Of course. He's talking like a typical modern national Democratic politician in that respect - like a Clinton, say, who made that kind of "we are the Party of unity" dissembling and compromising the standard rhetorical approach.
He's talking as the major media talk, as the NYT and MSNBC and everyone to the authoritarian right of them framed the issue: the standard white male American is not "racist", by definition, because racist labels a deviation from the norm, and they are the norm.
And because offending people rejects their vote, labeling stuff "racist" offends some people - and the Dems need the votes of the people who would be offended.
The betrayal of principle involved, the sellout for political advantage so flagrantly displayed by - famously, the flagship of that approach - the Clintons and those following Bill Clinton's example, the Democratic Party establishment as we know it today - is a problem.
But it's not particularly Sanders's problem. At least he promotes policies that will help.
Obama also did it during the election cycle.
The best way to tackle and deal with racism is to call it out. This tiptoe dance of not calling it what it is, racism, because we do not want to offend racists just normalises the behaviour and ideology.
It is not a way to make it stop.
Instead, what we see is this concerted effort to tell these people that it's okay, that 'of course you won't vote for a black person because they are black'.. And it's not okay. The behaviour itself is harmful.
Democrat's who are going out of their way to try to claw back those racist voters, are doing so at the cost and expense of minorities. The refusal to discuss race and racial inequality as well as economic inequality and how racism ties in to economic inequality for minorities as well as the other causes of inequality and class imbalance, Sander's attempts to distance himself from issues that directly impact on minorities and instead focuses on a one size fits all policies.. It won't win back Trump voters and it will lose minority voters, particularly African American who felt ignored by Sanders to begin with.
There is nothing wrong with calling out racism. Sanders refusal to do so, is going to be harmful. Racism and racial inequality is a huge problem in America. His refusal to call it out because he does not want to offend racist people plays badly for minorities.
And it really does not play well when people voice those concerns and have certain individuals (looking at you pjdude) go full on Berniebro and shit their pants in a racist spray as a result.
If a politician who is pushing any agenda, particularly a progressive agenda, and who has run and is possibly going to run for a party that touts itself as the party that seeks to address the wrongs done against minorities, is incapable and refuses to call out racism, then that is going to be a problem.
Refusing to stand up against racism and refusing to call it out because they do not want to offend racist people is really bad optics and minorities who vote,
pay a lot of attention to that.
So it was a setback on Thursday when the Daily Beast published an articlequoting Sanders on the role of racism in Gillum’s apparent defeat. “I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,” the senator said of the Florida governor’s race. A small outcry ensued, accusing Sanders of evading the reality that opposing a black candidate out of discomfort with black leadership is, by definition, racist. Sanders tried to clarify his comments later that day. “There’s no question that in Georgia and in Florida, racism has reared its ugly head,” he told NPR. “And you have candidates who ran against Gillum and ran against Stacey Abrams who were racist and were doing everything they could to try to play whites against blacks.”
In neither statement did Sanders indict voters for backing racist candidates. To the Daily Beast, he recast their racism as mere discomfort, and to NPR, blamed a candidate-led con job and not the electorate itself. That he did this may have been a rhetorical lapse, or strategic to his political aspirations — calling racist white people “racist” is probably a good way to ensure they do not vote for you. But either way it is not the truth, and echoes a broader tendency in American politics to entice such voters by lying to them about how racist they actually are.
Why this fear of pointing out how racist these voters are?
Cheney-Rice then points out how Clinton also tried to walk back her "deplorables" comments, because of how those racist voters perceived it and how it became a form of battle cry and point of pride for those on the right. He then goes on to point out the differences in how Republicans and Democrats apply and work with identity politics:
Sanders likely used a similar calculus, albeit weighted by less political risk due to his whiteness. Both men understand that racist white people are a significant voting bloc, and winning governorships and presidencies must at the very least account for them. But it is a tradeoff. Unwillingness to alienate racist voters inevitably leads to coddling racist voters. Whether everyone who voted for DeSantis fits this descriptor is up for debate. Whether the parameters Sanders outlined in his initial statement does — voting against a black candidate because of some race-based “discomfort” with said candidate — is not. Sanders is describing racism without naming it, even as he is willing to indict the candidates for reaping its rewards. That it’s not politically expedient to have this conversation honestly — especially if one sees the alternative as gift-wrapping American democracy for Trumpian grifters, kleptocrats, and white supremacists — is one of the more pathological features of today’s politics. But how sturdy, really, is a democracy kept afloat by lies? We are rapidly learning the answer together.
Bernie Sanders
is not learning from his previous mistakes.
When he sat down with African American organisers from Campaign Zero, he showed a distinct lack of understanding for the issues facing African Americans and came out with a racist zinger
that apparently shocked everyone:
By the time his campaign aides scrambled to release a detailed criminal justice platform on Aug. 9, Sanders was still struggling. In a September meeting with Campaign Zero, a movement formed out of the Ferguson protests, activists asked Sanders why, in his opinion, there were a disproportionate amount of people of color in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Sanders, seated across the table, a yellow legal pad at hand, responded with a question of his own, according to two people present: “Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?” The candidate, whose aides froze in the moment, was quickly rebuffed: The answer, the activists told him, was no. Even confronted with figures and data to the contrary, Sanders appeared to have still struggled to grasp that he had made an error, the two people present said.
You are correct. He is talking as the major media talk to the American public.
He is also perpetuating the lie about racism as well and that does not benefit anyone, particularly minorities.
