The Bernie Sanders movement has arrived and it seems to have some staying power in the American political arena. While most politically reserved individuals and know-it-all assholes still believe Sanders-mania will fade when the ballot is real, there are enough individuals who believe in the movement that I felt it was important to address a growing belief that Bernie Sanders is the candidate for most left leaning minorities. And what's there not to believe? Bernie Sanders is routinely cast as an honest straightforward politician who wants to empower the (white) people and spread economic equality across this great nation. Unfortunately many minorities (aside from the Uncle Toms) have heard this script before and we fortunately know better. It isn't the first time a candidate who seems to actually not be a complete racist has come to the fore, promising to help the poor and the needy. What is left unsaid, which also applies to Bernie Sanders, is that these candidates refuse to acknowledge the racist systems of oppression that make so many minority groups (blacks, latinos, native americans, etc.) underprivileged when these reforms come into place. Unsurprisingly when you look at issues in this country through the lens of socio-economic status, rather than an intersectional lens (i.e. race and socio-economic status), whites tend to benefit more from what ever general policy you put out.
How does this happen Raymond? Well it's simple, let's say you put a job program to employ Americans. We'll find white applicants are more "qualified" because they'll have higher rates of high school diplomas than their black and latino counterparts. Anyone who knows why this is the case can look at the well documented racist tendencies of school administrations to suspend black and latino students at a far higher rate than white students. This inequality then interacts with the seemingly "equal" policy of a job program, further exacerbating racial inequity. Raymond what about things like lowering rates of federal loans? Or perhaps giving more tax breaks to the poor. Again we have to look at how the racial stratification in a particular socio-economic sense has grown. Whites are in a better position, therefore many of them can utilize these improvements far better than their black and latino counterparts.
But Raymond, they're all getting the same help, it's fair. That's exactly what many minorities have been trying to point out. It has never been fair. Minorities from the very beginning have entered an unfair game, where it is expected we work much harder and smarter than everyone else in the nation in order to gain some chance at success. The key word in that sentence is chance, meaning many minorities can work very hard and still be unable to achieve any semblance of financial security, educational achievement, and so on. This is not the same set up for whites. Whites tend to have more resources and more positive biases to help them. So any reform that intends to be an en masse buffer to the poor will really just act as a tidal wave; those who were already elevated will find themselves even more elevated (whites), while those were at the lowest elevation will find themselves lifted, but not as high as those who were initially above them.
Bernie Sanders doesn't address this. His message has consistently been one focused on socioeconomic inequity. Hidden in his speeches and political message is an old excuse given out by liberals and socialists for decades. "We want to fix racism, but income inequality is more pressing." Or it's slightly more misleading form: "By fixing income equality, we can fix racism." The first statement is at least honest about the second priority minorities have in the politician's heart. The first statement is a poor excuse which begs the question "why not do both?" The two tasks aren't mutually exclusive. Yet Sanders shies away from being explicit on his policy of addressing the institutional barriers that face many minorities. Don't get me wrong, explicit racism is unacceptable in his book, but that's basically true for all democrats. Everyone wants to get rid of the industrial prison complex. Everyone wants to get rid of racially charged police encounters. These are examples of racism that are more explicit and so therefore are easier to get a predominantly white, liberal audience up in arms about. But make a single world about affirmative action and half of that audience will become quiet as they think about their own kids and how they might be affected by such a program. Bernie Sanders isn't out to help minorities. He has hardly addressed the true issues that plague them. And until he and any other candidate addresses these issues, I believe minorities should use their ballot as ammunition for a political gun and aim it straight at their heads, that way they know that any dream of them entering the office can and will be dashed by the swift strike of the pencil on the ballot.
How does this happen Raymond? Well it's simple, let's say you put a job program to employ Americans. We'll find white applicants are more "qualified" because they'll have higher rates of high school diplomas than their black and latino counterparts. Anyone who knows why this is the case can look at the well documented racist tendencies of school administrations to suspend black and latino students at a far higher rate than white students. This inequality then interacts with the seemingly "equal" policy of a job program, further exacerbating racial inequity. Raymond what about things like lowering rates of federal loans? Or perhaps giving more tax breaks to the poor. Again we have to look at how the racial stratification in a particular socio-economic sense has grown. Whites are in a better position, therefore many of them can utilize these improvements far better than their black and latino counterparts.
But Raymond, they're all getting the same help, it's fair. That's exactly what many minorities have been trying to point out. It has never been fair. Minorities from the very beginning have entered an unfair game, where it is expected we work much harder and smarter than everyone else in the nation in order to gain some chance at success. The key word in that sentence is chance, meaning many minorities can work very hard and still be unable to achieve any semblance of financial security, educational achievement, and so on. This is not the same set up for whites. Whites tend to have more resources and more positive biases to help them. So any reform that intends to be an en masse buffer to the poor will really just act as a tidal wave; those who were already elevated will find themselves even more elevated (whites), while those were at the lowest elevation will find themselves lifted, but not as high as those who were initially above them.
Bernie Sanders doesn't address this. His message has consistently been one focused on socioeconomic inequity. Hidden in his speeches and political message is an old excuse given out by liberals and socialists for decades. "We want to fix racism, but income inequality is more pressing." Or it's slightly more misleading form: "By fixing income equality, we can fix racism." The first statement is at least honest about the second priority minorities have in the politician's heart. The first statement is a poor excuse which begs the question "why not do both?" The two tasks aren't mutually exclusive. Yet Sanders shies away from being explicit on his policy of addressing the institutional barriers that face many minorities. Don't get me wrong, explicit racism is unacceptable in his book, but that's basically true for all democrats. Everyone wants to get rid of the industrial prison complex. Everyone wants to get rid of racially charged police encounters. These are examples of racism that are more explicit and so therefore are easier to get a predominantly white, liberal audience up in arms about. But make a single world about affirmative action and half of that audience will become quiet as they think about their own kids and how they might be affected by such a program. Bernie Sanders isn't out to help minorities. He has hardly addressed the true issues that plague them. And until he and any other candidate addresses these issues, I believe minorities should use their ballot as ammunition for a political gun and aim it straight at their heads, that way they know that any dream of them entering the office can and will be dashed by the swift strike of the pencil on the ballot.
No comments:
Post a Comment