An Attempt To Figure Out Why I’m Still Not Feeling The Bern
pandora
I’m going to just put everything out there – which means this post will probably be all over the place.
Forgive me for repeating myself, but one of my biggest issues with Bernie Sanders is his limited platform and the way all, and I do mean all, roads lead to income equality. That just isn’t enough for me. There isn’t any acknowledgement that a rising tide does not lift all boats equally. And there definitely isn’t enough focus on the systemic hurdles that face minority groups in this scenario.
I can give examples of this, but others have done it better.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has several posts that reflect my feelings:
Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:
No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.
So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.
For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”
Exactly. Bernie saying that getting reparations through Congress is nil (I agree with that) ignores the fact that getting his agenda through Congress is nil, as well. Being pragmatic on this issue confuses me. It strikes me as such a divergence from his stated agenda. His use of the word “divisive” is interesting. Who is it dividing?
It’s not that I see a path to/towards reparations. I don’t. It’s that Bernie Sanders, a candidate that most agree won’t be able to enact his agenda (no matter how much we agree with it) is suddenly a pragmatist. BTW, this isn’t a post about reparations; it’s a post about why a candidate who openly calls for a revolution is suddenly citing how Congress works today. Either getting things through Congress is possible, or it’s not.
But ultimately, Johnson doesn’t reject reparations because he doesn’t think they would work, but because he doesn’t believe specific black injury through racism actually exists. He favors a “more Marxist class-oriented analysis” over the notion of treating “black poverty as fundamentally distinct from white poverty.” Johnson declines to actually investigate this position and furnish evidence—even though such evidence is not really hard to find.
Courtesy of Emily Badger, this is a chart of concentrated poverty in America—that is to say families which are both individually poor and live in poor neighborhoods. Whereas individual poverty deprives one of the ability to furnish basic needs, concentrated poverty extends out from the wallet out to the surrounding institutions—the schools, the street, the community center, the policing. If individual poverty in America is hunger, neighborhood poverty is a famine. As the chart demonstrates, the black poor are considerably more subject to famine than the white poor. Indeed, so broad is this particular famine that its reach extends out to environs that most would consider well-nourished.
[…]
In its pervasiveness, concentration, and reach across class lines, black poverty proves itself to be “fundamentally distinct” from white poverty. It would be much more convenient for everyone on the left if this were not true—that is to say if neighborhood poverty, if systemic poverty, menaced all communities equally. In such a world, one would only need to craft universalist solutions for universal problems.
But we do not live that world. We live in this one:
This chart by sociologist Patrick Sharkey quantifies the degree to which neighborhood poverty afflicts black and white families. Sociologists like Sharkey typically define a neighborhood with a poverty rate greater than 20 percent as “high poverty.” The majority of black people in this country (66 percent) live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The vast majority of whites (94 percent) do not. The effects of this should concern anyone who believes in a universalist solution to a particular affliction.
There’s a discussion to be had on these issues – one that involves more than income inequality, breaking up banks, single payer health care and free college tuition for all. We have discussed these very differences on this blog. We’ve discussed it when it comes to high-poverty, racially identifiable schools. We have discussed it when we’ve pointed out food deserts and red-lining. And I really don’t understand why Sanders applies a one size fits all to his message. Surely there’s room to address these issues as well? It’s the absence of these issues that leaves me wanting.
Moving on…
Why does Bernie Sanders remind me of Ralph Nader? It might be because he’s not a Democrat, and that may very well hurt down ticket Dems. Raising money for and supporting Dem candidates is important to me. It’s also part of the job for the nominated Head of the Party, especially if the nominee wants a chance at enacting their agenda. (BTW, there’s the electability argument in a nut shell) But it might have more to do with this comment:
That’s exactly what Ralph Nader said. How did that work out? And let’s not forget that one of the big jobs for our nominee (Head of the Party) will be to support down ticket Dem candidates. Can Sanders do this for a moderate Dem? I’m not sure since it goes against his message.
I’m also over the Progressive title contest. To many Sander’s supporters I am not a Progressive. It bothers me that this tactic is one of Sanders favorites. Maybe that’s why I hesitate? Either I’m 100% with Bernie or I’m out, complete with my Progressive label rescinded. It’s fine to debate Progressive policies. I love that! It’s wrong to debate over who really is a Progressive.
I feel the same way when it comes to women issues. Income inequality affects women (and minorities, see above) differently. Even if Bernie succeeded in enacting his agenda, women and minorities would still lag behind. Surely we can address this too? And maybe that’s why while I agree with Bernie’s message it feels incomplete.
Where exactly does the Sander’s campaign place women and minority issues? So far, they are missing, even though these issues could fit easily into his stump speeches. The fact that they’re missing really bothers me. Not kidding, this is a biggie for me. It’s what he’s not saying.
Basically, if feminism and minority issues matter one day, but not the next – that they are reduced to a distraction, a side issue, and not important enough to be addressed – I have a problem with that. These are not side issues to me. They should be part of Bernie Sanders’ message. They are important, and the fact they could be so easily inserted into Bernie’s speeches, yet aren’t, gives me pause.
If I’m leaning towards Hillary Clinton then Sanders’ supporters should try and convince me why I shouldn’t. I’m open to listening. Lord knows I’ve said it enough on here. So far, here on DL and elsewhere, you’re not convincing me. Example: Sanders’ answer during the debate on foreign policy should have generated a lot of concern. Why is he given a pass on this? His answer demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge, yet it was sorta brushed off. So, I worry. I worry that some Sanders’ supporters aren’t vetting their candidate. I worry when they brush off the “socialist” label like it will have no impact. I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this.
Yesterday I wrote this comment (it relates to what I said in the paragraph above):
I know where the candidates stand on most issues (based on votes and comments) but what I don’t know is how they stand on these issues compared to one another. That’s important to me. Not only where they stand, but also how (or even if) they would prioritize these issues. If candidates say police brutality (just an example) is wrong but have no plans to address the issue then, to me, that’s a problem. See what I’m saying?
I know Bernie’s #1 issue, what I don’t know is what other issues matters to him and how he’d prioritize them. Is that really to much to ask? It obviously seems to be too much to answer. Instead, across the board, we get… pretty much everything Hillary did was bad, she hasn’t accomplished much (other than bad things), she’s a corporate shrill, gave speeches to Goldman Sachs for money, isn’t trustworthy, her voice isn’t melodious, her marriage isn’t real, judge her by her husband’s actions/policies, it’s sexist to vote for her because she’s a woman, she’s corrupt, a liar, the same as a Republican, and on and on.
So much for a policy discussion. I’m beginning to think that’s deliberate, probably because both candidates agree on more than they disagree. That’s true, btw.
