On Bernie Sanders and being a realist Progressive

On Bernie Sanders and being a realist Progressive

62 Comments
It is 2007. Our wonderful Pandora says to family and friends that the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate is a shoe-in to win the Presidency, unless of course that candidate is a black man or a woman. She of course thinks there is a lot of racism and sexism left in the world, and that would prevent either from winning a general election. And of course she was and is right. Where I disagreed with her was that the racists and sexists wouldn’t be voting for the Democrat in the general election anyway, for, after realignment over the last forty years, they were diehard Republicans. Thus, for me, thinking that race and gender were no longer barriers to winning the Presidency, I firmly believed a Democrat, any Democrat (well except maybe John Edwards) would win the general election. So, I abandoned my traditional pragmatism when it comes to voting. You see, I usually want to vote for the most progressive candidate that can win. Because winning is important to me. You don’t get to enact progressive policies to affect progressive change unless you first win an election. So in evaluating candidates, I follow my heart and mind. But in 2008, I could more follow my heart, because my mind told me any Democrat then running (save John Edwards with Gingrich-style cheating on his cancer stricken wife) could win. And so I went with Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. But now it is 2015.
Thursday Open Thread [8.13.15]

Thursday Open Thread [8.13.15]

5 Comments
Van Jones:
Over the years, many black leaders have asked the populists to include specific remedies for our specific ills. We have done this politely and behind closed doors. Often we would hear that their "progressive economic policies" would disproportionately help black folks, so we should be fine with our community's needs never being addressed by name. It was infuriating. Sometimes, it seemed some Democratic politicians were happy to publicly name and embrace every part of the Democratic coalition -- immigrants rights defenders, womens' rights advocates, environmentalists and champions of LBGT equality. But not black people. At least, not explicitly -- and certainly not comfortably. We were just supposed to sit there and hope that race-neutral rhetoric and race-neutral proposals might somehow fix our race-specific problems. I starting calling this dubious strategy "trickle-down justice." Today's young activists simply are not having any of it. In case anyone missed the memo after Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston, here it is: the Obama era of black silence on issues that matter to us is over. And the entire Democratic Party needs to sit up and take notice.
It's the holdover of the Democratic Party's fear of being the Democratic Party that took hold in the 70's after southern racists, who were once Democrats, became Republicans after we passed the Civil Rights Act. We couldn't publicly acknowledge that African Americans are a constituent of our party and their concerns are our concerns, and thus we have specific policies to address African American problems, because that might piss off Southern or Midwestern whites who once were Democrats. And then when Obama became our party leader and later President, the CW was that it would be unseemly if an African American explicitly used his power and bully pulpit to help his own people. Demographics are such now that the Democratic Party can win national elections easily without even being on the ballot in the South now. So Fuck the South. Fuck racist whites. As for ending the Obama Era of Silence, I think that is over. In fact, I am not precisely Obama ever himself adhered to the Obama Era of Silence. Hell, remember the beer summit early in his Presidency? That was the result of Obama speaking up on racial injustice where he saw it.