Just a word or two about Bernie and civil rights/social justice

[bigtree]

27. it's not clear who this person (or the op) is debating or refuting

...but I'll offer something here which will probably get pushed aside in favor of this reflexive political defensiveness, much like my other attempts to define what I think the concern about Sanders and other candidates' dearth of rhetoric IN THIS CAMPAIGN about race, immigration, and other issues *which he's clearly supported in the past in outstanding form and fashion is all about.

Presidential campaigns and other elections are more than an opportunity to advance a political career of a candidate. They are, as Bernie's call for a political revolution behind his own campaign suggests, an opportunity to elevate issues, interests, and concerns to a national level of debate and discussion to advance those along with the candidate's ascent into office; presumably, to further advance those interests, initiatives, or concerns into action or law.

What advocates of issues of race, gender, immigration, sexual identity rights and opportunity, are asking is for their issues, interests, and concerns to be given a prominent and consistent place in and among the candidates' political rhetoric and appeal to voters. It's just as relevant an expectation, for example, as demanding candidates address economic issues and give those prominence in their discussion and debate in the campaign.

One of the standard defenses in response to these calls for more vocal representation in the campaign for these issues is that a candidates' record should suffice, in the absence of vocalizing that support on the campaign trail. I think there are obvious problems with that reasoning; one of the most apparent is the inability of many voters to access that information, as well as the disassociation of that history with current policy or initiatives which may not be sufficient to the issues of the day.

Campaigns prioritize their rhetoric and message in very precise and calculated ways. It's not at all unreasonable to challenge those campaigns to highlight an interest or issue which one feels is important to them - individually, or to a particular group or constituency. Defending against calls or demands from candidates for more representation of particular interests or concerns on the campaign trail by pointing out past affinities is little more than a deflection from what is actually being asked for.

It may well be impossible to satisfy the desires of every interest or concern of every individual or group - as Bernie said, to the effect that he can't answer 50+ questions a day - but it is neither 'sleazy,' or necessarily 'political' in the demeaning sense that this writer suggests, to have such expectations or make such demands that theirs be an integral part of a candidate's rhetoric. It is the essence of a political election in which voters work to project their interests and concerns onto a campaign, as much as candidates attempt to project their concerns and interests to voters.


edit *: highlight