2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumInsisting That Racism Be Addressed In It's Own Terms Is Not "Weaponizing" It.
Last edited Mon Aug 24, 2015, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)
If a candidate for a political office has spent 50 plus years talking almost entirely about economic issues as a panacea for society's ills with little individual focus on racial issues- that isn't 'weaponizing' it.
If a candidate's campaign was lacking outreach to minorities it isn't 'weaponizing' to critique that lack.
If a candidate's message fails to pointedly address racial issues in a way that resonates with minorities, it isn't 'weaponizing' to discuss that failure.
The only way to call it 'weaponizing' is if you are such a partisan of a particular candidate you can't tolerate any criticism no matter how valid.
Every Democratic candidate running for POTUS has strengths and weaknesses.
Bernie Sanders came into the race for POTUS with a weakness that was plainly visible on several levels.
Trying to pretend those weaknesses are the fault of those pointing them out just shows how deeply that weakness penetrates their candidate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)You conveniently omit the methods by which this "pointing out" was done.
You also conveniently omit that the most egregious exemplars of what you are "pointing out" have been left alone.
But keep spinning.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Noise and garbage.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The op kitty's complaining about was about hypocrisy.
The irony is lost on her.
Blah blah blah is all the op deserves for her poorly constructed straw man on a soap box - an obvious excuse to join the attacks on Sanders supporters.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)There are many more. Each has some who believe it is the only issue, some who believe it is very important, some who pay attention but their vote isn't affected, and some who couldn't give a shit less...doesn't matter the issue
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Let's not leave off, highly insulting to the persons who live these experiences, as being described as pretty much pawns in this mass conspiracy they've made up.
It's just a big ole conspiracy they use, and Bernie does to, to try and brush off valid criticism cause they would rather attack those bringing forth the message versus the easier path of just supporting the issues.. Says a lot, if you ask me.
Why not just say you support them and move on.. NO, we gotta have all these conspiracies about how minorities are falling for some big scheme by TPTB to keep us all divided amongst ourselves. Implicit in that argument is that minorities don't know what is good for them, and on top of that don't know how to do social justice right.
Ignore them and let them appear as they appear is about all you can do. You can't help someone who is invested in the conspiracy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That's what 'weaponizing' it means.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)To continue criticizing that candidate when they've made changes to their campaign to include heavy emphasis on racial justice, that is weaponizing it. To criticize that candidate's support for being largely white when every effort is being made to change that is weaponizing it. To imply that the candidate is somehow racist because of that white support, that is weaponizing it.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Welcome to my very active ignore list ... Sad, pitiful, and gone ...
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)From fighting segregation to standing against police violence.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/20-examples-bernie-sanders-powerful-record-civil-and-human-rights-1950s
Over the past few months, one lingering attack on Bernie Sanders' candidacy for the Democratic nomination is his supposed indifference to racial justice and civil rights issues.
But the truth is, Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights, as he told the attendants of Netroots Nation after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. Of course, it's understandable that they want to bring attention to the movement. Killings of people from Ferguson to New York City to Los Angeles to Atlanta have finally brought important issues like police brutality, systemic racism, mass incarceration and militarization of the police into the center of national dialogue.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)You should read the article.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Got it.
The weaponization of social justice by the status quo center.
aka "Not good enough unless you're Hillary".
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)it's true that addressing income inequality is not sufficient. Wealthy persons of color are mistreated more than poor white folks. Racism, both personal and institutional, needs to be addressed separate from income/wealth inequality. So, the OP is correct on that score.
But Clinton, who employed the Southern Strategy against Obama in '08 and hasn't expressed disdain for the numerous policies of her husband's administration that hurt persons of color, doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to arguing that she's the stronger candidate on matters of race.
Here's a good article related to this thread: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_truth_about_bernie_sanders_race_why_his_biggest_weakness_could_become_his_greatest_strength/. Sanders's credentials on matters of racial justice are stronger than some would have you believe.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This has been addressed repeatedly in this forum and anyone who claims that Bernie hasn't paid attention to social justice in 50 years is either completely ignorant or blatantly dishonest.
She purposely misrepresented both the original op and Bernie Sanders' position.
But it's part of a pattern by certain supporters of another candidate who care more about swift boating Bernie than the causes they claim to support - whether it's gender, racial or economic justice. They are guilty of weaponizing social justice because they know that he has the best record when it comes to civil rights. They also want everyone to forget the Clintons' 2008 southern strategy.
The fact is that the original op was specifically calling out that hypocrisy and it didn't sit well with those supporters.
I do remember when that article was posted here and how it was used as "proof" that Bernie has a problem with poc.
Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is either dismissed, ignored or spun and incorporated into the meme.
I'm glad people can see through it and are speaking up because they're obviously not done beating a dead horse.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)They are vested in continuing to spew the talking points, not in learning anything.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You'd think they'd be a little less obvious.
At least they're entertaining us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It appears that Bernie has done enough on racism for white (and some non-white) Bernie supporters ... it doesn't matter that his message doesn't/hasn't resonate(d) with the group most directly affected by racism.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)will call divisive stuff for what it is: Divisive.
Silence is consent.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Who am I trying to kid . . . I'll keep joining. It's worth the risk to in order to call out the smears and lies.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and at this point I am to the point of not giving a shit any longer. Here... I had to delete a whole conversation after being told that policy is tearing a candidate down....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251543722#post15
It was kind of really, really, really weird.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as in completely giving them the silent treatment. Echo machines can be fun if you know what I mean. In politics does not work well, but this is a message board.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I can find footage of Bernie Sanders LITERALLY brushing off racism to get back to his economic schtick.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)But please do provide footage of Bernie so that we can see the context of these remarks.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I find it quite interesting that the loudest voices here about how the concerns regarding racism and police violence were being treated dismissively are now trying to convince us that Hillary meeting with BLM activists was a triumph for her. It was a borderline disaster and anyone who continues to try to use racism as a political weapon instead of committing to be a part of the solution deserves to be called out for it aggressively.
cali
(114,904 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)But that lack of familiarity is across the board and not any voting block in particular contrary to this false meme instigated by ClintonWorld once again doing their damnedest to divide the Democratic electorate on race because she can't win on the issues. Been there, done that. And the end result will be the same for her. Ugly campaigning didn't work for her in '08 and isn't going to work now.
cali
(114,904 posts)That's how crazy, convoluted and partisan everything on DU has become
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)by "weaponizing" racism.
I disagree with you about "little individual focus." I think there was quite a bit of focus over those 50 years, just from a more integrated perspective than some want it. I also think that the "little individual focus" you refer to is MORE than you'll find in the record of the other candidates, and I wonder why you are focused on Sanders' perceived weakness, and not the rest.
I agree with you about it being okay to critique a lack of outreach to minorities. I think it's disingenous, though, to hold one candidate to a higher standard than others, to critique a lack of outreach, and then reject that outreach when it happens. To demand something, to get it, and then to reject it tells me that there's something more than just wanting a candidate to listen and respond going on. I'd rather those critiquing be up front and open about that.
I agree with you when you say that a failed message is a legitimate topic for discussion. What I haven't seen are comparisons of that message with other candidates', and discussions of why one is better or more valid than another. Maybe those discussions are happening, and I just haven't been around at the right time. No matter when I AM around, though, I see a hell of a lot of discussion WITHOUT explaining why one candidate's message is stronger or weaker than another's.
I'm a strong Sanders partisan; I've never pretended anything else. That doesn't mean I think he's without flaw. It just means he is the best candidate, on issues and record, for what I want in a nominee and a POTUS. What you see as a weakness on many levels, I see as a learning process for me, and for him. For him? I see that he moved quickly to address that weakness, and I appreciate the fact that he listens, that he's open, and that he reaches out. For me? I realized that I wasn't paying enough attention, and wasn't listening. I'm trying to rectify that. I think I'm making progress. I know that I have not earned the vicious vitriol slung my way because I am a white female Sanders supporter.
I'm okay with people pointing out my candidate's weaknesses. I haven't blamed anyone for doing so. I think there would be more honesty and integrity to that process if it were happening to all the candidates. I also think that some pointing out those weaknesses need to be able to tolerate criticism of their methods to the same degree that you want Sanders partisans to tolerate criticism of Sanders.
I disagree with you when you say "Trying to pretend those weaknesses are the fault of those pointing them out just shows how deeply that weakness penetrates their candidate." Sanders hasn't been trying to pretend anything. If any of his supporters are, that's on them, not him; it's their weakness, not his.
If a message is important, it's important to analyze it, and its delivery, to address weakness, and to strengthen it. This is true for candidates' messages, and it's true for the message BLM is delivering.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is the OP's point.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'm taking your word for it, because it's still kind of unclear. This part seems to attribute supporters' weakness to Sanders, but I could be interpreting it wrongly:
"just shows how deeply that weakness penetrates their candidate"
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)of course he was seen as a threat in the presidential race - for the Black vote.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)not naming names
and a charge that 'Bernie only ares about economic issues' (which actually, isn't true), is a tacit admission that perhaps another candidate can't begin to go head to head with him on economics, therefore the importance of economics must be diminished
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Bernie Sanders doesn't care about social issues. He only cares about irrelevant economic issues."
That is THE BIGGEST BULLSHIT BASEBALL BAT that is used as a political weapon.
That is not "valid criticism" . It doesn't matter what candidate you support, or whether you agree or disagree with Sanders on any specific tangible issue. If you disagree with the initial oversights of the behind-the-scenes organizational process of his campaign, you
are welcome to do so on that basis,
But that statement perpetrates a LIE used as a political weapon. A bright shiny object object used to distract attention.
Sanders has been fighting for both Economic and Social Justice (and they are not unrelated) all those years. So it is a LIE to characterize him otherwise.
If you think otherwise, then you are either deliberately perpetuating a falsehood o are simply uninformed, and shooting from the hip.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, it's more balanced since the BLM thing, but still, his big theme is the 1% and inequality and corporations and all that.
This is obvious. I'm not even sure why Bernie supporters try to deny this. Not like that's a horrible thing to be focused on -- economic inequality in this country is at obscene levels. It doesn't make Bernie unconcerned about social issues, but they're simply not as high a priority to him as economic ones.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But that is patentlt wrong.
Yes he has alwys been focused on economic justice-- AS ONE MEANS TO AN END , which IS overall social justice.
In the definition of progressive (or whatever you want to call the left hakf of the spectrum) economic and political justice have always been intertwined, until recently when it became politicallt expedient to create a "divisin" between them.
While certain groups have always felt that a specific emphasis (race, gay rights, whatever) should be a priiority, their overall goals have included economic rights as a core of that. (housing rights, workplace rights, affirmative action, etc.)
And on individual "social justice issues" his statements votes and other actions have always been strong.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I can accept that he sees economic justice as one means to the end of overall social justice.
But still, his focus, at this moment, is primarily on economic justice. The policies that he talks about most frequently and passionately are economic, and not social. He spends more time and energy, for example, talking about minimum wages and unions and taxes on the rich than he does about (say) abortion, LGBT rights, and racial discrimination.
Again, not that he doesn't care about social issues, but he clearly feels that at this moment in history, the most important thing to fight for is economic justice. And that's a defensible position. But not everyone agrees with it -- some people think that there should be more direct priority on social issues. That's a defensible position also.
But the distinction is not a sharp as it is often portrayed as. And it is not like Clinton is some single-minded pusher of racial justice,
And with any candidate, there are going to be people who believe more emphasis should be placed on specific issues than others. That's just goes with the territory. (Look at the GOP and their wrangling over how to deal with or ignore immigration, for example.)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And, yes, every candidate is going to emphasize something, and there are going to be people that disagree.
But, still, it's a valid criticism. As president, you can't do everything at once. If your first priority is financial transaction tax and free college tuition, that means you're (almost certainly) not going to get to immigration reform in your first year. Or vice versa. And there's also the "political capital" thing.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)tell you that his focus on racial injustice is on display in ever single speech he gives. EVERY ONE I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE TO WITNESS.
Go watch him speak. You'll see.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Talking about Sanders' actual policy or actual history is a losing move for Clinton supporters so they are stuck spinning lies.
It is quite a Rovian tactic, attempting to turn your candidate's strength against them. It worked for TANG deserter Bush who Rove somehow managed to convince people was more patriotic than Silver Star recipient Kerry. When you lose by talking about the issues, why not try to make 2008 racist dog whistle Hillary into a racial justice warrior over the guy that has proven it in words and actions his entire career? Why not try to turn the person who was against gay marriage up through 2013 into the gay activist over the guy who supported gay marriage decades before it was fashionable?
And WHATEVER you do, avoid talking about economic policies.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This is nothing new to DU ... Point out racism/sexism/misogyny/heterosexism on the Left and one gets the label divisive; you are the problem, not the person/people doing the racist/sexist/misogynistic/heterosexist stuff.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)I noticed you didn't mention 'anti Hispanic'. As Hispanics are Caucasian, and thereby not covered by 'Racism', is there any reason, you didn't mention 'anti-Hispanic'?
may I read that anti-Hispanic sentiment is not a concern of yours?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And there are other permutations. You should know that before commenting about them in this context.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/15/is-being-hispanic-a-matter-of-race-ethnicity-or-both/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
I am a mixed race Latino/Hispanic person with African, Indigenous and Caucasian ancestry.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I choose not to quibble on that point.
Hispanics are NOT Caucasians. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (See footnote: B)
No, you may not ... But thanks for asking.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You know a nerve has been struck when the responses are "but, but, but, Bernie did this for 50 years, and Bernie marched with MLK, or Bernie is trying to address racial issues blah, blah, blah"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It appears that Bernie has done enough on racism for white (and some non-white) Bernie supporters ... it doesn't matter that his message doesn't/hasn't resonate(d) with the group most directly affected by racism.
frylock
(34,825 posts)either she struck a nerve, or the silence is deafening. Either one will suffice for the inductive reasoning of those that participate in these circle jerks.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
How about: This is nothing new to DU ... Point out on DU the racism/sexism/misogyny/heterosexism of those DUers that claim to be on the Left and one gets the label divisive; you are the problem, not the person/people on DU doing the racist/sexist/misogynistic/heterosexist stuff.
Better?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)How do you feel when some GOP politician or Fox News calls Obama a "leftist" and mentions him in the same breath as ex SDS member Bill Ayres and Jerimah Wright and Saul Alinsky and 3rd World Muslim Dictators?
Characterizing everyone who is white and has "progressive" viewpoints on the economy is equally broad brush.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)KittyWampus:
"I agree with you. But gay activists who want 'gay marriage' seem to think that
if they just repeat their argument over and over enough times people will magically suddenly say "Oh, you are RIGHT".
There is no real plan or strategy amongst gay activists on how to educate American voters or opening their minds.
And meanwhile, even blue states continue to pass bans on gay marriage.
I am totally sympathetic to the cause. But too many people have an axe to grind and ultimately aren't interested in finding a solution to this."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2684977
So in that case she is highly critical of equality activists advocating in any way at all, much less by using disruptive tactics. It's an axe to grind, they think if they keep repeating it people will agree. She's accusing us of weaponizing our own rights which she calls 'gay marriage' with 'snark quotes'.
Hypocrisy. A brand of hypocrisy that is rife on DU currently.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, somehow diminish the point of the OP regarding the false "weaponization" narrative?
On another note ... We all have said/wrote stuff that, given time and/or more thought (or reflection), we would not say again. Some will own it, others will not.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)her take in the OP. This is very common on DU recently as I have pointed out to you. People who were furious at LGBT activists who now claim they can't understand how anyone could be upset with activists of any kind.
When I see that sort of fluid and situational point of view I know I am looking not at issue advocacy but at partisan politics exploiting issues of equality to make which ever point suits the partisan that day. That is a misuse of those issues.
This is very common on DU currently. The OP has often accused LGBT activists of being very much in the wrong, as I quoted. She now chides those who do not instantly give all license to activists, which she sure as shit never did.
Look when I see the person who refused to sell me ice cream handing out free cones to all the straight kids, I'm going to mention it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)She absolutely is not doing that. Perhaps, you should re-read her OP for what she actually says, not for the grievance you are pressing.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Of course that's what you mean.
For the issues of race in this country, Bernie Sanders has a steady and reliable record for standing with persons of color, unlike any other candidate so far.
Why would you attack the only candidate with any integrity on this issue?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Everything else is just spin.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)There has been no poll of POC on whose record on race is better. But even if there were such a poll and the majority of POC said that Clinton's record was better, I would have to go with the minority. Or is the majority always right?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)notice.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)As Clinton did last election. And the moderate portion of the Democratic Party helped push racist policies like get tough on crime and drug war laws. The moderates that Clinton is a leader of have weapon used race in the past and will continue to.
Racism can't be addressed on its own, if it is going to be addressed, it has to be addressed in the way it reaches into all areas of society. The people who think racism is a separate issue are the same people on the Republican side who cannot understand institutional racism and don't think racism exists.
Democratic African Americans are, as a group, one of the most conservative in the Democratic Party. That is the big challenge Sanders will have in reaching out to them, and with winning the Democratic Party nomination, as the party as a whole is much more conservative than Sanders.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)you are using the racial justice movement as a "weapon" against one of the candidates and injecting it into this primary and when you and others are called on it the implication is that we are attacking the racial justice movement itself. pretty damn disgusting tactic.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)First of all, classism and racism are definitely 2 different things. After all, wealthy persons of color are victims of systemic racism and mistreated more than poor white folks. So, it's clear that addressing income/wealth inequality alone does not address racism (of a personal or systemic nature).
That said, the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of this issue. Hillary even employed the Southern Strategy against Obama in 2008 by not-so-subtly implying that Obama was unelectable on account of not appealing to white folks. And I don't recall her expressing opposition to the numerous policies of her husband's administration that hurt persons of color.
Lastly, read this: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_truth_about_bernie_sanders_race_why_his_biggest_weakness_could_become_his_greatest_strength/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)been around for years. According to a loud and clueless group, the people CALLING OUT the racism of the supporters of certain candidates or drawing attention to a lack of focus on racial issues are the racists, not the people hurling racist epithets or dismissing the concerns of people of color.
People like this are not worth a second of your time.
Trying to pretend those weaknesses are the fault of those pointing them out just shows how deeply that weakness penetrates their candidate.
Exactly.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Damned embarrassing to say to POC after it was pointed out only RW shit heads say things like that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What are "it's own terms" and when did it start making demands?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)again.
Each time you resort to this fabrication it is more comforting.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Dlc/3rd way democrats can try to justify their dismal record on dismantling racism. Let's start with welfare reform and the decimation of AA.