The Kangaroo Court and Bernie Sanders

[farleftlib]

Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

For many months now, Bernie Sanders has faced accusations from various media and political sources that he has a "race problem." For example, he moved from New York to lily-white Vermont, his rallies are filled with white faces, his focus on economic policies and his overreliance on his civil rights activities from the distant past. That he wasn't seriously harmed during his activist period.
That he is colorblind. That he spoke condescendingly to members Black Lives Matter.

The worst part, IMHO, is that his civil rights bona fides have been called into question, scrutinized and dismissed as insignificant or nonexistent as if he had claimed to be a civil rights hero, made a serious gaffe, or some racist skeleton had been found in his closet. When this meme, for that's what it is, actually came out of left field apropos of his encroachment on demographics believed to belong exclusively to Hillary Clinton.

The problem is that the people making these accusations, and that have put Sanders' candidacy on trial, not only want to play the prosecution's role, but also judge, jury and executioner. They have proposed that the prosecution will never rest and that defense is not only implausible, but not permitted to be enacted because mounting a defense of Sanders is racist. Or pandering. Or Berniesplaining. I'm sorry but that is stifling dissent at best and race baiting at worst.

The failure of the political discourse to address these concerns without descending into name-calling long predates this primary. Witnesses for or against Bernie Sanders are either deemed off-limits or hopelessly compromised. Subjects are considered taboo. Who decides? AAs get to determine which issues are the most important to them and reject any candidate they believe falls short. But when they smear him by promoting Capeheart's and Brock's obvious biases and conflicts of interest, it's time to chop it up.

You want to call white liberals racists? Go ahead, have at it. But how can you tell white people or POC Bernie supporters their input is irrelevant and unwelcome when you're making blanket condemnations? Are we guilty of microinvalidations during these discussions? More than likely. But the stakes are way too high for either side to keep quiet or walk on eggshells for fear of the eagerly pointing finger of the opposition.

Like it or not, MLK and the Poor People's Campaign and Sanders' economic populist platform are closely related. He's promoting voting rights. He has a 100% rating from NAACP. He, not Clinton, is calling for an end to for-profit prisons and police brutality. I will continue to bring up these important issues because that's what supporters do for their candidate while the game is still in play. Especially when there are multiple threads a day denouncing him while people are still making up their minds.

It feels as though we've been transported back into the early Bush presidency after 9/11 when Ari Fleisher remonstrated, "You need to watch what you say, watch what you do." Nowadays it's, "You're not doing your candidate any favors by bringing this up." Yes, we are all doing him a favor when we dispute tired old canards.

Rep. James Clyburn recently endorsed Hillary Clinton but in 2008 he opined there was an almost unanimous view among AA that the Clintons would do anything and everything necessary to damage Obama to the point he would never be elected. He made the case that Clinton is the better candidate in a room full of young AA Bernie Sanders supporters. They were not moved. Both candidates have high-profile supporters in the AA community. This is the time for not against, a discussion of issues facing all voters.

Hillary is capable of acts of racism that are anti-democratic and that should chill voters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511272815

[farleftlib]

1. edited to add link n/t