If Sanders' attempt to win black voters is a redux of 2016, it won't be enough

[Soph0571]

The focus of his speeches, the guests that accompanied him on stage, and his visit to Selma, Alabama to commemorate the 54th anniversary of Bloody Sunday made it clear that the Sanders’ campaign believes it must improve its black outreach.

But it was also clear to those who tuned in that his approach to winning over black voters in 2020 is going to look a lot like 2016. And that’s probably not going to be enough.
----------
Part of the critique against Sanders is that his class-based economic policies crowd the distinct experiences of black Americans out of his agenda. The universal programs he supports – $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, tuition-free college – don’t address head-on the stubborn racial disparities that persist even among similarly situated black and white Americans. Certainly, racial and economic inequalities are entangled, but race remains the primary determinant of one’s socioeconomic status.

In Chicago, Sanders acknowledged this inconvenient truth. “Our campaign is about fundamentally ending the disparity of wealth and power in this country,” he told the audience of more than 12,000. “But as we do that, we must speak out against the disparity within the disparity.” He then listed a number of troublesome racial disparities concerning the wealth gap, infant and maternal mortality rates, health outcomes and the criminal justice system.

And then he moved on.
-----------
But if the goal of his campaign launch weekend was to woo black voters with his reliable message on economic inequality interspersed with personal narrative, it fell short.

The first primary votes won’t be cast for another 10 months; the election season is long. If Sanders is serious about winning over black voters, it will be evident in every speech, visit and interview from this point forward. But if his 2020 reintroduction is a 2016 redux, his showing among black voters is likely to remain the same.

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/bernie-sanders-2020-presidential-run-black-voters|

And therein we see problem 101. Old white dudes of a socialist persuasion do not 'get' identity politics, and how minority voters need to know that whoever they vote for 'gets'' their inequality. If your position is if we raise people out of poverty, everyone gains, without a proper recognition of the systemic discrimination of minority groups within that model, than why would those who have the most to lose vote for you? We see the same in the UK with Corbyn.

[RandySF]

1. Sanders's problem

is the failure to acknowledge in his speeches that minority groups, especially blacks, face additional obstacles to upward mobility.

[NurseJackie]

3. Considering the demographics of Vermont...

... well, there's no denying that Vermont lacks ethic diversity.

[madville]

4. What will acknowledging actually do though, he will then be criticized for

Just providing lip service without an actual plan.

What could he actually suggest as a plan to correct that issue besides more benefits and social safety nets for everyone to take advantage of?

[Garrett78]

5. To repeat what I've written before on this topic...

This, more than policy differences in general, is really what separates some Democrats from others. Along with some differences over how to best get from point A to point B (such as how to get from the current health care system to a universal health care system, which has long been part of the Democratic Party platform). The notion that there's this huge divide over issues like health care and climate change is bullshit. What Bernie Sanders and others don't seem to understand is that they're cutting off their collective nose to spite their collective face. There is strength in numbers, and if you want to bring about progressive policy, we first need to increase the number of Democrats in power. Logic 101, folks. And being dismissive of identity politics (while at the same time wanting to focus on the "white working class" as if white isn't an identity) is self-defeating and just plain ignorant.

Colorblind racism is real and Dems aren't immune to it. Sanders, Tim Ryan (yes, Democrats from across the spectrum are united in this) and others (including their supporters) don't seem to realize or care that they often sound just like a Republican arguing against affirmative action when they talk about race, while promoting the bullshit narrative that other Dems only want to elect women and POC for the sake of electing women and POC (you see that line of attack used here at DU on a daily basis). Not a single Democrat is making that argument, yet you wouldn't know it from many of the comments that argue Dems are doing just that. It's insulting and ignorant.

Let's make no mistake, though, studies have made clear that the interests/concerns of women and persons of color are, generally speaking, best represented by women and persons of color in public office. So, yes, there is a great deal of value in having more POC and women in office. And it's so incredibly crucial that we eliminate systemic racism and systemic sexism. We won't do that by acting as if class politics rules the day or by taking POC and women for granted. We must emphasize and address systemic racism and systemic sexism specifically. For one thing, justice must be served. For another thing, Republican Party viability depends on racism and sexism. It's not right wing health care policy or right wing economic policy or right wing environmental policy that maintains support for the Republican Party. There is no national Republican Party without racism and sexism.

After the 2016 election, Sanders (at a post-election town hall in Wisconsin) helped push the notion that most Trump supporters aren't racist and that they're just driven by economic anxiety. And that Democrats talk too much about identity politics and not enough about economics. Never mind that both of those narratives have been proven false.

1) https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study

2) https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech

And let's not forget Bernie's excusing those who aren't "comfortable" voting for a Black candidate.

In one breath, it's bashing identity politics. In the next breath, it's "let's talk about the white working class" ('cause, you know, white isn't an identity...white is just 'normal').

The writing was on the wall after Super Tuesday in 2016. Sanders had no path, and this matter gets to the core of why that was. It isn't about radicalism or left vs. center. Once again, I think Sanders will essentially be done after New Hampshire. And not because he advocates for single payer or free college.