to conclude they are not actually concerned they just want to smear an honorable man because they see him as a threat to Hillary's coronation.
They can't attack him from the left, because Bernie is so very far left and so very right on every issue I have so far seen his record on and heard him talk about. They can't attack him from the right which they are currently trying to do, because it will just highlight how their candidate has been wrong on the issues and how Bernie has been for the people in ways no one else that is running has been.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My point here was also to call for consistent standards for all candidates for the Democratic nomination.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, I really don't believe that when someone's tone seems to become shrill and hysterical and they just keep repeating the mantra no matter what they are told or how many facts are presented. Some of the things I have seen are just utterly ridiculous. Claiming Bernie wrote a fantasy piece about rape and it proves he is sexist or worse, claiming he doesn't care about POC, because he doesn't mention POC specifically in every campaign speech, claiming he hasn't done much for POC other than march in a few protests 50 years ago, claiming he didn't really take a leadership role over gay rights... His record is stellar and I think they don't know how to deal with that. He is honest and doesn't check his opinions for popularity before having them and I think they don't know how to deal with that. He doesn't go negative and that is also difficult to deal with. I have stayed out of those conversations, at least I don't recall getting into it with anyone. I don't think that they are being genuine and that they are just in attack mode and not actually trying to have a real conversation. I doubt their is much I can do to show them they are wrong, because they don't want to be shown the facts if they were amiable to the facts they wouldn't stay on that message despite being told otherwise.
azmom
(5,208 posts)White DU's who are great Bernie supporters are the same DU'rs who have torn President Obama to shreds on this site.
This has bred amonosity among the black race and the white race here.
President Obama is the first black president. He is loved by the AA community.
In my opinion, This country as a whole (excluding AA's) has been very disrespectful towards our president. It started with the "you lie" comment during his first presidential address and continues to this day.
I'm sure that is not the only reason why some AA won't support Bernie, but it is a factor.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)at fault here were deliberately trying to smear Bernie. I think they just got caught up in a narrative that began with Gutierrez and Walsh and other Clinton supporters, and they then began seeing things through the lens of that narrative.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and also for the fact that some just don't know Bernie very well yet.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)about Bernie's record and call out the unfairness of some of the attacks.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Of course they aren't being honorable. It's just attempts to smear.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)He did address issues ranging from police brutality against African Americans to immigration and border security early in his campaign, and only the tragic events in South Carolina prevented him from speaking in greater detail about race. Nevertheless, his early focus on poverty and economic justice was taken as a basis for several smears that had no connection to his views or his record or his campaign message. We have heard on DU that he "doesn't care about people of color" (direct quote) One OP absurdly claimed that Bernie accused women, black people, latinos, lgbt, and jewish persons of dividing this country. Other posts have suggested that he has been using racist dogwhistles or has been race-baiting. In spite of his stellar record on issues of race, immigration, marriage equality, and other forms of oppression, and in spite of his consistent progressive statements on those issues, ungrounded suspicions about his commitment to addressing those issues have consistently been raised.
I worry that now every word that comes out of his mouth (or doesn't come out of his mouth) will be closely examined to see if it can be interpreted in a way that can be used to suggest that he is weak on issues of race, immigration, etc. Too often in public discourse one finds that once the idiotic narrative is established, facts that undermine that narrative are ignored and anything that can be interpreted to fit the narrative is used to support it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 08:40 AM - Edit history (2)
I mean...hello?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)If someone is significant in political they will attack. Swiftboating.
swilton
(5,069 posts)It seems that the public is more swayed by symbolic gestures and sound-bites rather than substance.
The attacks against Bernie are well orchestrated and there will be many no matter how ridiculous. Beginning with the Diane Rehm show and her accusations about him being an Israeli citizen....Sound bites and lies get repeated over and over so that it doesn't matter what the truth is - it's what people hear day-in and day-out. The accusations are like throwing a bunch of paint against the wall and whatever (attack) sticks that will be the smear du jour.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)economic justice and social justice and acknowledge that one cannot have economic justice without having social justice, first.
But that is not going to happen. ETA: The economic justice will bring social justice belief is baked into his soul (and those of his supporters) ... So I suspect that Bernie will continue to receive tepid support among the mainstream of the Black electorate.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie has never said he didn't think there wasn't institutional bigotry, nor has he ever given anyone any reason to think he has dismissed the need to fight institutional bigotry(including police violence). He's just as offended as anyone about Chris Rock getting hassled by the cops or about police violence against poc and LGBTQ communities...and remember, he's the son of Holocaust survivors, so he does have a personal connection to the suffering caused by group oppression.
And he has never said that economic justice would wipe out institutional or personal bigotry...I've seen nothing in his istory to suggest he ever fought that...what he has said is that both need to be achieved and the end of institutional bigotry probably can't happen while hardline capitalism remains in force. Martin Luther King was killed for making the same point(he didn't die just because he fought Jim Crow, and didn't limit his work exclusively to fighting bigotry, though he never wavered in his struggle against it).
The problem is, were he to put economic justice issues on the back burner, to accept the bizarre canard that economic justice is a"white guy thing" that doesn't concern or affect poc's or the LGBTQ community, or abandon them entirely(as I suspect you'd really prefer, he couldn't be an effective opponent of institutional bigotry or personal bigotry...because you need to address both for either to have any chanceof prevailing. Dr. King took up economic justice issues again because he realized he couldn't effectively fight bigotry by speaking of nothing at all but individual rights issues-that a coalition of all those left out by the status quo had to be built, or the struggle could go no further.
The late 1960's and early 1970's, when the liberation movements were crushed across the board by the political and economic establishment, proved Dr. King's point. Capitalism needs bigotry to survive. A bigotry-free capitalism(much as many capitalists are sincere opponents of bigotry, personal and institutional) is not possible, because the system needs a certain level of bigotry, both personal and institutional, to perpetuate itself. If hate is allowed to totally die out, the system will fall, because everybody whosebeen screwed over by the system would then unite and overthrow it by some means or other.
So Bernie is not saying the fight against institutional bigotry will be won by creating an economic justice , he's saying you have fight for both forms of justice to get either...that victories against social oppression will not last while economic oppression continues.
Why not get rid of both forms of injustice and make sure? What is there to lose?
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...what they're asking for is to give other issues that affect their communities which have little to do with economics more prominence in his campaign appeal.
Further, there's an omission in his economic appeal of the disparity in income and wealth between blacks and whites which isn't necessarily addressed by economic-based solutions; nor is that disparity addressed by solely focusing on the 'working-class,' in which advantages for blacks have lagged far behind others.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)That disparity of wealth comes about under the system of capitalism which is INHERENTLY a system of a very small percentage of "winners", a somewhat larger percentage of "hangers on" who make a comfortable living off of that miniscule percentage of "winners" and then the rest of us scraping by. That inherent set-up will always be there as long as capitalism is extant. There's no way to justify this inequality without dividing the "have nots" into oppressed classes, otherwise they get together and take back what was stolen. History under capitalism show that the easiest way to keep the have nots divided is by color of the skin. Anyone who thinks you can get rid of oppression within the confines of an oppressive system is fooling themselves.
Marxists have always known this and have written millions of words about super profits being made off of super oppression and special exploitation. The upshot is you can't separate the reasons that people of color have lagged behind the rest from the fact of capitalism.
My problem with Bernie is the same as my problem with Chavez, and now Maduro and Tsipras. They think that they CAN "tame" capitalism somehow when history has shown repeatedly that taming capitalism is an historically short-term proposition.
Reforming and regulating capitalism is like riding a hungry tiger. It's VERY difficult to do and you're ALWAYS in danger of being eaten
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That he doesn't understand that poc's and the LGBTQ community have it tougher than straight white dudes, I could understand our suspicions. But the fact is, there are no other Democratic candidates who've been better on your issues in their voting records and in public life in general than Bernie has.
None.
All you've got is one other candidate whose made a few decent speeches in the last two months after decades of waffling and deals with various devils...another candidate whose tenure as mayor of Baltimore basically inspired The Wire, and a vaguely decent nobody who was a Republican six years ago.
Why endlessly go after Bernie and give all of them the benefit of the doubt?
frylock
(34,825 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)I don't think we can have economic justice without social justice, and vice-versa. I think prioritizing one over the other is either a mistake, or a con game.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...all critics are asking for is that other issues not remedied by economics are vocalized in his campaign rhetoric. Even on economics, however, his appeal to the minority communities hasn't been prominent in his campaign. He acknowledges that by saying, he has "a lot of work to do.”
I agree, though, that both go hand-in-hand; it's just that they aren't necessarily related to one another. For instance, objectionable police tactics affect both affluent blacks and poor blacks. Likewise, wage adjustments have little effect for someone who receives less consideration for hiring, or is advanced in job positions at a disproportionately lower rate. Economics doesn't address voting rights or obstacles to voting; political representation in office or in staffing; admissions in higher education, discrimination in housing...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)if he didn't agree with you on pretty much all of that, he wouldn't have been in SNCC fifty years ago.
Please stop accusing him of holding views he doesn't hold. He's never been a "nothing matters but class" type. Pretty much nobody on the American left has been since the mid-Thirties.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)With SNCC focus on race, instead of the real problem ... economics. Right?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Dr. King was making that same point when he spoke out against the war and called for a Poor People's March on D.C.(which is probably what got him killed-they wouldn't have killed him just for fighting Jim Crow-he was too prominent a figure for the white capitalist power structure of the day-they took him out because he connected the issues and because that was too threatening to "The Man"
. Jesse Jackson made the same point when he formed the Rainbow Coalition.
Saying that the issues are linked doesn't diminish the importance of race(or sexual orientation or gender)at all. And it doesn't mean ignoring the pain and indignities you are subjected to.
Countries run on market economics will never allow institutional racism to end. Malcolm X got that. So did Angela Davis. All Bernie is doing is following the path they and Dr. King laid out.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)As I said, I think it's a mistake (or a divide and conquer tactic) to disentangle social and economic justice. It would be possible to have equal representation of women, people of color, LGBT, etc. in both the underclass and corporate boardrooms but I could not countenance such a world (because it includes an underclass). Likewise, some of what you list as social justice issues - e.g. equality in hiring, voting rights, housing, education - could be correctly described as economic issues as they very much impact the material security of people suffering from any discrimination, AND the presence of that discrimination keeps the floor low and interferes with solidarity, which affects the rest of the population too.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)..."reaching out to the African American community and the Hispanic community”
Do you really want to declare that effort over and done before he's even begun? What it will 'take' is for him to actually do this and make a consistent effort to directly address issues and concerns particular to those communities he highlighted.
The article in question noted that, "During his hour-long stump speech, however, he made no mention of the recent massacre at a historic African American church in Charleston, S.C., that left nine parishoners dead."
Sanders needs to get on with that and be consistent in his appeal on the campaign trail. It's not going to suffice to just point to his past record (although that certainly has significance in his appeal). What people who've criticized him on this are saying is that there's no substitute to giving these issues and concern the same priority, prominence and focus as he's afforded other issues in this campaign, like his appeal to voters on economics.
Those issues include, but aren't limited to, discrimination in employment, housing, access to higher education; voting rights abuses and obstruction; police brutality and disproportionate targeting of minorities; political representation in his administration, and other concerns which can't be addressed by a myopic reliance on economic issues.
In addition, he needs to acknowledge that black Americans are lagging far behind whites in income and wealth and that there are factors other than strict economic which are responsible for those disparities. His admonition for blacks to disregard the color of their skin when voting, in favor of a focus on the 'working class vs. billionaires' ignores the fact that gains he envisions for the working-class haven't automatically translated into the same gains for the black community.
It's important in an campaign - as he obviously recognizes with his economic appeal - to elevate these issues to a national level of discussion to, first, let voters know that these issues aren't going to take a back seat to other priorities in a potential administration, and second, that he generates the support needed to actually allow him to make the effort to find solutions to them a reality if he assumes office.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the work is mainly in communicating his deeply-held commitments on these issues.
Bernie and his supporters understand the anti-oppression struggles and fully acknowledge the disparities you listed there.
And again, Bernie has never said that institutional bigotry isn't crucially important in the creation of income inequality.
Nor is he an old-style 1930's CP type arguing that class matters more than all other issues, as you seem to think.
If he felt that way, why would he have been a member of SNCC in the Sixties, and why would he have called for the end of all legal repression against gays in 1972? And why would he have been one of the few white elected officials who endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1988?
All that has happened was that he hasn't mentioned the issues as much as you'd have liked so far in his stump speech. his main opponent has little but the stump speeches of the last two months as any claim to superiority on this.
Bernie, by contrast has no actual record of disinterest, failure or betrayal on anti-oppression issues as an activist or an elected official. And none of the other Democratic presidential candidates have any claim to greater concern or commitment to the anti-oppression agenda than Bernie does.
He was going to talk about bigotry in the Charleston speech last Sunday, btw, but that became inappropriate when the Massacre happened there. All the news story you quoted in the other thread was was an announcement that anti-oppression issues, as was always planned, were going to be more prominent in his campaign.
Why do you keep acting like he's had to be forced to address this, when it was always clear that he would fairly soon anyway? And why do you still seem to think he's more suspect than anyone else in the race on anti-oppression issues? O'malley(the candidate you said you support, if I read you right) did nothing at all on those same issues as mayor of Baltimore, and as mayor of an overwhelmingly black city, he had no excuse not to. Nice guy, but not exactly the RFK of the Chesapeake, IIRC.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...'in making that appeal to the black and Hispanic communities?' I interpret that as an acknowledgement that he's lagging behind in that effort.
It's not going to suffice to just point to his record, and I think he recognizes that; a bit tardy, but he's obviously looking at something which is telling him that. I'd like to think that he's heard the voices of critics and is responding to them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)
He was also acknowledging HRC's early lead in those communities...a lead he will likely cut into as he makes himself known to them.
Most black and Latino elected Dems, as will naturally be the case with any elected Dems, will endorse HRC because she's the early frontrunner. That's how incumbents roll.
You are really invested in the idea that Bernie needed to be forced to speak to these issues.
It's not as if the other Dems in the race have actually done anything more to earn your trust. Why aren't you pressing HRC, O'Malley and Chafee about this with the same intensity you've shown in going after Bernie? It's the exclusive focus on one candidate that leads a lot of us to the conclusion that some leaders in the struggle think Bernie has to be driven out of the race in order to enact your crucially important agenda.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that Bigtree rightly champions and that Bernie also fully supports.
The term "agenda" doesn't always have a pejorative meaning.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And he gave the obvious answer.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...I sincerely hope that's not the case.
I do think you're ignoring the rest of his statement about hiring additional staff and 'a lot of work to do.' No matter. It's his campaign and he'll run it like he wants. It might interest you to know, and might think it fortunate, that I really don't believe Sanders is as defensive as his DU supporters on this. He's actually quite eloquent and interesting when he does speak on issues of race. I'm surprised we haven't heard but a smattering more from him on the campaign trail than his focus on economics and minorities. It's an opportunity lost, if he continues with his narrow focus. I do think he'll pick it up a bit more. We'll see.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I am stating what happened.
You are making a big to do out of nothing. You are nit picking. You are attempting to manufacture outrage.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They just ignore any and all evidence that contradicts those orders, and keep implying racism every time Bernie talks about the 99%. They will just keep doing it no matter what Bernie does, because they have nothing on him.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Bear in mind these are usually the same people that have no qualms tithing to corporations that support ALEC and Republicans like Mike Huckabee privately but still wonder why they and their constituents have such a loud voice in our body politic. 
Its like a member of PETA secretly investing in dog fighters while lamenting the practice publicly.
When I was a kid the Rockman told me folks "See what they want to see and they hear what they want to hear." For me, the older I get, the more wise his statement has become.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...criticizing him for not raising these issues on the campaign trail isn't the same thing as saying "Bernie Sanders doesn't care about anti-oppression issues."
That's a deflection supporters here have used to justify the scant mention these issues received early on in his campaign rhetoric on the campaign trail. You provided me a two minute clip in another thread that you believe suffices. Your candidate appears to take a different view and has said he intends to broaden his appeal to black and hispanic voters, increasing his staff to make that effort possible.
What you're doing in this post, and what Sanders supporters have been doing in response to legitimate questions about his focus and priority of these issues on the campaign trail is to make up a premise, like you did in the op, and argue against it as if someone has actually made that accusation of Sanders. If that doesn't work, supporters insist someone is 'implying' the same.
What critics, like me, are saying they want is for their issues and concerns to be amplified by your candidate in his rhetoric on the campaign trail. That shouldn't be met with such ridiculous defensiveness by anyone actually supportive of the issues at hand. We want these issues and concerns elevated to a national level of discussion in this campaign to generate the support needed to effect remedies or action by candidates when they achieve office. That's what campaigns are all about. That's not a hard concept to grasp. It doesn't deserve impugning of motives or attacks on critics' character.
Your premise is a fraud, and the defenses - even in the face of your own candidate's admission that "there's a lot of work to do' - are as pathetic as they're bogus. I suppose you believe that if you convince yourself, and your sizable contingent of supporters here, that your manufactured memes are authentic it will never really matter to you what critics believe or say. Good luck with all of this navel-gazing defensiveness.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)By the same small group of Obama/Hillary supporters.
It is a non issue.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...and convince yourself that's so.
It will certainly satisfy your desire to dismiss or ignore what folks are actually saying, but it is, in reality, nothing more than navel-gazing projection.
frylock
(34,825 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)then you don't actually have a premise to start. That is the case here. I am wondering why so many "Sanders supporters," such as yourself, are promoting this so strongly. Seems some, as on display in your op, have a great need to make Sanders out to be some kind of victim. Your premise is not based in reality.
Cha
(296,697 posts)
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Gutierrez is no anonymous poster and there have been others making the same reprehensible innuendos.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)so that not only would this particular challenge be put down but all future ones know their "acceptable" limits.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...if anything, the message the Sanders supporters on this board are sending critics is that any question of Sanders on race will be ridiculed, shouted down, and dismissed in favor of a contrived defense of the politician. Critics are repeatedly dictated to by supporters about what they supposedly believe, about what their motivations are. That's not an unfamiliar tactic for those of us who've raised these issues in the real world outside of this internet forum.
It's a wonder ANYONE dares mention race and Sanders in a critical way on this board, lest they subject themselves to ridicule, shaming, and accusations that all they want to do is paint your candidate as a racist...and you have the temerity to claim someone is trying to make the candidate's message taboo? I'll not allow myself to be dictated to about what's 'acceptable' to criticize these politicians about
- though I'd completely understand the reluctance and hesitance of DUers with concerns about the focus, priority, or substance of his rhetoric on the campaign trail to voice those concerns or opinions, faced off against the mob of supporters here so emboldened in their defensiveness to try and intimidate anyone speaking out from voicing even the most minor of criticisms.
Like I say, it's not an unfamiliar tactic.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)fueled with a healthy dose of Faux News style coordinated "questions" that like a singularity cannot be satisfied and every response draws more of the same.
Hell, I've seen folks saying outright they won't be satisfied "as long as he keeps pivoting to economics", flat out.
I also notice that candidates with ties to the DLC don't get such "questions" even in areas that Sanders was miles ahead on like marriage equality and that their history is proof enough but for Sanders a 50 year, unswerving, consistent, and out in front track record is "not good enough".
Bullshit yourself, Bigtree. This might not be your personal motivation. Perhaps your questions are heartfelt (though strangely single candidate focused) but there is a pattern that drives my perspective of the situation and it is almost unerringly coming from the usual status quo caucus, "pragmatic", corporate friendly pooh poo economic justice chorus as always.
It is the same folks that are ALWAYS trying to shut down all discussion of economics in the most capitalist advanced nation in the world that are loaded with convenient "questions and concerns" and echoed by Clinton surrogates.
bigtree
(85,970 posts)...but you don't get to decide who is sincere and who isn't.
We could easily tell who was 'swiftboating' Kerry by the content of their criticism and the individuals involved. I'm a lifelong Democrat who has been advocating and writing on these issues I'm questioning Sanders about for decades; many of those efforts here at DU. There's absolutely nothing in my past - or even in what I've written here, many posts praising Sanders and welcoming his entry into the Democratic contest - which would suggest that I'm prone to smearing Democrats.
Nothing in my participating here that would back up your claim that I'm prone to
'shut down discussions of economic justice.' I welcome those discussions, but I'm not going to be bullied into accepting that a generic focus on the 'working-class' automatically translates into success for people like me. That's not the history of minorities and it's not my life experience either. I'm going to continue to speak out when those interests and concerns of mine are given short-shrift in these politician's rhetoric or actions.
If you have a question about another candidate, spit it out, start a thread. You won't find ONE post from me attacking your character or motivation for making those observation or inquiries. That's as good a measure of my motivations and character as anything you've invented here.
TheKentuckian
(25,011 posts)I do see a larger general pattern of who has "questions" (that I don't think is deniable) and yeah I feel it is a swift boat style campaign.
What I am attributing to you is the strange singular focus on Sanders other than the occasional throw away "I'd like to see the other candidates respond to as well" line which yes makes me wonder why the laser focus on one rather than the flashlight on all is in order on this.
