Very interesting reading various news outlets and blogs reporting on the disruption to the Sander’s rally in Seattle yesterday. Many commenters here are rather upset over the BLM supporters protesting before Bernie was able to speak. I believe Bernie is doing his best to address the movement’s concerns – from hiring Symone Sanders to be his campaign press secretary, to including mentions to BLM and racial inequality in his recent appearances. For many, this may still seem like window dressing and tokenism, but Bernie recognized a blind spot and is trying to address it.
But, I have a few concerns of my own:
Why exactly did Bernie leave without speaking at the rally? By all accounts, the activists had been on stage for less than 10 minutes (though it's hard to tell, as the video clips of different segments are only a couple of minutes long). It’s reported that the organizers of the event decided to end it rather than ask for the mic back, because they thought the activists wouldn’t relent and were worried about a potential confrontation. Bernie stood to the side, which I thought was respectful, but somewhat bad optics when he shifted away from them as they motioned for him to join them. The Seattle Times noted that rather than do his speech, Sanders waved from the stage, then went into the crowd to shake a few hands and left to attend a $200-$1,000 per ticket fundraiser. When a few people in the crowd asked if he could still speak, his reply was “show up at my rally tonight.” Could he have stuck around longer to give maybe a shorter version of his speech, or at least address the concerns of the activists? He had an opportunity to engage, but he chose to leave.
I know, it wasn’t Bernie who “left”, it was those pesky activists that “drove him away.” I don’t see it that way. He could have stepped up and brought order to the “chaos” – as it’s been so breathlessly described. He could have engaged with the activists rather than retreating to a corner. He could have shown how to be diplomatic in a difficult situation, to be presidential. He did not. Instead, we got a slightly less cranky version of his reaction to the BLM protesters at Netroots Nation.
Regardless of the tone of the story or the outlet it’s being reported from, I’m reading a lot of hostile comments from Sanders’ supporters at the end of every article and blog post. I am deeply disheartened by the comments other supposedly progressive folks are posting. In fact, the leading reason for my growing opposition to Sanders is the amount of racial/misogynistic invective and tinfoil-hattery from his “true believers”. The general tone of the pro-Sanders Seattle reactions fall into a few camps:
1. Bernie is the last person they should be protesting – he’s the only ‘true progressive’ (repeat MLK march ad infinitum). I can take a good guess why – he’s a prominent progressive running for president who this community feels has not properly addressed or has been lukewarm to their very real concerns. If they can’t get progressives on their side with some real results, what hope do they have to make any lasting political change?
2. Don’t THEY see all WE do to try and help THEM? This is one of the more persistent – and paternalistic – comments I’m seeing everywhere. It is a privilege of white society in the US – even on the progressive side – to act as moderator as to how much, if any, action is taken politically to address minority issues. If this were happening to you, wouldn’t you get fed up?
3. I’ve lost respect for BLM/They’re damaging themselves/I can’t support BLM anymore. Many of these commenters have disavowed the whole movement because they thought the activists were “rude”, “didn’t know their place”, “should’ve been more respectful”. Activism doesn’t always play nice. Sometimes, making people uncomfortable is what’s necessary for people to pay attention. If you are so angry that Sanders didn’t speak at one of his three events that day that you disavow BLM, then you weren’t an ally to begin with.
4. It’s all a Hillary Clinton/George Soros conspiracy. Right, because a loosely organized group of African Americans and allies cannot possibly have their own agency and agenda -- they are merely tools of the rich and powerful to damage the sainthood of your chosen candidate. I won’t even begin to unpack the layers of privilege, racism and misogyny that leads people to believe this.
5. Why don’t they protest at Hillary events? Well, because Hillary has a longstanding and positive relationship with many people in the African American community. She’s been laying the groundwork to earn their support for years. It appears that Sanders, though an activist in his youth, has not cultivated relationships within or pursued the support of the African American community. Only now is he developing a platform to specifically address their concerns, after the first BLM protest at NN. They protest Bernie because they feel they have to in order to be heard. And they’ve been proven right.
I truly hope that Sanders supporters learn to recognize that their affinity for a candidate does not mean he’s infallible and everyone else who voices criticism is not trying to gang up on him. Bernie does have a ways to go, not just with the African American community, but with displaying a temperament befitting a serious presidential candidate. I like most of his positions and believe he is authentic; however, he should have seen this coming and been prepared to engage with the disruption rather than be sidelined by it.