My Response to "You're White and Marched with Dr. King: So what?"

    ImaniImani Gandy who writes "Angry Black Lady Chronicles" is angry at Bernie Sanders. She excoriates him profanely for his admittedly poor response to activists at the Netroots Conference who disrupted first Martin O'Malley and then Sanders and mocks his involvement in the civil rights movement.  Here's my response to Ms. Gandy.

    Any discussion with or at Bernie Sanders about race should start as follows:

    Senator Sanders - I support your bid to become the Democratic candidate for President.  Your past record on matters involving race is the best of anybody who's running by far.  Perhaps even more importantly, your record on economics, the environment, and peace demonstrate that your policies will be best for all Americans including people of color. Still, when it comes to racism which tragically remains alive and well, you haven't been as sensitive as you could and should be.  You have failed to respond specifically to police killings of unarmed black people, the wealth and influence gap between blacks and whites, and the scourge of gun violence.  Could you please address these issues now?

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Hal, I started to read ABL's piece on your blog this AM and I just couldn't finish it.  Your response is exactly right:  Educate them, don't excoriate them.  Nothing good comes of trying to shame white people into thinking black.  Blacks keep telling us it can't be done--we can never slide into their skin and know what they're feeling--but dammit, we should keep trying.  And we'd better damn well parse our words correctly, or else.

    I'm really tired of having to walk on eggs over every one of these issues, just because I'm white.  I won't read any more of it.  I'll keep working at what I believe is fairness, I'll keep believing black lives matter, but I won't respond to meaningless insults by people like ABL, who get off on attacking all whites for what some whites might do.

    Now we're at fault for talking about the Civil Rights Movement, as if it was our duty to do something because we're liberals, so just shut up about it.  In fact, if we're white, just shut up.

    So, okay.  I'll just shut up.


    Men are from Mars, women from Venus. Whites are from Jupiter and Blacks from Saturn and Hispanics from Neptune. Not sure where Asians come in. It's amazing we can understand each other at all - we're just so incredibly different (aside from sharing 98 or 99% of the same genetics and having most of the hormones and biological processes and cranial/cerebral makeup the same). Humans are just so unfathomable, so deep! </snark>

    Non-Hispanic whites make up 63% of the US population. While perhaps someone will be celebrating the demise of the great white hope in 20-30 years, for now #WhiteVotesMatter. And if you consider cash-on-hand, whites are likely to be relevant for a lot longer.

    Yes, it's great we pay attention to minority issues, and that we're becoming I hope a more egalitarian and tolerant people, it's pretty gutsy to run a movement on "just focus on our problems and STFU about you" when "you" is by far the majority still. While police violence affects blacks more often than white (at a minimum proportionally, but likely by even raw numbers), Digby publishes a lot of taser cases that aren't just about blacks. The militarization of the police and our surveillance-snooping-paranoid-security apparatus post-9/11 does affect us all, and our eternal war on drugs does affect us all too even if disproportionate towards blacks. If you're Arabic or Muslim in general, there will be some special scary goodies Customs and the FBI saved for you. If you're Hispanic near the border, I imagine you get more harassment. And if you're female, just be prepared for the police to ask what you were wearing or why you were walking/standing/breathing *there* at *that time* as the key issues in whatever might befall you.


    Yeah, we can't know what it's like to be black, but we can at least understand what African-Americans tell us, and know--more or less--what their grievances are. That will have to be enough.


    Hal, I like your stuff.

    I think I already informed you of this fact.

    Imani has a point.

    And Bernie has to recognize this point.

    But nobody, is going to do more for racial problems in the country than Bernie.

    That is just my belief.

    So, it is correct to attempt to message this guy.

    I get lost.

    But there are more enemies out there to challenge I guess.

    Name one fellow or lady who is doing better with regard to this issue or these issues?


    Hillary may face a DOJ investigation over her State Department email server. Bernie may be the only viable choice for the Democrats

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought...


    Russians have hacked into the State Department email system, it is not secure as of this date. CNN:

    The issue is relevant because one criticism of the Clinton private email use is that it was likely less secure than emailing within the State Department's system.

    The laws involved include squishy words like 'knowingly blah blah' 'establish safeguards....by regulations of the archivist' and even if guilty can be settled with a fine.

    Every administration in history has destroyed, lost or misplaced records and communications. Email server history will not be a big deal in Nov. 2016.

    Cheney had his VP government records hauled off and denied the National Archives access or copies.


    I was hoping this might be the case but it turns out the Times overreached.  In fact, the investigation apparently is into State Department practices (over which of course Clinton had control) when she was Secretary.


    Thanks Richard for the kind word!  Otherwise, there is nothing for me to add or nitpick.


    It's been revealing to watch the reactions of White Liberals to this minor incident so early in the primary season. The White Moses was inconvenienced and exposed by some radical Black voices and many people are gnashing teeth and rending garments because it showed how shallow and unresponsive a Social Democrat can be. Many online comments on this incident have been reactionary, paternalistic and even racist because White issues are paramount and being the majority we must lead not follow the other races.

    Racism and especially institutional racism are not 'issues' to be added or subtracted form politicians talking points, it is a core belief system built into the fabric of our culture, law and society. MLK was eliminated when he moved from confronting the superficial, but important, visible displays of the rot underlying our society, Capitalism, militarism and Imperialism. He also was reviled by Whites and even some Blacks for beginning to confront the structural disease that our flag represents.

    Responding with anger, mansplaining, Whitesplaning  or just shutting up don't improve our chances of being educated about the repressive hell many people endure in the USA. It may be a novel concept but 'Listening' might be a good first step.

     


    I suspect terms like "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" were cooked up by Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney to keep the economically disadvantaged at each other's throats rather than uniting in support of economic and social justice.


    I donno much about Bernie and his racism, but I do know this.

    1. Anyone who thinks it was a Sunday walk in the park for liberals to support Civil Rights and get arrested in 1962 is pretty weak on the history of the 1960's, and the history of the Civil Rights movement. 

    2. People want to talk about MLK and how his views evolved? Well, gee, you know... a lot of people who've studied him actually think he got more engaged with the issue of class, and was working to focus more attention on poverty, of all Americans, what with the 1968 Poor People's Campaign and such. Which, class and poverty, would be where, you know, Bernie's head seems to be as well. 

    3. And the shouting down speakers thing, well, as an activist, I get the technique, but it's never been my fave. What it basically says to everyone is not just that my thing is the most important thing here - but also, my way of thinking about it and doing it is the way it's gotta be done. I get that it's urgent. But it's not like health care isn't urgent. Or poverty. Or global warming. Or Native issues. Thing is, if just one of those traditionally Democratic/progressive groups chooses to shut down just one debate per election season, it pretty much shuts down the whole thing. 

    Oh yeah. And that riff ABL was on abou how any black person is necessarily doing more than any white person? Just let me say two words:

    Herman Cain. 


    Bernie's problem is that he can come off sounding then he did more than blacks who faced German Shepherds and water hoses. It is possible that King would be addressing race in 2015 given police homicides and Trump's increasing popularity after making racist comments. 

     


    It's so much more than Cain. What have you done for me lately is a valid question but discounting past work with, "Isn’t that what liberals were supposed to be doing?" is ridiculous. The vast majority of liberals did not march with King. Let's face reality, the vast majority of blacks did not march with King. Those who put their bodies on the line are extremely rare and should be respected for it, or at least acknowledged. After that asking what have you done for me lately is entirely  appropriate.


    Thank you for bring up the fact that MLK did talk about poverty as a class economical issue.  This was a big influence on many of us in this generation.  Bernie is a product of that struggle then.  It was no fun getting tear gassed or have the dogs set on you. 

    What many people don't realize is the war on drugs was designed to be a pipe line to remove African Americans from society.  It moved killing minorities from public lynching to police brutality that became legal so the Jim Crow terror could continue. The GOP engineered this to keep bigots voting for them.  They never foresaw that modern technology would shed such bright light on the abuse and murders.  Most who are living comfortable lives don't have a clue as to what it is like to live in fear of the police or even that our police are out of control. They just think the jails are full of drug dealers and thieves. 

    NN15 selected Phoenix, AZ to do a forum on immigration problems and what needed to be done to move politics forward to solve this issue. NN14 was in Detroit and African American Activists were given a large forum last year. Next summer NN16 will be in St. Louis and BLM will have center stage. BLM crashed an important forum for immigration when the cameras was rolling to get attention they wanted.  It worked because Sanders was featured and it was done at the politicians' expense.  But the people who were attending that event had paid to be there and came from all over the country to hear the discussion on immigration. Undocumented people in this country are suffering too.  It is also a very big issue for Latinos.   Netroots is going to have a hard time booking important Democrats for St. Louis. The ambush may prove to be not such a good idea. 

     


    One of the topics at NN 2014 was water shutoffs for people in Detroit with delinquent water bills. These shutoffs are still being planned. It should be noted that if poor people have decreased access to water. We can logically expect that disease will be more common in the form of infectious diseases. If subscribers to NN feel hurt enough to back away from this issue because of BLM, Maybe the commitment was lukewarm to begin with.

    BLM maybe horse's behinds, or it might be that communication with black groups is somewhat one-sided in what topics get addressed and who speaks. Could it be that NN approached things from a standpoint of we will say what gets discussed with little input from black organizations. Did BLM feel that NN was missing the point?

    Reverend Barber of Moral Monday's was the keynote speaker at NN in 2014. Moral Monday's would have continued with or with support from NN. Can NN actually point to positive outcomes in the black community?


    I don't think this is ultimately about Bernie Sanders. Progressives have been gradually shifting emphasis from race to class, which is exposing new fissures on the left. The two issues are related, of course, and the vast majority of progressives care about both, but there is growing competition between those who are more focused on economic disparity and those who are more focused on racism.

    Through this lens, Sanders' past civil rights work is somewhat irrelevant. While he is clearly committed to racial equality, what drives him in 2015 is economic equality, and he is so focused on it that he barely acknowledges race concerns. His growing popularity and single-minded focus on economics threatens to draw attention and energy away from race issues, which is anathema to Gandy and others. If he were a cannier politician, he would throw the race folks a sop, but that still wouldn't resolve the underlying tension.


    Racism is to a significant degree driven by economic injustice and vice versa.  When we had less of the latter (the 50s and 60s), we made great strides addressing the former.  In the 70s and 80s, race hustlers like Reagan and Lee Atwater used the former to impose (much) more of the latter.  Seen in this light, Sanders' agenda, which unlike Clinton's will greatly reduce wealth disparities/economic injustice, is the best way to alleviate racial tensions and reduce the tension you describe.


    Hal, the two issues are certainly related, as I acknowledged in my comment, but they're not identical. For example, it's difficult to make the case that reducing income inequality will reduce police harassment and brutality against Blacks. Sure, you could argue that reducing poverty => less crime => better police-community relations, but that's too indirect and long-term for activists who are concerned about police brutality.

    There is another problem, which is a bit vaguer, but more significant I think. Emphasizing class relations, as economic leftists like Sanders do, inherently de-emphasizes race relations. It's a question of how you divide up the world. From the class p.o.v., black billionaires are as privileged a white billionaires, poor whites are as disadvantaged as poor blacks. From the race p.o.v, blacks from all walks of life share an experience of oppression that whites do not.

    Finally, there is history. Sanders and other economic progressives often appeal to the progressive pioneers of the early to mid 20th century. Sadly, many of those progressives were far less enlightened when it came to race.


    Thanks Michael.  We do see this issue somewhat differently.  I don't believe you can decouple economic injustice from racial injustice.  In other words, if there's economic injustice there will be racism.  Moreover, tensions and violence between police and blacks (I would bet) are very closely correlated to wealth disparities both between blacks and whites and between Americans generally.  Finally, there is truth to both the class and race perspectives.  Fully investigating the connections and distinctions and nuances would require a book.  Thing is I don't write them, you do.  Maybe one day.


    Hal, that's a hard correlation to defend historically. We had far less economic inequality in 1950s than we do today, but racism was far worse. If you drew two lines representing the rise of economic inequality and the decline of racism since 1950, they would be almost inverse.


    Michael - in another post, which I can't find now, I wrote that our nation has made the greatest strides fighting racial injustice when there has been a measure of economic justice.  I don't think there's any doubt that this is true.  If we consider the 40s through the 60s to be the apogee of economic justice in America, i.e. poverty rates were reduced, top marginal income tax rates were extremely high, the real minimum wage was high, I don't think there's any doubt that what I wrote is true.  From the end of the WWII through 1968, we made extraordinary strides confronting and largely eliminating legalized racism in America.  It is true that there was resistance to racial justice and that bigoted white police forces fought for segregationists.  But there was also widespread revulsion to police brutality against civil rights activists which paved the way for, among other things, the Voting Rights Act and the first African-American Supreme Court Justice.


    Yet economic inequality has been increasing ever since, and it has now reached proportions not seen since Jim Crow. By your logic, shouldn't racism be getting worse as well?


    Race relations are in many ways worse now than they've been in decades  Of course, it depends to a large degree on what segment of the population you look at.


    Get real Hal. The poll you cite of what Americans 'think' of 'race relations', 'good or bad' is an entirely subjective, typical, MSM slanted take on race relations. First they put riots in Ferguson on TV, etc etc then they ask you about what you see on TV:

    "Do you believe race relations in the United States are generally good or generally bad"

    ...as are all the other loaded questions on cops, Freddie Gray, cops in 'most communities' not your community etc. They never narrow it down to your neighborhood, your workplace, your family.

    The corporate CBS poll implies that what you see on corporate MSM/TV is all that is important, all you should believe or care about.

    Your and Watree's plan to unite everyone falls apart because polls like this, and MSM coverage on race, seeks to nurture and stoke divisiveness.

    They want corporate TV News/punditry to be the only reality that matters.

    It's Orwellian propaganda. Its objective is control of the issues and the message.

    My favorite stupid poll is a 60 year Gallup one with the question:

    "Which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future: big business, big labor, or big government?"

    Which if you have 2 connected brain cells, makes the loaded assumption that big business (or unions) and government are unconnected and operate in distinct spheres that never influence each other. Which is exactly what big corporations/business want you to believe.

     


    NCD and Mike - I'm not just looking at one poll.  We are in fact moving in the wrong direction when it comes to both racism and segregation, to the extent the two can be measured separately. On its face, Obama's election strongly suggests that Americans have moved to a post-racial society but in fact the last democratic Presidential candidate to garner over 50% of the white male vote was LBJ.

    More generally, I am perplexed that anybody would be so skeptical of my argument. History is replete with lessons showing that economic injustice and racism go hand-in-hand. Destitute southern whites overwhelmingly supported the Confederate cause. Here's Ulysses S. Grant describing the ante-bellum South on the eve of war:

    The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre--what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction.

    During the Civil War, poor Irish immigrants in New York rioted against the draft and attacked Lincoln in explicitly racist terms.

    Germany embraced the Nazis and explicit anti-semitism in 1933 when unemployment in the Weimar Republic may have exceeded 33%. But the Nazis first became prominent in the early-20s when inflation was at its height wiping out middle-class fortunes. When Germany recovered in the late-20s, the fortunes of the Nazis ebbed greatly. It took the Great Depression to resurrect Hitler, Goebbels, and Goering.  Konrad Heiden writes about this in great and fascinating detail in the early chapters of Der Fuehrer.

    Coming full circle, this blog was motivated by the hostile response of some activists to Bernie Sanders' apparent insensitivity to police killings of unarmed blacks. As you yourself point out, the Civil Rights movement is now 50 years old, yet we continue to see racial animus roiling America. Doesn't it seem likely that this results from the fact that most Americans have seen a decrease in their affluence and influence over the past half-century?

    Finally, if you challenge Bernie Sanders' (and my) assertion that the best way to fight racism is to reduce economic injustice, what do you propose as an alternative?


    Agree that economic injustice, the lack of community in things like free 100% national health insurance (national standards, mental health care, single payer, all docs 'in' the network), guaranteed housing, national standards on police procedures/law enforcement, sane national gun policy, are critical to combating racism.

    The MSM however, polls, TV News etc are not going to be a part of changing the status quo on these issues.

    If you are still on that radio show, you might consider telling your listeners that what they see on TV News, what (stupid) polls they run, too often has the sole objective of keeping eyeballs glued and numbers up, and citizen divisiveness ongoing.... belittling or excluding (as much as they can) the frank truth in the messages/issues raised by candidates like Bernie or yourself on your show.


    I was just catching some of the Diane Rehm show on the heroin overdose epidemic. From well to do neighborhoods in Maine to the hood.

    The bottom line is, marijuana is easy to get now and cheap, the feds tightened up on oxycodone scrips, so the Mexican drug cartels went into heroin to get the oxycodone addicts and top the 'high' of the now little profit marijuana.

    Mexican drug cartels are 'serving' Americans with addictions better than our federal or state governments. Does the MSM care? I think not.

    And there is, of course, no tax money to stop the epidemic. They say deaths from heroin top homicides in Baltimore and are about 1 a day.

    We need action on health care, addiction care, economic factors, they do all tie into racism, which is just a tool of the corporatist MSM, it is exploited and used to divide us, to preserve the economic and racial status quo.


    It is the number one killer in this community right now. 


    Hal, we have clearly hit a downswing this year in terms of perceptions, but how you can argue that racism has been increasing over the long run? Think back only 20 or 30 years ago, when there were no black senators, governors, or supreme court justices; David Duke was in a runoff for governor of Louisiana; Bob Jones University banned interracial dating; Spike Lee's Jungle Fever was controversial; and the Confederate flag flew over the dome of the SC statehouse. Racist police brutality was routine until Rodney King and Abner Louima brought it to the mainstream, and the events that make press today would not have been considered newsworthy. We have not eliminated racism, far from it, but we've come a long way.

    The theory you mention that economic hardship leads to racism, known as the frustration-aggression theory, is contentious, and the correlation between the two is very loose at best. I've certainly never heard anyone--other than hardcore utopian marxists--suggest that you can solve racism by solving economic injustice.

    To your question, the most obvious solution to police brutality is police reform (opposed the by the police unions, incidentally, who would otherwise be on the side of economic justice). Other ideas that I support are integrated housing and schools--which directly address race and poverty.

    Finally, to bring us back full circle, what you or I think about economic justice and race relations doesn't matter to those who are disappointed in Sanders. They don't see his 2015 agenda as race-conscious and therefore feel that it distracts from their greatest concerns. Reminding them of Sanders' past work for civil rights will not assuage that concern.


    Michael - I was drafting a very long and detailed response but somehow lost it when I clicked the wrong button.  I'll put it all together and post as a new blog since this one is becoming so unwieldy.  Give me a few days.


    Np. Sorry about the bad click. This has been a problem for a lot of people. I'll try to find a plugin that warns you if you're leaving the page.


    Mike, I think your middle para gets at a major issue here, but it needs to be expanded. 

    There's a "news hole" that gets filled every day. But it's competitive, and so issues like the economy, health care, the environment, race and others are forced up against each other for headline coverage. So it's not just that a class or economic focus de-emphasizes race, but the other way round as well.

    I've gotten to watch this, and track this, over 30 years of working on environmental issues. As the economy goes down, so too does the environment, and it's damned near a one-to-one relationship. 

    So for me, I'm glad to see things like police racism and brutality get coverage, and I'm glad the heat gets turned up there. Same with guns and mass shootings and such. Because those issues, while they relate to economic factors, also have their own dynamic. They need to get aired out. Regularly. 

    But a 2nd problem then kicks in. The tendency of the U.S. media - perhaps all media, but it always seems more amplified on our US channels - to focus on bleeding, flamboyant, extreme and violent individual cases. Guns/shootings and racist/killer cops knock your everyday economic/class analysis off the front pages or the TV news. No media outlet is gonna thrive by running story after story of families losing their houses or becoming unemployed. It's "gloomy." "Depressing." And so, the coverage will switch off after a while. Whereas bloodshed never seems to grow old. 

    But if I'm looking for long-term changes in racism by cops and by institutions at large, I guess I feel the economic situation if a fairly necessary part of the equation. As more and more of the black population gain economic stability, have solid jobs, gain their own homes, etc., their traction when it comes to the long hard slog of voting and organizing to clean out racist and corrupt local cops grows. Because while I'm sure some progress out of Washington is possible, I can't see individual city police departments getting cleaned out any other way than by a lot of hard, local work, driven by the local black population.

    And the 2nd economic thing that'll make that easier is if the white population isn't panicking and stressing about their jobs, and seeing everything else as a diversion from "their" issues, or thrashing around looking for racial minorities to scapegoat. 

     


    Q, I endorse your "news hole" addition, with a caveat that it's just one component of a larger gestalt. Call it the "attention hole." I didn't watch the news when I was in college and didn't read the papers until junior year. (The" world wide web" was embryonic.) But I nonetheless cared about issues--Rodney King, the Gulf War, gay rights, gender equality, gun control, date rape. Economics and corporate power were not on the list. No one I knew talked about them, except maybe the token anarchist with green hair. That changed, starting in the left wing rags and websites long before MM paid any attention and then finally hit the big time with OWS.

    This is a long-term trend. Those sensational media obsessions you mention drive the week-to-week coverage, but they float or sink in the larger current. Without the underlying trend toward economic progressivism, OWS would have been an isolated protest and Pickering's book would have remained in the stacks of the ivory towers. Without Trayvor Martin and Ferguson, Sandra Bland would not have been national news.

    Right now, these two currents are crashing up against each other, and we saw a very clear manifestation of that turbulence at Netroots. Protesters riding the race current openly challenged a presidential candidate riding the economic current.

    Now I agree with you these two currents flow along the same riverbed and probably lead to the same place, but they have varied in strength over time. From 1900 to the 1950s, the economic current was wide, and the race current was small. From the 1950s to the 2000s, the situation reversed. Now it may be switching back again. Gender and gun control, which were once reasonably strong currents, are almost trickles these days. Environment has its own ebb & flow.

    So the question is: Do we fight hardest and scream loudest to reform the cops, courts, prisons, and drug laws, which will have the most direct effect on black lives. Or do we fight hardest and scream loudest for minimum wage, tax reform, banking regulation, and political finance restrictions, which will certainly benefit black people, but indirectly and in the long term?


    We do both.  Sanders is trying to do both.  He requested a meeting with the young black activist after the Townhouse meeting.  He also asked to have his time shorten by 15 min at the Townhouse meeting in the same request so he would have time to talk with them in private. NN said OK and arranged it.  BLM without NN knowledge staged their protest at the meeting to get the attention that they did not get on their scheduled event on Thursday night.  People had drifted out of the room by the time they had their forum that night.  The interviewer followed the time schedule and wrapped up Bernie's part 15 minutes early.  So when they did go to meet with Sanders they  were surprised to only find his campaign manager instead. I read this in the comments made by one of the organizers that have been on the NN board since the beginning over at Daily Kos. 

    Later Sander's appeared at a private fundraiser for Latino Victory,  He spent the time asking them for their input and listening to their concerns.  He added some of what was asked of him that night in his speech in Phoenix. 

    He met early with the Southern Christian Leadership and talked with them and got more input. I think the speech he gave later was his best one so far. He added minority issues to his speech and actually used it at the peak points of his speech.  

    There are other undercurrents that will pop up before this election is finished.  MSM is totally clueless right now as to where the voters are in this cycle. 

    Maybe I will get to hear his speech he is scheduled to make closed circuit  on the internet to the Bernie House Parties across the country tomorrow night later this week.  I am interested to see how many changes he has made from his original stump speech. He is definitely a work in progress. 

     


    I think this is important because I see both issues are tied together. 

    We must push back against this false dichotomy of “racial justice progressives” and “economic progressives.” I think it’s a harmful way to frame what’s going on, and it suggests that we can have racial justice without economic justice, and that economic justice can come about without tackling racism. Neither is true, at all.

    Racial justice amounts to far more than dismantling our racist criminal justice system and reining in police brutality. Affordable housing, public education, and quality health care are all issues that impact individuals directly based on class and race. Drawing imaginary lines between them just doesn’t work.

    I’m not frustrated with the coverage because, as Lind suggests, I just want to defend Sanders. I am frustrated because attempts to separate economic issues—whether it’s jobs, or retirement savings, or health care, or prisons, or loans, or taxes—from racial justice, is a deeply troubling way to lead a national conversation about racism.

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-dichotomy-between-racial-and-economic-justice-false-one?sc=fb 


    I agree 100%.


    I agree with you.  Sanders is now talking about this issue in his stump speeches since this happen.  It won't change what is going on in my over policed poor community.  A lot of the abuse is being driven by the need for revenue. Tickets and arrests bring in money. Sanders isn't completely wrong about the economic part of it.  Racial tension is going to take many different approaches and time.  


    What's he saying?


    Here is a Salon article.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/bernie_sanders_becomes_the_first_candidate_to_speak_out_on_sandra_bland_we_need_real_police_reform/

    Following Sanders’ tense confrontation with #BlackLivesMatters activists at the progressive Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix on Saturday, the independent Vermont senator added a passage to his stump speech in Houston on Sunday referencing Bland’s death, a reference the Texas Tribune said drew the longest and loudest applause from the crowd. “It is unacceptable that police officers beat up people or kill people,” Sanders told the audience in Houston. “If they do that, they have got to be held accountable.”

    After dashcam video of Bland’s arrest was released last night showing the officer, who had pulled Bland over for what he described as failing to signal a turn, open Bland’s driver side door and threaten to “light her up” with his taser if she didn’t stop smoking a cigarette and exit the vehicle, Sanders was quick to release astatement Tuesday condemning the arrest:

     
     

    This video of the arrest of Sandra Bland shows totally outrageous police behavior. No one should be yanked from her car, thrown to the ground, assaulted and arrested for a minor traffic stop. The result is that three days later she is dead in her jail cell. This video highlights once again why we need real police reform. People should not die for a minor traffic infraction. This type of police abuse has become an all-too-common occurrence for people of color and it must stop.

    He will be on a Sunday morning show.  He may say more then.  He has had time to think about this.   


    His interveiw at Meet the Press.  He didn't back down to Chucky.


    He is so much better than Hillary and every other announced candidate.


    Try not to turn dagblog into a twitter feed, Hal. At best this is a place for discussion at worst even  during times of rancor we attempt to make arguments. We're better than two 5 year old children shouting, "My dad can beat up your dad" "No! My dad can beat up yours."


    Ocran-kat - I was responding to the video which demonstrates conclusively, at least to my way of thinking, that Sanders is superior.  At some point verbiage does become superfluous.  Less is sometimes more.  That said, if somebody can adduce evidence in opposition to what I wrote, I hope they will do so.  N.B. - my use of the pronoun "they" to refer to any poster/commentator regardless of gender.


    Sanders was at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference yesterday and you can read his remarks here. 

    https://berniesanders.com/remarks-senator-sanders-southern-christian-leadership-conference/

    He covered a wide area of issues that concern African Americans at this event. Here is just one remark.  

    Sandra Bland, Michael Brown, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice. We know their names. Each of them died unarmed at the hands of police officers or in police custody. The chants are growing louder. People are angry. I am angry. And people have a right to be angry. Violence and brutality of any kind, particularly at the hands of law enforcement sworn to protect and serve our communities, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated.

    We must reform our criminal justice system. Black lives do matter. And we must value black lives.


    This is good. As Ta-Nehisi Coates observed, education and upper middle class lifestyle did not protect Coates' friend Prince Jones from dying at the hands of police. Jones was gunned gun by an undercover cop in a case of mistaken identity. Jones attended private schools was the son of a radiologist. No one was held accountable for the murder. Police departments specifically have to be reigned in. 

    When police departments face criticism for killing unarmed black men and women, they take offense. The NYPD Union openly defied Mayor DeBlasio with a work slow down and by turning their backs on the mayor during public appearances. The Baltimore police department objects to being legally videotaped during arrests. They feel that they should not be forced to be held to a standard where physical abuse of suspects is not tolerated. 

    Race not economics is why police departments feel free to manhandle blacks in greater numbers than whites.


    Undereducated poor and struggling whites, who were formerly (or whose parents or grandparents were) middle-class, are not likely to side with an educated upper middle class African-American.  From their perspective, they've got lots of troubles that often include heavy-handed cops as well.  Just as BLM seems (as far as I know) oblivious to the plight of poor whites, so are many of them unmoved by the plight of blacks mistreated and killed by police. 

    Politicians who address the economic injustice visited upon tens of millions of whites (as well as many but not all African-Americans) will be best-positioned to address invidious treatment of blacks by cops.  In addition, when people recognize that their concerns are being addressed, they are much more willing to consider the concerns of others.


    Hillary has the black vote in her pocket because she has name recognition and a spot in Obama's cabinet to boast about. Sanders can try to "educate" the masses and lose black votes, or he can address issues that the black community lists as important.


    For the sake of our nation, let's hope Senator Sanders figures out how to communicate effectively to the black community since it's beyond peradventure that corporadem Hillary will continue to pursue economic policies that have been devastating to African-Americans and more broadly most of us.  It's interesting to me that blacks are supposedly so supportive of Clinton given her and her surrogates' repeated use of  racist or barely concealed racist dog-whistles in 2008 against Obama.  See here and here and here and here and here.


    Speaking of Michael Brown, does anyone have anything to say about the Department of Justice report? I have no way of knowing if it is accurate or not. I still find the cop's story rather hard to believe.


    You can hear his speech at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  He is the only candidate that accepted their invitation. 


    It's a good start, if belated. And as Peter suggests somewhat more vehemently below, he's got a long way to go. And frankly, he will probably never mount a serious challenge to Hillary without winning the black vote. See Nate Cohn's analysis at the NYT.


    I read that a couple of weeks ago.  Had someone told me that Sanders would be doing as well as he is now a few months ago I would not have agreed with them. He is playing an important role in this cycle. I am old enough to remember when campaigns was not all air wars and TV pundits.  My first campaign rally speech I went to was Nixon/Lodge and the Akron Rubber Bowl. One thing I have learned that each cycle is different. 

    Cohen leaves out things that have happened since the 2008 election that is important for this election.  The economy is only working for half the country.  People don't like Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS. We still have a large group of uninsured people because of the Court. The banks got away with crashing the economy and was bailed out.  The rest of the country paid the price by being underwater or losing their homes. The GOP is a group a loons. Immigrations has not been solved.  Latino's are an important group of voters as well as African Americans. We have major problem with guns and a police departments that are abusive. 

    I am not going to say that Sanders can't win over enough minority voters to do damage to Clinton's numbers, because we really don't know that yet. He was the only candidate that excepted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference invitation. He is willing to work for their vote and let them know he is listening. He is not afraid to talk about all those problems that I mentioned above.  Clinton seems to be tip toeing around so far.  I guess that is why I am not pay much attention to what she is doing.  I find Sanders campaign more interesting right now. 

    There is a National House Party for Sanders this week.  I can't quote any of the numbers yet as to how many house parties that have signed up. I understand the number is really big.  He will be giving a speech to them.  This is part of the grass roots effort to raise money and organize volunteers.  Aug 8th there are some organizing side walk chalk art for Sanders across the country.  They are being creative with their efforts to help the campaign. A box of chalk don't cost much. Getting people involved in the election process is a really good thing. 

    By the way I don't see the Times having it all together right now when it comes to progressive and liberal politics. They are more a GOP light newspaper.  Sanders owns the social media right now.  


    I don't see Hillary tip toeing. I see her moving slowly and methodically. For years I've been complaining as I've watched the campaign season start earlier and earlier. So I'm happy with this. She's taken some surprising positions. Most recently she released a plan on solar energy, which is far and away the most important issue for me. The Keystone pipeline is symbolic only. If it's stopped it won't change anything if we don't have an alternative to oil.

    In an ambitious climate change plan, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pledged to make sure every American home is powered by renewable energy by 2027 if elected president and install half a billion solar panels around the country before the end of her first term.

     


    This is positive and it's tough for me to say that about anything Hillary Clintonesque.  That said, let's not get all goo-goo eyed about a promise that she won't ever have to keep since she won't be President in 2027. 

    Instead, let's look at where HRC is on the biggest energy issues confronting us RIGHT NOW.  Has she renounced the support the agency she led has offered the Keystone XL pipeline?  Nope she won't tell us even though Hillary the environmentalist should be aghast at the prospect of putting the crucial Ogallala aquifer at risk and saying "game over" for the climate.

    What about her stance on the TPP which, if approved, will likely be devastating to the environment and specifically will increase greenhouse gas emissions?  HRC has refused to state whether she supports the proposed trade pact that she helped write with the assistance of multinational banks, industry lobbyists, and corporate lawyers but without the input of labor representatives or environmentalists.

    So yeah I'm glad HRC acknowledges that climate change is real and we agree that solar power is a really good thing but I'm not planning to rip my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker off any time soon.


    Did you read the article or are you trying to spin the info for you candidate? Hillary clearly states that she plans to "install half a billion solar panels around the country before the end of her first term." Every politician and government makes 10 year plans, mostly because we have 10 fingers and therefore we developed base 10 arithmetic. Obama had 10 year plans, if Sanders puts out policy papers for his presidency they will be 10 year plans.

    While I'm against the Keystone pipeline I never thought it more than a symbolic victory.  It was latched onto by the environmental movement because it was the only win we thought we could get, which is a sad thought considering the extent of the crisis we face and the fact that we have a democratic president. For me massively increasing supplies of renewable energy was more important than the ACA. The oil will get to market somehow unless there's a viable alternative. If I'm migrating north because climate change has made Arizona unlivable I won't be celebrating our victory in stopping the keystone pipeline on the way. The only thing that will stop us from using oil is having adequate renewable sources. Stopping the pipeline is meaningless.

    I agree with Obama on this though he's done little for the alternative.

    "The reason that Keystone got so much attention is not because that particular pipeline is a make-or-break issue for climate change, but because those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem. it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do."


    I reject the premise that Canada will exploit the tar sands regardless of what the US does or doesn't do.  I also reject the premise that there is no moral distinction between (a) trying and failing to prevent Canada from exploiting the tar sands and (b) profiting from their exploitation.  By claiming that Americans shouldn't care about whether a Presidential candidate supports the pipeline, you also ignore the significant risk the Keystone XL poses to our largest source of increasingly scarce fresh water in the great plains.

    Hillary's call for increasing solar capacity dramatically is a good thing.  But she will need Congress to appropriate funds to do this and it is obvious that the Congress, at least as it is currently constituted, will not go along with her. 

    Moving on, your comment implies that Obama had the choice either to expand access to healthcare or "increase solar capacity" but not both.  Even if this were true, it's irrelevant to Clinton's (apparent) support of Keystone and (apparent) support of TPP.  Both are really bad.

    Finally, since you question my motive for arguing that Clinton is not the environmental candidate, I will question yours.  Are you trying to latch onto something that HRC said that does sound good because you really believe she will be the best President for the environment or are you trying to justify voting for a candidate who on this issue, as on every other, sides with corporate interests while paying lip service to progressives/liberals?


    If you read the article you knew that Hillary had both a first term plan and a long term plan. If you're not an idiot you know that long term goals are almost always expressed in 10 year plans. So the first words out of your mouth in your response to me was spin. I have a low tolerance for spin, especially here at dagblog. I don't think posting here has any influence what so ever on the election. I don't know why those on the masthead run this site or for what purpose but in my opinion the purpose of dagblog is the clash of ideas. In conversation and debate we can learn from that clash of ideas. Spin has no place in that clash of ideas. Spin is a waste of time and I have no time to waste.

    Incidentally this was the message Stewart attempted to make on his famous Crossfire appearance. At one point Begala claims they do debate on Crossfire. Stewart replies, No. No you don't. I would love debate, we need more debate. What you do here is spin for your team. It's an important difference and an important point that many may not have heard over all the laughter. It's an important issue that so much of the media discussion of politics is nothing more than puerile spin.

    your comment implies that Obama had the choice of either to expand access to healthcare or "increase solar capacity" but not both. 

    My purpose in comparing increasing solar capacity to the ACA was simply to convey the importance of the issue to me. Imo your blog was not about a difference in goals but a matter of prioritization. BLM wanted their signature issue addressed in a meaningful way. I share their goals and most of the goals of the left but I too want my signature issue addressed in a meaningful way. This proposal by Hillary is the first and only by any candidate that meaningfully addresses my priority issue. Of course I want a more detailed plan showing how she intends to achieve this goal. It's not enough to just enunciate the goal but it's a start and it's a significant commitment.

    But she will need Congress to appropriate funds to do this and it is obvious that the Congress, at least as it is currently constituted, will not go along with her. 

    This critique is true for what Sanders and O'Malley proposes, as well as Hillary. If you truly cared about it you would be supporting Webb. The republican lite democrat would surely get along with a republican congress better than any other democratic candidate. But it doesn't affect your vote or your support. It's just more spin.

    I reject the premise that Canada will exploit the tar sands regardless of what the US does or doesn't do. 

    I've seen Sanders make the same argument as made in your link. My initial thought was is he an idiot or is he pandering. No one could possibly think that the current downturn in the price of oil will be permanent. When the price goes up all those fields will be reopened unless we use this lull to bring alternative renewable resources  on line. Your, and Sanders, argument would have this lull lull us to sleep. This is the same short term thinking that Reagan used to dismantle Carter's programs to increase efficiency and promote alternative renewable energy sources. It certainly appeared to work when OPEC infighting caused oil prices to drop. But what has been the long term trend in oil prices? Are you seriously suggesting this blip of lower prices is the beginning of a new long term trend? I favor long term planning to solve long term problems over short term pandering.

     

     

     


    Regarding your claim that Congress will have to approve "what Sanders . . . proposes", the President can reject both the TPP and the Keystone XL without Congressional approval.  This is obviously not true for HRC's proposal to increase solar energy penetration to 100% of American homes by 2027.

    Regarding your claim that my criticism of Hillary's 10-year plan is spin, HRC expressed a grandiose aspirational goal that will almost certainly be impossible for her to accomplish and against which she cannot be judged until long after she runs for re-election if she's fortunate enough to prevail in 2016. That said I did offer HRC grudging praise for bringing up this issue at all and for a pretty good, but not ideal, blueprint for a cleaner greener future.  The ideal plan, a fossil fuels tax, is discussed in detail here and here and here and here.

    Regarding your claim that tar sands exploitation is inevitable, you write that the article to which I cited isn't persuasive since the reduction in pressure in Canada to drill in Alberta results solely from the downturn in oil prices.  In fact, the article notes that environmental activists are also a factor and that pro-oil conservatives lost for the first time in 44 years control of Alberta's provincial government.  In addition, British Columbia, through which any Canadian pipeline would almost certainly have to go, opposes the pipeline.


    9 out of 10 of every good idea Sanders, O'Malley, and Hillary have will require congressional  approval. Just as 9 out of 10 of Obama's good ideas required congressional approval and were unrealized because they were blocked by the republicans. 9 out of 10 of the good ideas of Sanders, O'Malley, and Hillary are grandiose and aspirational  and cannot be judged until we see how they do during their 4 years as president. In fact I think what little a president can do by executive order while possibly good is too trivial to be meaningful. But keep posting your bullshit as if Sanders will somehow get his tax hikes and make public colleges free without passing laws to do so.
     


    I enjoy a spirited debate more than most do but would prefer to keep the name-calling and profanity out of it.  Thanks!


    I never engaged in name calling though I did once say Bernie is either an idiot or pandering. I feel quite comfortable saying that about any politician and I think that's well within the TOS. The only profanity you might claim I used was "bullshit." I don't think calling something "bullshit" constitutes profanity. I gave many clear reasons to back up my claim. I think your accusations of name calling and profanity are way out of line. I think these accusations are a diversion tactic because you know your positions are untenable. And frankly, that's just bullshit.


    Thanks ocean-kat for explaining that referring to my work as "your bullshit" is neither insulting nor profane.  I'm also pleased to learn that when you refer to Bernie Sanders and, by strong implication, me as either an "idiot" or a panderer, you are likewise not using insulting language.


    Dude, I commented to trkingmomoe. You decided to jump in because, horror of horrors, I said something nice about Hillary. If you get this thin skinned when you lose a debate maybe you shouldn't start them. Go whine to the moderators. If they feel I need to be banned for suggesting Bernie is "either an idiot or a panderer" and for using the word "bullshit" you can pat yourself on the back for riding into dagblog on your white horse and cleaning up the vile place. This topic is puerile, you need to grow up. Now, I'm done with it.


    It still amazes me that some people continue to believe what sociopaths (politicians) promise to get elected even if it sounds wonderful. This is one promise that HRC will have to do almost nothing to keep and to take credit for because at present solar growth rates Big Solar will expand to near her projected levels without any more government involvement. The Big 'Green' Capitalist market has embraced solar and wind because it is very profitable for them and for China who make most  all this solar stuff.

    This campaign PR release is cleverly constructed with  canards such as, every home will be powered by solar or this program will significantly reduce oil consumption.  It almost sounds like Hillary and the government will be coming to your home to install solar panels or that everyone will be driving Teslas by the time her reign ends. They also threw in Hydroelectric without explaining how they plan to refill Lake Powell or Lake Mead where power generators will no longer function in a very few years, Rain Dance Flash Mobs?

    What no politician will talk about is the fact that to begin to reverse Global Warming we must reduce our consumption of energy to 1980 levels and continue to reduce co2 emissions from that baseline. Solar, wind and other renewables can help  in that goal but they only function now to feed the growing demand for energy and they won't even cover that growth in the near future.

    What this means is that even with the rapid growth of solar and wind power, which will produce huge amounts of co2 emissions initially, use of fossil fuels will continue to grow, co2 emissions will continue to grow and AGW will continue to wreck havoc on the biosphere.

     


    Yes, Yes, I know. If only people stop voting the whole government will magically dissolve into thin air and in the subsequent anarchic utopia all the good and wise people of America, and the world, will just stop using all fossil fuels and save the planet. As beautiful as that vision is I prefer government action to move us forward as quickly as possible. Even if it's not as much as I'd like it much more than would happen in your fantasy world.


    Let me get this straight, Hillary Clinton is the environmental candidate of choice because environmental groups aren't even endorsing her and you're naive and ignorant enough to take her grandiose campaign promises seriously but Bernie Sanders is pandering because he's not running a campaign based on empty promises but actual solutions? Not sure if troll or just stupid.

    It's good to see Hal admits that Bernie is still communicating 'at' not 'with' black Americans. This SCLC speech was an expected Sander's talk-down telling the audience that MLK would support him and his economic populism over the radical voices of BLM and other anti-Police State activists. He conveniently left out all of MLK's radical analysis of Capitalism and Militarism that underlies the economic points he made.

    The sickest statement was that Black radical activism was 'useless' unless it submitted to his program of White Middle-Class Reform. The best he could offer on the murderous Police State was tired nostrums about training and even recommended more Pigs in the Hood to confront the inferred real problem 'Black Crime' not a murdering Occupying Militarized Force. The most ludicrous statement was that things will be fine once people learn to 'Trust Police" again, as if they ever did or should.

     

    His statement about ' going beyond state violence' is Orwellian and  beyond disrespectful inferring again that the State is not really the problem but a few White Supremacists are.

    I'm sure more  than a few in that SCLC audience are wondering what the hell that Yankee Socialist was actually saying and to whom it was really addressed.


    In a NYT op-ed today, this writer made a point that you see frequently in editorials about police racism:

    Recently, my brother and I were talking on the phone as he drove to work. He is the chief executive of a publicly traded company. He was dressed for work, driving a BMW. He was using a hands-free system. These particulars shouldn’t matter but they do in a world where we have to constantly mourn the loss of black lives and memorialize them with hashtags. In this same world, we remind politicians and those who believe otherwise that black lives matter while suffocated by evidence to the contrary.

    Subtext: This is about race, not money.

    In fact discrimination against middle class blacks tends to get far more attention than discrimination against poor blacks. Remember the Henry Gates Jr. imbroglio? Would that have received press if he's been out of work and living in the projects? 


    Michael, This is not about race. Race is only a tool being used to keep the working class divided. The 1%ers don't care any more about working class White people than they do minorities. Did Bush and Cheney care working class White lives to make sure they had the necessary body armor to protect their lives, or were they so anxious to start raking in the war profits that they sent them in virtually naked? Did the major corporations feel any sense of partiotism toward the White American middle class before they sent their jobs overseas? The major corporations are making more money than they've ever made in the history of mankind, so there should be ANY unemployment in the United States, but the corporate-Republican alliance have a vested interest (both business and political) to keep the American people hungry, angry, and divided. . Americans are being manipulated. the fiscal conservatives (the corporatist) are using the racist proclivities of the social conservatives (the bigots) to keep the poor and middle class divided. But this is no longer a White supremacist society. It is now a Corporate supremacist society.

    MW you left out the punch line:

    During the course of our conversation, he was pulled over by an officer who said he looked like an escapee from Pelican Bay State Prison in California

    The NYT also has another article by Mr. Blow on Ms. Bland, and one on race in Waller County. The number of comments like "why didn't she just say 'Yes sir", 'it was her fault' etc 'she should have put out her cigarette' indicated to me the country is still replete with fools.

    As Rosa Luxemburg said," Those who do not move, do not notice their chains."

    I got in a couple comments posted in at NYT on my theory that Waller County prison is about as reliable on telling the truth on Sandra's 'suicide by can liner' as the cop who shot the guy in the back in SC, and was caught in his lies on video.

    What is about race? Not Trusting a racist cop/official to tell the truth about an encounter or incident especially with a person of color.


    Hal,

    You're right on the money.  The working class needs to wake up and stop dividing itself into factions.  ALL Lives Matter, and the working class in this country need to come together and send that message. Black people, Hispanics, women's groups, and gays need to understand that none of our various groups can prevail alone. The 1%ers have established a solid front, and we'd better do the same, or we're doomed, because our division is their most effective weapon. On the other hand, if the people come together as a solid front, we can trump money.  No matter how much money the 1%ers pour into their campaigns, if the people stand firm, the 1%ers can't win.  Because the only thing money can buy in politics are votes, and we have those.  So again, we must ALL come together on EVERY issue as a CLASS,  and stop trying to fight little skirmishes as individual factions. That's a losing battle.  

     

    Thanks Wattree.  When you agree with me, my confidence in my argument soars.


    Thank you, Hal.

    While I'm flattered by that, you don't need me.  You're one of the sharpest people on this site.


    Thanks again Wattree, although I'm not certain whether I should feel flattered or everybody else here should feel insulted.


    It's always inspirational to hear Middle/Leisure/Professional Class commenters explain how Working Class people should think and act, as if they don't have the skills to lead themselves without assistance from their betters.

    Grassroots groups have and will continue to work together and support each other's causes, that is occurring right now at the BLM conference in Cleveland where the Democrat Mayor  is showing his support by sending in the Pigs to pepper spray the rabble.

    'Working together' has a unique meaning when the Democrat Party, the other 1% War Party, is involved, whether it's their pseudo-socialist barker or their slippery cynical humanitarian interventionist, joining them will lead to more destruction here and abroad, human and economic.

    .

     


    Sander's record on peace isn't great. He supports the war in Iraq and Syria. They all do, which is distressing.


    Bernie voted against the GW Bush protect America save civilization no permission slip needed political jujitsu just before the midterms (Oct 2002) Iraq Use of Force Resolution.

    If you call that supporting the Iraq War you are FOS.

    For those who say 'both sides do it blah blah blah' note that the war resolution failed by a wide margin on the Democrat side in the House.


    Sanders supports the war we are waging in Iraq and Syria NOW. That is what I was talking about.


    Do you believe the war NOW is different than the war THEN?



    Policy positions taken by candidates during an election season are beyond suspect, a review of past positions offers a more realistic and reliable gage to predict  future performance.

    The Sandernistas are showing up around the web to counter any Bad Bernie talk, one i read even called BLM racist to highlight how inclusive this group is.

    But. i'm beginning to think that many of the Bernie boosters are actually closet royalists worried what baggage he will bring to his Mistress  when  his sheepdog work is done.

     


    It's more than fair to assume you have zero evidence for these unsubstantiated allegations else you'd have provided it.


    The stuff in Hal's link doesn't say anything about the current war. I saw Sanders on television(I think CNN) expressing support.


    Bernie Sanders on Syrian military intervention on 9/10/13: 

    I believe that the American people share the president’s concerns about chemical weapons in Syria and the brutal Assad dictatorship. But, in overwhelming numbers, Vermonters are telling me they want those issues addressed diplomatically by the UN and the international community – not by unilateral military action on the part of the U.S.

    I am pleased to see that the president and his administration are now working with Russia, France, the UK, China and the United Nations to remove chemical weapons from Syria – without involving the United States in the bloody and complicated Syrian civil war. This is a good step forward.

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-reacts-to-...

    Bernie Sanders on continuing American presence in Iraq:

    The opposite of a defense hawk

    US soldiers and civilian personnel in the defense department are often expected to salute and keep complaints to themselves, regardless of who the president of the United States happens to be. It might be difficult for the Pentagon to perform that task if Bernie Sanders is sent to the Oval Office—not because those manning the forts personally despise Bernie as a person, but because the four branches of the US military will be experiencing cutbacks when and if Sanders is elected.

    For the military at best, a Sanders administration would seek to curtail defense spending to a level that would make Republicans and moderate Democrats very nervous. The senior senator from Vermont has been and remains highly critical of how the Pentagon spends its money, and consistently brings up the fact that the United States spends more on defense than the next ten most militarily active countries combined.

    Sanders hasn’t voted “yea” on a National Defense Authorization Act since FY2011 (he voted no on the FY12, FY13, and FY14 NDAAs), and he’s called this year’s Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee’s NDAA a measure out-of-step with what Americans really care about: sending their kids to college, taking care of the elderly, and repairing the country’s crumbling infrastructure.

    http://qz.com/422442/what-would-a-president-bernie-sanderss-foreign-poli...


    Once again, I'm talking about Sanders stance on the current war, not Obama's war mongering in 2013. He wants to cut military spending, but that doesn't change the fact that he supports the war with ISIS.


    Originally, you claimed Sanders supported the wars in Syria and Iraq.  You have, without quite acknowledging it, apparently pulled back on your claim that Sanders supports military intervention in Syria.  You still contend he supports military troops in Iraq.  Your evidence: you saw it on TV somewhere maybe CNN.   Do you really think that's persuasive in light of Sanders' specific votes against current military spending levels as too high?


    I heard him say he supports the war against ISIS. I presumed that meant supporting the war in both Iraq and Syria. If he has said that he only supports fighting them in Iraq, I didn't hear it(although that doesn't prove he didn't say it, of course). Yeah, what I heard him say on television is persuasive, but I probably should have dug up a link. I'll try to do that,but now I have to go to work.


    He isn't very enthusiastic about it, but he does support the air war.


    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-...


    Latest Comments