2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders and minorities
I've been thinking about this meme that is going out there about how Bernie Sanders really doesn't have a lot of 'name recognition' minorities. According to this meme, this means that he's somehow 'not going to get' the minority vote.
There are two points here I'd like to make:
1. I know and work with quite a few people who happen to be racial or ethnic minorities. What I'm noticing, just in my own little neck of the woods (Denver metro area in Colorado) is that many of these folks like and are talking about Bernie. Seems like they haven't heard this meme about Bernie not 'reaching' minorities...
Which brings us to my second point:
2. It seems to me to do a disservice to people who happen to be racial and/or ethnic minorities to imply that somehow they aren't going to 'hear' Bernie Sanders' message. I very much don't think this is true because we cannot treat the voting populace as consisting of somehow monolithic segments. People like Bernie's message and when they look at his record they see he's been about social and economic justice for half a century...consistently!
Just my opinion, but the bottom line here is that we'll have a hotly contested Democratic primary and Americans are going to listen to the candidates and then make their decision. I'm thinking Bernie will surprise a lot of pundits and will (happily for us) HORRIFY Wall Street and the big capitalists. AND, in the general I think he will capture a lot of independent votes.
People are fed up with the status quo, and Bernie's got a really compelling message. Call me Don Quixote and accuse me of 'tilting at windmills' but I think the guy can win! In fact, I'm so sure of it I'm donating to him regularly and when the time comes will help his campaign here in Colorado.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)And he frames social justice issues in economic justice terms. Not gonna work with black folks like it works with white folks. We miss out on economic justice all the time because of racism. If our issues relate to white supremacy, he cannot just frame it as poor boack youth unemployment or free college tuition. Kids in those dusadvantaged schools are not even getting a decent HS education. They are not prepared t succeed in college, free or not. He needs to come up with a comprehensive plan and get advice from people of color living there, in disadvantaged communities. Then he needs to take that message to the people.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)or else it just flies on past. So you can't simply push the same message out to all audiences, even if they underlying ideas are the same. Framing and messaging are important, and that's something a lot of Dems have been notoriously poor at over the last few decades.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I hope he does work on that.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I was listening to a young lady by the name of Tara Dowdell (democratic strategist), talking about how she notices Bernie Sanders has a cross section issue, his crowd not very diverse. the democratic party is very heterogeneous. And that Bernies supporters get angry when it's mentioned. She said they shouldn't get angry, they should fix it. If you noticed Obama's crowd in 2008 they were ...
3 out of 4 jews that voted for Obama
3 out of 4 Hispanics that voted for Obama
3 out of 4 Asians voted for Obama and a record numbers of African Americans.
She says this has to be fixed, and I agree. And that, she says is the winning coalition.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The problem can only be fixed if it is acknowledged. He should be working on that as we speak.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Also, I ask a question further down (or up) in this thread, trying to understand about social vs. economic justice, which I've heard on quite a few threads here. Hopefully you and others will be willing to take a stab at that.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 12:37 AM - Edit history (1)
without looking like pandering, the actual system needs changing.
The earliest primary states are the least diverse racially. The ability to reach out to other states early on is a money game. Access to the media is again the money game.
So yes, Clinton can do those things because she has the money, but how genuine is it? Sanders has not done those things and yet he has a stellar and long history of supporting social AND economic justice.
A fix must come from within the system as well as an organic evolution of his campaign. Once he reaches Nevada and South Carolina, two very racially diverse states, then we will see if all of this talk was just a product of the context and not an actuality which is what I believe is occurring.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I don't buy that they aren't listening to it. I think many of them realize that it's a package deal that POC need to work towards to get the changes they want. You can't just ignore the economic justice parts of the equation, especially today when the wealth divide is so great. I don't think POC want to have us all in the 99% be "equally" living in poverty do they? Now is the time to work together when so many are affected by the economic oppression that the 1% is pushing on to all of us. When we all work together we have a better chance at winning the changes we need and want, and I think there are so many of us in Bernie's camp who want to make sure that such gains are shared equally.
Just a short while ago, Oregon's state legislature fought to pass legislation at the state level for free community college education for students in 2017 and beyond. I then made the request back to those writing about this that we want to also have some retroactive benefits to apply to those who have been penalized by high education costs up until now too, as they need this help just as much as future students do, and it would be a good boost to our economy, not to mention helping us get a lot of the generation that is now of voting age since the last presidential election to heavily vote for Democrats then when they get automatically registered here in Oregon when getting their driver's licenses too. I'm an old dude, but I think its crap what kids these days of all color and genders, etc. have to deal with with getting a decent education. Likewise I think we're best served when we don't just toot our horn for those areas where we need help. I think Bernie's movement understands this a lot!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That was 50 years ago. He needs to employ some people of color. He needs to go out and speak to them directly and frame his message to fit that group. He needs to undertands the coalition that he needs to win.
And no, they are not listening to his message because he has not taken his message to them. He needs to do it. We see all white crowds and we move right along, we were not invited unless we are invited directly. He will get nowhere with blacks or latinos if he only speaks to white crowds. We are not the same as white people. Our lived experiences are different. I'd like Bernie to win. But it won't happen unless he reaches out.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I'm not saying he doesn't need to reach out. But what he won't accept and SHOULD NOT accept is the notion that he should "pull back" on his talk on economic justice since many here imply that this turns off voters of POC...
This kid gets it! He knows that what Bernie is working on is what he wants and what will be good for everyone including those of his race!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=276983
The problem is that there are too many that imply Bernie should talk more about issues of classism, etc. and LESS about issues of economic justice, which works more towards what the oligarchs want, as they want the voting populace to be less focused on the core issues that affect their power over our whole system. Be careful not to push this. This is exactly what the Koch brothers want so that they can keep us disempowered and just talking about issues that never get fixed.
I work hard on issues of race too. When we just recently went through to produce a local platform resolution to speak out against repressive violence by police authorities, I was noting that it needed more to emphasize that those who video these incidents (who have largely been POC themselves) need added protection and specific laws to make sure they are protected as material witnesses and not made victims later when those in police authority look for retribution in subtle and not so subtle ways against them.
We as Bernie supporters want the same thing you all do, but we recognize that unless you go after the roots of the 1%'s power over us (which is hard to do when most of Washington is bought off by them), that you won't ever stop those in power from oppressing all of us, and that means that POC will continue to get oppressed that much more.
We all need to work together, and I think that's what Bernie has been trying to say even though he has only one mouth to speak from and can't speak about multiple issues at the same time.
Hillary Clinton has had plenty of time and opportunities to speak on the TPP and TPA and issues like that, but has actively chosen to be more ambiguous on her stances on these issues. Bernie isn't being intentionally ambiguous on any of the issues he has been asked about. He just is trying to talk about and propose solutions for many different issues, and at times some issues may not get talked about, and I don't think he's consciously ignoring any of them the way Hillary has been on a number of issues.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But there are other areas to address and coming face to face with the black community iften is the best way to gain our trust.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I think he needs to work hard to get more involvement in his campaign with those of color, etc.
I think sometimes it is harder for people like him that live in communities that have more white people to try and show the participation of a more nationally representative ratio of POC in his campaign than are present in his campaign. It requires extra work to get those that represent a smaller part of the Vermont community or in other more distant areas to become a part of his effort than if there was a natural mix in the community he was in that was more representative of national levels of representation of people of color.
I think it is something that I believe he and his staff now probably realize will need extra work than what they've done in the past to provide the proper representation on a national campaign.
It's the same where he also has to transition his stances on gun control issues the way Howard Dean did when he ran for president too, to understand national concerns and other communities where gun control is a far bigger control to prevent acts of violence than it is in most of Vermont.
I think the good news is that he's not dismissive of these issues, but is just a case where he needs to update their campaign's sense of priorities, and do it in a judicious fashion when they probably have less financial resources than other campaigns do as he tries to stay true to his efforts to not be influenced by big money donations.
I think we just need to be a bit patient, and I think he will come through for us. The last thing we want to do is provide the corporate media fuel for means to distract from the good messages of his campaign that other candidates avoid talking about and the corporate media WANTS him to also avoid talking about too. Ultimately I believe he will be providing the attention that POC of want to feel involved with his campaign. It will happen! We still have a long ways to go.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)I personally think her phony ebonics is extremely offensive, nevermind the empty hollow "messaging" at the intended PoC target.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)demonstration in Chicago in the 60's. He also lived in in a state that's 95% white.
There is a lot of record in Congress and the press regarding how he stood regarding civil rights directions that Hillary Clinton has only recently evolved into holding herself.
All that said no matter where he goes to speak - I've seen no black people, not even on his staff.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It is a good resource to see people organizing.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)As for his staff, I've never seen a pic of them so can't speak to that. The thing that makes Sen. Sanders so appealing is his honest commitment to ALL Americans and I think that's why you don't hear him focusing on particular groupings (some people refer to it as pandering and Sen. Sanders does not pander!) although he does cover black youth unemployment, black incarceration rates, police brutality especially against AA's and a demilitarization of the PD's in this country.
The poster below mentions the "lately" factor and I agree with that. Fair or unfair, he does need to talk more about specific AA, Latino, immigrant issues. Maybe the fact that he is also a minority, Jewish, will help but I don't think Sen. Sanders would be comfortable using his own minority status to bolster his appeal with other minority populations. He's not wired that way. All I know is, in spite of white faces in white states, he cares. Now he just has to prove it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I believe he is very serious about civil rights. I hope somebody is helping him with stuff like this.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I respect what you say. I am not comfortable with some of the pandering that goes on from politicians or promising too much that they can't or won't deliver just to lock down some votes. Some people are satisfied with just a speech or a tweet, but I'm not. I think we have to work on the problem of inequality from all angles and we need a total cultural shift.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But you know how blAck people are... We don't trust anybody who can't come and sit and talk to us for a spell.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)When people have been screwed over and used as pawns, we want to look you in the eyes and see if you're telling the truth. That is completely fair. I think that poisoning the well by saying that Sanders is avoiding black or Latino areas is complete bullshit. Especially to prop up the dog whistle candidate. I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves without that kind of dirty politics.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... the radio and that was it.
Kerry lost 2% of the black vote Gore had
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Pandering! You posted your response while I was typing mine and viola! I agree with you, btw. I'm satisfied with his record on practically every issue that concerns me the most but then he's already got my vote and I'm lucky enough to be born a white male. A speech about anything with out the record to give you credibility is just shameless pandering but I understand people want to feel valued even if it is just in a speech as opposed to actions.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)how would you solve the problem?
I'm not Bernie, but I would like to see all schools in the united states funded equally.
I'm sure that we could easily fund that by ending the drug war, and releasing
non-violent people from the prisons.
Where I live, we have school boards who sound just as crazy as the Republican Presidential
candidates.
Textbooks with an warped view of science and history here as well.
Maybe we would all be better off if we had Federal Schools.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)I'm a white male and so have enjoyed unearned white privilege my entire life (I'm 56 now). I'm also an economist.
So, what I want to ask you - not putting you down, but to have an honest and respectful discussion so I can understand, is this:
To me, social justice is necessarily a subset of economic justice. Allow me to paint the background prior to asking my question - Start with three big social justice issues:
1. K-12 school funding is uneven, so predominantly minority kids in inner city schools don't get the same level of education as more affluent and mostly white kids in suburban schools. To achieve social justice we might a) reconstitute bussing to re-desegregate schools that have become de facto segregated again over the 90s and 00s, and b) adjust our funding system to provide ALL public K-12 schools with the same money per pupil.
2. End voter ID laws which are designed specifically to suppress the minority vote.
3. Allow gay marriage.
Now, we do these things and we can say we've made some strides toward social justice, BUT (and here's my question) isn't the end result of these policy changes BOTH social and economic?
For instance, the inner city kids are now less segregated and schools are spending the same money on education for all kids. The end result of this will be better economic chances for all kids - they can get better jobs, they have the academic wherewithal to get into better postsecondary educational opportunities, including apprenticeships, vo-tech, community colleges and universities.
In the second example, progressive candidates win elections more frequently and enact policies that provide a more even economic playing field for minorities.
In the third example, the gay spouse can now be a primary beneficiary on pensions and other inheritance, as well as their partner's Social Security, thus staying out of poverty in old age.
So, I genuinely do not understand how it is that we can have social justice without economic justice. It seems to me that we need to go for both. That's my question to you, because I just don't see how you can separate the two from a policy perspective.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We cannot get economic justice without social justice. The fact remains that the drug war and poverty leaves alot of our children in single parent families and that creates poverty. The bad deal for black children begins at conception. Lower birth weights, higher infant mortality and poorer maternal outcomes. We force the single women into work that pays shitty and each time they make a bit extra it gets taken from their food stamp allotments or cash aid.
Employers are able to ignore black applicants and hire white ones with less qualifications. The educational system is geared toward white childen, and even in history class black accomplishments are ignored and the evil done to us minimized to give us a white supremacists view of the world. Then we are tested on that empty history that was written by and for white people. When taking a test, I always had a true answer and the answer tht was expected of me to give.
People will say that having alot of money or being financially secure will take care of that. We never actually get the financial security or 'economic justice' that we are promised because of th racism that exists in our society. The economic fixes that work in white neighborhoods do not work in our. Money does not get spent there. City services are poor. Black areas even get garbage picked up last and get plowed last when it snows. We still walk under confederate flags on campus and call those old rapists/slaver that started america 'our founding fathers'. Not mine. Black people will never get economic justice under white supremacy. It was invented for that very purpose, so as long as we live under it, we will remain divided.
I really don't know how to fix it besides calling it out over and over.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)This society is in fact profoundly racist. No argument here. But I don't know how to fix it either, but trying to institute policies that put people on a more even playing field. The thing I like most about Bernie is his stance on reforming the corporate tax code so these big companies like Wells Fargo, GE, Mattel and a bunch of others actually PAY U.S. income tax instead of being able to 'offshore' their profits.
Where the social justice comes in for me is that when we a) start collecting a fair share of taxes from these capitalists b) lift the payroll tax cap on Social Security so everyone pays an even percentage, and c) make the cuts in war spending that are driving us broke, we'll be able to afford all the social programs the Repubs are telling us we can't afford. Like subsidized child care, stronger safety nets, job training to go hand in hand with PRWORA (something Obama's done pretty good at in tilting policy towards with the recent passage of WIOA), affordable college, single payer healthcare - just better opportunity in general.
But then, there's that white privilege - I will never understand how you've experienced life here in the USA, and I'm profoundly sorry for that. Because what you've written above makes me ashamed - it's fucking disgusting. Quality of life is a big deal, and everyone deserves to have a decent quality of life.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think you said what I mean. We need to work on quality of life and I think a part of that is to start being honest about how we got to where we are.
I admit, if I were very poor, uneducated and black like I am, I would look at someone like me and want to get here. It's going to take years of minor improvements to the quality of life for us to see any progress.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The 'what have you done for me lately' factor. Obviously political junkies know that Bernie has decades of pro-minority work under his belt, but when HRC supporters attack Bernie for not having minorities at his first couple of events because he held them in places with essentially no minorities, that's actually somewhat the 'lately' factor. He's done a lot for minorities over the years, but everyone is hyperfocused on just the last month or two. So he does need to bring up issues that are more important to minorities on an ongoing basis to keep the 'lately' factor satisfied for them. Also, over on DK, there was a post about all of the minorities working in HRC's campaign, and I hope Bernie is savvy enough to have included some in his campaign crew as well, to give him the perspectives he needs personally, and not to just rely on polling.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)My first choice was Elizabeth Warren. I lost everything in 2010 and I really didn't have a lot to lose. Bernie talks about the 99%. I am in there, along side most African Americans, along side most white Americans, along most of this country. Good economy, good environment and a good food source is important to all of us. Frankly, I cannot understand any PoC who followed the 2008 primaries closely, voting for Hilary. That week, she and Bill were practically whistling Dixie. That was unforgivable. Trump is just out there and stupid with his bigotry, but Bill and Hill were stealth with it. I am not sure they are full on bigots ( and I have pondered this word but what else can it be?), but they stooped to use other's bigotry with a wink and a phrase trying to get them on her side to win the nomination. I wish I could find the poster with the Trayvon Martin photo and her post again. I can't remember her name or what thread she was posting in, but she broke it down with the links to what I am speaking to. The election is still far away for most people, give it 6 months and the masses will start to perk up and get more involved.
Her post was one of them that finally got me out of lurking here on and off since 2008. Liberal Stalwart! Such a fan.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)She has a Trayvon avatar. And no, not all of us have forgotten 2008.
artislife
(9,497 posts)And now I will edit to the proper pronoun.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)about Bernie choosing the less diverse areas for his rallies.
Well, in CO Denver has the highest concentration of AAs
and the state is 20% latinos. Yet more than 5000 people
attended his "town meeting". And the word is spreading.
My black and hispanic neighbors are very interested in
his campaign, and Bernie will address their issues more
often,imo.
