- This topic has 24 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
#BERNIEORBUST PROVES ONE THING — WHITE LIBERALS FEEL ENTITLED TO IDEOLOGICAL PURITY
The mostly white Bernie supporters ‘protesting’ the DNC and turning on their idol shows the privilege they enjoy, especially while minorities are targeted this election.Justin Baragona July 25, 2016
While there was a hope that Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton earlier this month and his promise to help her defeat Donald Trump was going to quell any tension at this week’s Democratic National Convention, that all came crashing down over the weekend with the release of leaked DNC emails. In what is looking more and more like a coordinated effort by Russia to negatively impact the Democrats’ chances in November, Bernie supporters found new outrage over the critical comments outgoing DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz had for Sanders’ campaign.
Therefore, we’ve been treated to marches and ‘protests’ by #BernieOrBust dead-enders the past couple of days, culminating with them booing — yes, booing — Bernie Sanders when he said told them in a Monday afternoon speech that they need to unite and vote for Hillary to defeat Trump. The Vermont Senator had to interrupt them and tell that that “this is the real world we live in” when they chanted “We want Bernie!” in response to his call for a Democratic win this fall.
Of course, the WikiLeaks thing is just being used as an excuse for the #StillSanders folks to demand Bernie be coronated at the convention despite his falling 4 million votes and hundreds of pledged delegates short in the primary. These voters, who are generally under 40 and a vast majority of whom are white, were coming to Philly no matter what. And their plan was to disrupt the convention, make it clear that they think the system is rigged, and that Hillary Clinton stole the primary from the right heir.
But what are they really, truly fighting for? Over the past few months, Hillary has embraced many of Bernie’s policy positions. She’s turned her back on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She’s pushed forth a debt-free college education plan and moved left on healthcare, calling for a public option and a reduction in age to receive Medicare. She wants to increase the minimum wage to at least $12 an hour.
Beyond that, Bernie scored major concessions with the party’s platform, getting pretty much everything he wanted included. Sure, there were some minor quibbles, but the Democratic platform is by far the most progressive one the party has run on. There’s even going to be further discussions about changing the primaries and perhaps altering the superdelegate system.
But, that is apparently not enough. While a racist demagogue who is cozying up with a Russian autocrat and outwardly saying he will change this country to a fascist state is leading in the polls, these special snowflakes are throwing temper tantrums in Philadelphia’s streets because their guy didn’t win. And why didn’t he win? Because he never made inroads with black voters, leading to large losses in the South and Mid-Atlantic states.
And this is the point I am getting to. White liberals are revealing their privilege to the world for all to see right now. Their demands for ideological purity, specific causes to be placed front and center and only perfectly liberal candidates are the demands one can only make if they aren’t placed at risk during an election. The fact is, black, Hispanic, Muslim and LGBT voters don’t have the luxury of holding out for the perfect like these progressives do.
For minorities, especially those who have historically been marginalized and are demonized by the far-right to rally conservative votes, civil rights trump everything else. Sure, many would probably love to push a candidate further on certain issues, but when it comes down to it, they will vote for the Democrat because they need to protect the civil rights gains of the past several decades.
This is something we’ve seen for a while, too. In 2010, progressives bitched that President Obama was just too centrist and trying to appease Republicans, spending all of his time trying to pass healthcare reform. Therefore, Democrats lost the House — which they had just gained back in 2006 — during the Tea Party takeover. In 2014, upset at the number of moderate incumbents and candidates on the slate, they sat out again, allowing the GOP to retake the Senate and gain even more seats in the House. All the while, Republicans made more and more gains in state and local legislatures and executive branches.
And it is this sort of all-or-nothing, my way or the highway, I’ll take my ball and go home approach that makes it impossible for the Democratic Party to make sustainable gains. There is a certain core group of voters who feel that unless the United States immediately embraces someone who will make the country one large Portlandia, then they’ll stick it to the party, by either not showing up or making it clear that they’re going third-party.
The thing is, this ain’t you supporting your favorite indy band, pointing out how much you can’t stand mainstream music. This isn’t you only going to the art house to see Jim Jarmusch films. This is the future of this country, and how non-white, non-heterosexual people will be treated going forward. If you declare yourself as being fully for social justice, then you have no choice but to vote Hillary in November. Otherwise, you ain’t nuthin’ but a Trumpkin.
Not sure I can add humor to the debate here, either, but I will say I’ve grown quite tired of the “ideological purity” strawman, along with “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
I run into these memes on another forum dominated, by centrist Dems, and I try to say to them, No one is asking for “ideological purity”. We’re just asking for “much better.” No one is asking for “the perfect.” We’re just asking for “much better.” Oh, and given that we haven’t seen “the good” as an option in things like the ACA or Dodd-Frank, “the perfect” isn’t in danger of forcing “the good” out in the first place.
Cornel West (also) pushed back against the “purity” strawman on my TV this morning, saying that it (purity) wasn’t human, and he and others like him focus on the human.
Also: I reject the frame that it’s supposedly easy for people of privilege to hold fast to their principles,
Oh as it happens I believe that one bit completely.
I see it on an everyday basis, too.
And of course privilege here means “white privilege.”
You look long and hard and close enough at white privilege, you can see—to quote Noah Cross from Chinatown—it’s “capable of ANYTHING.”
Also: I reject the frame that it’s supposedly easy for people of privilege to hold fast to their principles,
Oh as it happens I believe that one bit completely.
I see it on an everyday basis, too.
And of course privilege here means “white privilege.”
You look long and hard and close enough at white privilege, you can see—to quote Noah Cross from Chinatown—it’s “capable of ANYTHING.”
Well, perhaps a better way of putting this: It’s not at all easier for those who seek rapid change than the same privileged class who insist we must take baby steps, “or nothing ever gets done!!”
As in, people of privilege have it easier when it comes to either option, or any option, so it’s pretty ridiculous to go all “holier than thou” against the people who talk about the tremendous urgency involved. I just reject that the case is better for people of privilege who insist on the “sensible” and “reasonable” route, which takes decades, if it ever happens at all. And our history has been — at least since the 1970s — of one step forward, two or more steps back. So even on their own grounds, it’s not working.
Also: I reject the frame that it’s supposedly easy for people of privilege to hold fast to their principles,
Oh as it happens I believe that one bit completely.
I see it on an everyday basis, too.
And of course privilege here means “white privilege.”
You look long and hard and close enough at white privilege, you can see—to quote Noah Cross from Chinatown—it’s “capable of ANYTHING.”
Well, perhaps a better way of putting this: It’s not at all easier for those who seek rapid change than the same privileged class who insist we must take baby steps, “or nothing ever gets done!!”
As in, people of privilege have it easier when it comes to either option, or any option, so it’s pretty ridiculous to go all “holier than thou” against the people who talk about the tremendous urgency involved. I just reject that the case is better for people of privilege who insist on the “sensible” and “reasonable” route, which takes decades, if it ever happens at all. And our history has been — at least since the 1970s — of one step forward, two or more steps back. So even on their own grounds, it’s not working.
But the point is, for a lot of us encased in white privilege, the CONSEQUENCES of certain kinds of things is far more immediate and unavoidable. White privilege means race not class and it translates out into being, mostly, straight white male privilege. If we can’t see how others who are outside of that might be more anxious about consequences, then, really, we’re not seeing anything. I have friends—for example, non-white lesbians I know at work—who know full well that they will lose things under Trump. It won’t be status quo for them. They can’t afford the luxury of unpragmatic purity. The actual result is I can’t debate this stuff with them. They are deeply mired in their own immediate interests and self-concern. In contrast if I wanted to, I could go home, unplug the tv, never read the news, and would suffer only minor differences. Not everyone has that luxury the way I do.
And btw on this issue, everyone “is holier than thou.” It’s that tricky an issue. This is one of those cases where telling someone else they’re being holier than thou IS being holier than thou.
So I get past the name-calling stage and just say to myself, what percentage of those fears (others fears) is real, and what does it mean to me that it’s real. How does thinking about that influence my decisions.
It’s all very real even if I would have written that editorial differently.
…
Yeah Sanders is what Chomsky said he was, a new deal type.
But I think steering away from race is a white straight male privilege move.
And to me unless it has equal parts race and gender in it along with class, it’s not even the left.
None of this is easy. It;s mangled tangled and bumpy. There will never be anyone who gets it all right. Dismissing race though is a mistake. In the USA you can’t think class without race being part of it. And once that is realized, then there’s a lot of challenging and conflict-laden ideas to work through. None of us will get it “right” either.
__
I’m not seeing people dismissing race. I see some using it to steer the conversation back to mainstream Democratic/GOP status quo. An attempt to shame people into just shutting up and clapping louder, especially young people, filled with passion, ideals, energy and the desire for change.
And, no, these discussions really don’t need a certain preset balance in order to be “the left.” That sounds like a demand for “purity,” IMO.
__
And to me unless it has equal parts race and gender in it along with class, it’s not even the left.
__
Again, I think you and I just aren’t dealing with the same interpretation of things here. It’s the proverbial talking past each other. So on that note, I think I’m gonna head out.
Enjoy the weekend!
Of course, it goes without saying that it shouldn’t be just privileges whites talking to other privileged whites — in the media, in government, etc. etc.
Just saying that when it is, it can often devolve into a “holier than thou,” self-serving event for the few, and that really doesn’t solve a thing, ever. From what I’ve seen, it also draws rebuke from POC public figures — or laughter, or scorn, etc. etc.
And, om that note, I really have to get out of here and find some super-powerful cough and cold medicine. Not that any of that ever seems to work for me.
Edit: Thanks for your reply, ZN. Much appreciated.
Best to you and yours.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
