2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Supporters - Please read my post [View all]Armstead
(47,803 posts)(Context" I have been a huge believer in Bernie Sanders since the 1990's.)
I understand why President Obama is loved by the black community. I also understand how ingrained and difficult racism is. I grew up in the 60's, and know both the progress that has been made, and the problems that remain.
Having said that, I have to tell you that your contention makes a rel discussion of issues (and real campaigning) difficult.
I'm a white guy and I love President Obama. Among other things, I fought for him here on DU back in the day (primaries). In many ways, his view of the world resonates with mine very closely. I often have heard him speak and felt like "yes he is speaking for me."
But he has also pissed me off at times, because he has crossed line that oppose my fundamental beliefs. I strongly disagreed with his approach to healthcare. I didn't like his flirtation with the GOP on Social Security and the "deficit." I think the TPP is going to be a disaster that going to undermine the economy and out democracy once it kicks in. And his support for it is both baffling and angering.
I also like Hillary as a person, and recognize the good things she has done. But she also represents what I believe is the worst aspects of the current Democratic heirarchy -- The fact that she moves in the World of Corporate Robber Barons and Wall St. and represents their interests and worldview in too many ways.
Now here's the dilemma. How, according to your contention, am I (and we, ie Bernie supporters) supposed to criticize the TPP without seeming like I am attacking the beloved President? Should I just violate everything I believe in and ignore it? Likewise with Hillary and issues like Democratic collaboration with Goldman Sachs over the years.
And I don't think social and economic justice are an either/or proposition. They do not overlap in every way. But they do overlap in many ways. ALL ethnic groups and other social distinctions would do a lot better with an economy that is oriented to the interests of the middle, working and poor classes. Housing, jobs, consumer rights, etc. effect everyone. It also address many so-called social issues.
Yes, combating racism and its impacts -- both institutional and defacto -- is a key issue. But it is possible to both see the interconnection with economics, and deal with the other aspects at the same time.
Personally, I would hope that individual people of all "groups" can think for themselves, in addition to the social factors that form us. Going by your logic, I should be automatically supporting and loving Hillary because we're both blonde WASPS of a similar age. I would automatically reject the argument of a black progressive because he might say bad things about her, or some other white politician.
I brought up Dr. Ben Carson to you yesterday You said "we" have rejected him. I don't know why if I apply your theory. First of all does that imply all blacks are politically monolithic? What's the difference of criticizing that African American politician and criticizing President Obama on the substance of their views? Am I allowed to criticize Carson but not Obama?
I am honestly asking how we are supposed to deal with this dilemma. My own feeling is that the real way to not be racist (and not sexist in Clinton's case) is to treat politicians the same no matter what their race creed, color, etc. When Obama does well, I'll praise him. When he does something I disagree with, criticize that.
In other ways how do we deal with legitimate sensitivities without stifling healthy, honest debate? How do campaigns address important issues, no matter who that may involve criticizing?
I dunno.