But replace “incarcerated people” with “sex workers” and you can see why policies like not letting prisoners vote and not letting sex workers have bank accounts seem reasonable to some people. Replace with “immigrants” and you see why people want a wall at the border.
People in prison are still people. Sex workers are still people. Immigrants are still people, and we need to start poking our representatives to see the same thing. Not just in the US, either. Everybody deserves the right to vote. Everybody deserves the right to live.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) first entered the auditorium to thunderous applause. He was asked about addressing gender-based violence and the Equal Rights Amendment. When questioned about policies that would specifically help women of color, Sanders spoke about his broader platform, drawing cheers for his pledge to provide tuition-free public college and to erase student loan debt. But the audience lost patience when Sanders deflected on two questions his team should have been well prepared to address: how to engage Black women voters, and how to address white nationalism and terrorism.
Sayu Bhojwani, founder and president of New American Leaders, an organization that helps first- and second-generation Americans seek elected office, asked Sanders, “What do you believe is the federal government’s role to fight against the rise of white nationalism and white terrorist acts, and how do you plan to lead on that in your first year as president?” Citing the recent string of Louisiana church fires, Bhojwani talked about the need to address “terrorist attacks by white men to enact fear upon people of color.”
Sanders gave a general response referring to Trump and demagoguery, but he went back to his standard lines about universal programs and comprehensive immigration reform, seemingly missing the purpose of the question. When Allison followed up, explaining that the question was about white supremacist violence, Sanders referenced his attendance at the March on Washington in the 1960s and his support for Jesse Jackson during the 1988 presidential campaign. It was clear the audience did not appreciate his deflection, as some in the audience booed and others groaned.
Unfortunately, instead of trying to understand the audience’s frustration, some in Sanders’ campaign responded by attacking the She The People attendees. At a rally the next day in Fort Worth, Texas, former state Sen. Nina Turner, co-chair of the Sanders campaign, mischaracterized what transpired at the forum and by doing so, blew a small moment out of proportion.
We do not move beyond the Democratic Party’s status quo of taking women of color—and, specifically, Black women—for granted by recreating similar hierarchies of worth and access within a progressive movement space. Positioning Black women and women of color who challenge Sanders as wrong or bad is no different than Democratic Party apparatus maligning us for taking strong stances. The inability to consider criticism and dissent, as well as the failure to address it over the last few years, is obvious. Being a “good person” or “walking the walk” isn’t enough, and all candidates need to speak consistently, boldly, and firmly about a host of issues.
As Bhojwani noted, “It is important that our future president is able to read a room, and understand who is in that room and speak to us authentically, not to pander to an audience. There is a difference between speaking authentically to a room and pandering. We didn’t want pandering from anyone. But in his case, the specific issue around the ‘booing’ is a function of talking about marching with Dr. King to a room full of women whose parents and grandparents were a part of the civil rights movement … and who are now grappling with contemporary issues related to race.
I like Bernie, I voted for him in the last primary. But he’s not giving any indication that he understands intersectionality, or the struggles of POC. Sure, his socialist policies might do some good, under “a rising tide lifts all boats” theory… but it won’t go far enough to deal with the rising white supremacist movement and blatant, public racism in our society.
I’d like to hear what Warren’s answers to the same questions would be. I like her more and more due to her well-thought-out proposals.
Bernie’s policies were very appealing to me but I have never been able to shake the unease I felt around him with respect to issues of race and gender.
One uses glossy PR to hawk vague, feel-good prescriptions for what ails the American left that turn out not to have any substance, and the other is…well you know where this is going…
Yeah, that and his hot take on marijuana: “I still believe it’s a gateway drug. I’ve spent a lot of my life as chairman of the Judiciary Committee dealing with this. I think it would be a mistake to legalize.”
A friend of mine posted some praise of Elizabeth Warren, and a man jumped in to say, “It’s a moot point because she’s not going to get into office. With any luck Bernie Sanders is going to do that.” I’ve heard a lot of white men explain that Warren can’t win because she’s wonky, and then when I mention that our last two Democratic presidents were famously wonky, I get to hear why they had charisma and Warren doesn’t.
I am a middle-aged blue-eyed blonde woman and quite possibly wonky myself, or at least stuffed with a lot of obscure information and vocabulary words, and so I find Elizabeth Warren magnificent and if that word “relatable” is not going to die an overdue death, that too. When she talks about dismantling big tech or calls for impeachment with a voice full of conviction or delivers another of her well-crafted plans to change the world, that’s compelling and exactly what I hope to see in a leader. And I find Kamala Harris questioning Jeff Sessions and Brett Kavanaugh until they jellify riveting and supremely skilled and powerful, which is maybe what we mean by charismatic.
But I’m a woman, so I’ve always been aware that what I like is not what everyone likes. After all another friend reported a man saying Warren’s voice “makes my balls shrivel,” electability apparently tied to the gender-specific sparking of joy in the scrotum. It reminds me of Kanye West saying of his MAGA hat “But this hat, it gives me power in a way. My dad and my mom separated, so I didn’t have a lot of male energy in my home. There was something about putting this hat on that made me feel like Superman.” West is extremely not white, but he does ace unconscious bias with his widely shared male idea that a president or a presidential candidate should have the same general effect as Viagra, and he does remind me that the 2016 election sometimes seemed to be, for too many heterosexual men, an erectile referendum.
For what little its worth, I do think its a thing. A thing which is distinct from a “working class value set” or “a wealthy class value set”. I have come across all of these, and I am often strike by the divergences.
Oh man this thread is the only place I can vent about how much I like Warren and how every goddamned time that comes up I get chastised for being Schrodinger’s Bernie Boy… and not that’s not a dig at this blog or BBS…it’s the whole internet so far as I can tell. Warren witches. Just once at least call me that when you whole cloth dismiss my thoughts and values without a moment of introspection.
What do they mean to you, do you mind expanding? I’m actually curious. These kinds of phrases always seem totally meaningless to me and easily filled by the imagination. For instance from my perspective core values of middle class America are alcoholism and the belief you are inherently superior to anyone poorer than you.
