The paradigm of democratic campaigns is one of drawing people together and building majorities. There is no reason to believe that an open invitation to BLM didn't and doesn't exist from all the democratic campaigns.
The OMalley and Sanders campaigns seem, pretty traditionally, to be all about invitiations to join up. I've heard Sanders repeatedly say there is nothing that can't be done if we come together. I've only heard OMalley speak once, and I heard him make the same appeal.
How and why did that open invitation get missed? Did BLM ever reach out to the campaigns? Who represents BLM that the campaigns of OMalley and Sanders failed to contact?
Your suggestion flows from the same traditional paradigmatic beliefs -joining together to use bigger numbers. It faces the same problems.
Saturday some BLM activists basically made a very high profile show of rejecting the central dogma of the democratic paradigm of coming together and building unity. This is not an uncommon feature within protest movements. Sanders is talking about trying to create a movement, not just a presidency. BLM is a movement. As often happens in popular risings, the control and direction of the movement gets challenged. This is part of the ugliness of typical of democratic action, and it's a significant contributor to the failings of such movements.
On Saturday the objective of the presidential candidates was to share their messages and invite people to join them. Their goal is to get elected.
Those were not the objectives of the BLM activists.
They wanted, at least, to object to the candidates inadequate attention to BLM. They did. But it's not at all clear what those activists, and others sympathetic to them might want to achieve next
Some BLM activists have made threats that all primary activity of these candidates will be shut down. Essentially their call was to end the primary seasons of at least some candidates until, and unless, their not very clearly stated objectives are met. That seems a pretty hostile proposition, suggesting feelings of at least those BLM are pretty rigid. Rigidity as a sign of commitment can be heroic, it can also be a sabot in the gears of unification.
From within the democratic paradigm of building unity and shared purpose that exists around primary candidacies, it's very unclear how to formally go forward with BLM activists. Are BLM activists really interested in any candidate(s)? Their cause is certainly just, and is recognized as such by the candidates. I have no doubt at all that the democratic candidates will be more overt about their support for racial justice and the existence of their open invitation of supporters of BLM to join with them.
But do BLM activists have any interest in joining? At least some of them seem to reject the unity paradigm communicating that it harms their message.
So, is there any certainty that an implicit quid pro quo can develop between BLM a candidate, or a candidate's supporters? There's some probablity of risk that what you suggest will simply yield control and bleed off volunteer manpower of campaigns to unknown activists in what, a priori, looks to many, much like a traditional hostile bid for derailing control? Yes, the dream is help BLM and so win their support. What's the likelihood that can be realized?
I hope and expect the democratic candidates work through this. But I think the next moves to be made by BLM are BLM's to decide.
= new reply since forum marked as read
