You see, you fling around absolutes such as “without question”, don’t you feel that might get you burned? (Or Berned, if you will.)
While I obviously cannot speak for the millions of others across America that support Sanders, the idea that I, as a (admittedly upper) middle class white male, wish to, at least subconsciously, preserve white privilege by pushing for policies such a free college, is a laugh. I will not need free college, because with scholarships and the right major selection it is very possible to pay off any debts after finishing college.
I have no real personal need of free college, and in fact I hope to one day join the ranks of the people Sanders wishes to tax to pay for these programs. I advocate for these programs not because I need to preserve my leg up in the world, but because they produce the best outcomes for all people.
One particularly confusing point is the implication that Sanders must 100% be focused on economic issues. Sure, that is a very large part of his platform. But why is his economic platform apparently mutually exclusive with programs targeted at solving the myriad challenges minorities face today? Why, if he is elected, do you expect him to do more or less nothing to improve the minority experience. I have always personally believed that a purely economic program alone would not he enough to improve the minority experience in the United States. I would love to see an expansion of programs similar to affirmative action, as well as prison reform, abolishment of the War on Drugs, improved attention to the poorly preforming innercity schools, etc. Do you feel that I don’t genuinely support these, or that I’m paying lip service to minorities? What could possibly explain my alleged desire to preserve my advantages in the world whilst I support programs to improve the conditions of minorities?
Finally, you have said that Sanders policies will work the preserve white privilege. I would love to hear your explanation for what Hillary Clinton would do that Bernie would not. What would make her an inherently more minority-friendly president?
Your sweeping generalizations of the wishes of the Sanders voters (desired marginalization of minorities, apparently black voters in particular, “whitesplaining”, etc.) are inaccurate at best, and at worst talking points devoid of any slight glimmers of nuance, casting a truely uncompromising claim against any Sanders supporter. Granted, there is a section out there that feels that minorities do not support Sanders out of sheer ignorance. They are toxic, and should not be taken as a significant portion of the Sanders base.
So, FightMyIgnorance, to what do you attribute the extremely stark differences in demographics between Sanders and Clinton supporters? Particularly the >80% each side gets with, respectively, whites under 30 and African Americans? Do you dismiss out of hand that it might be related to the numbers I posted, about how young whites tend to be the most pessimistic about the future of the U.S., while blacks tend to be the most optimistic, with a huge disparity between the groups?
That I cannot know, as I do not happen to be an African American. Of course, I know of the pessimists you speak of, some of my friends are very much like that, they firmly believe that America is a nation in great decline, that in general everything is horrible. I don’t really buy that.
I think that this pessimism has more to do with sensationalist idealism than any alarm at a loss of privilege. These are the people the look to the modern European social democracy and loudly lament that we’re doomed because we are not similar to them. I don’t follow this school of thought. In general, I find the state of our nation is sustainable, but can very much be improved.
I share your general outlook, and I think you provide a very reasonable alternate hypothesis for why young white progressives (and some older ones too, like my mom) tend to be such Chicken Littles. Too much reading of Glenn Greenwald. But I do think that even if that is correct, and it’s not anything to do with losing white privilege, it strikes a dissonant political tone among African Americans, based on those polling numbers.
Which actually lets Bernie and his campaign off the hook in a way. I have Bernhead friends that are dismayed at how poorly he does with black voters and are furiously trying to brainstorm ways for him to improve his connection with them. But based on these numbers, he can’t be blamed for running a bad campaign so much as just not being their political flavor–and he can’t help that, because that is the core of his political being.
What I mean is that someone arguing that the system is “broken” and requires a “political revolution” is not, it appears, going to sell well with black voters. So Bernie can’t just “do a better job of introducing himself” and his policies to POC, because they (meaning, of course, the vast majority, not all) won’t be interested in that “half empty” outlook no matter how well they get to know him. He would actually have to first convince them that they are wrong, and that actually everything about the current system (which is represented in no small part by President Obama, remember) sucks, before getting them to climb aboard his movement. And that is just not how politics works.
Or with anyone else who’s heard complaints without solutions from politicians before. Blacks may simply be much more accustomed to hearing well-meaning, but still superficial and condescending, bullshit, and are therefore more resistant to it, than whites.
I think this is a good explanation of the middling support for Bernie amongst minorities. Even I am suspicious of the need for a political revolution; the current political climate is simply not in favor of it. To be honest, the complaints by the white intellectuals about the state of the nation are quite irritating, even to me, because it tends to be exaggerating and unrealisticly critical.
I certainly hope you aren’t describing Mr. Sanders here, because that would be a wildy inaccurate portrayal and would show a superficial understanding of the Sanders campaign.
It isn’t up to Sanders, and certainly not to you, how his message and campaign is perceived, but to the audience. If blacks see it as superficial and condescending and unrealistic, the fault is not theirs for misunderstanding it. *That *would be condescending of him, and you. And superficial.
So, fight my ignorance FightMyIgnorance, why have these younger adults suddenly started to look to the modern European social democracy? Are they just suddenly much more sensationally idealistic than the young adults who preceded them? (I can provide polling data that shows pretty conclusively they are not, if you need the cites.) What has changed, other than that they suddenly now perceive themselves to be contained within the group of lesser privilege (despite having been born White and middle class), that motivates this sudden lamentation that we are doomed because we are not similar to those modern European social democracies? Why is fixing these issues, that have been structural for generations, that Sanders has been preaching about for over half a century, suddenly something resonates so much with them that a revolution is now called for?
Doubling back:
I suspect that many in that demographic would answer that she’d actually make real progress instead of speechifying but accomplishing naught. That she would keep a discussion alive that acknowledges that no, it is not all about economic class, that institutional and structural racism is still of impact and is real, not exclusively an artifice of class. That she would, as she has, do more than talk at and lecture to their communities, but listen to and work with them. Not promising them unicorns (now!), but respecting their voices, their points of view, and their seats at the table.
In the more sound-bite format: she promises to build on Obama’s legacy, to honor it and to continue along that same path; he promises to tear it down as it was, to him, inadequate. His contrasting message is that Obama failed and that he will OTOH succeed to inspire and be the agent of change … because now is different. (Again, how exactly? Other than that some young Whites now perceive their birthright to a middle class life to be under threat?)
Supply a cite that blacks don’t support Sanders because they perceive his policies to be “superficial, condescending, and unrealistic”, if that’s your argument.
I think you’re underestimating the power of social media; for more-or-less the first time, millenials who grew up during the explosion of social media during the late 2000s and early 2010s can now vote. In many ways Sanders can owe his campaign, which has drastically outperformed even his own expectations, to social media. These people can jump on any site/app like Tumblr, or Instagram, etc. and read dozens of posts about this great political running for President that promises to fix the major problems plauging the country. And so get behind him, and tell every single person that they can that this is the best candidate for them. Sanders has become something of a meme with the millenials.
I’ve known many of my friends for years. This apparently sudden vitalized interest in social democracy isn’t actually all that new; they simply, as having neither obtained the age of majority nor having a candidate which spoke on these issues in a meaningful way, sighed and silently resigned themselves to a lifetime of status quo politicians.
As for your explanation about Hillary Clinton, Bernie I believe would be more than capable of keeping the discussion about racial issues in America live and well; I’ve not seen a particularly convincing argument for why he wouldn’t. And honestly, can you show me a policy position, a speech, interview, soundbite, written article, or anything of the sort that has convinced you that Bernie is simply lecturing the minority communities, instead of trying to offer real solutions to their problems? I’m genuinely interested.
Ah ah ah, no no, you see, in post #265, you make the claim that black voters think Bernie not getting minority voters because he is basically telling them a condescending crock. That is your claim to back up. I hope you’ll understand that Bernie’s failures with the minority electorate is not a cite for your claim. Of course he isn’t getting lots of minority support. But what precisely makes you think that it’s the reason you specified?
Yes. It’s pretty clear that there’s a large generational shift in attitudes for young adults of today. Look at how quickly gay rights has changed on our landscape. What was unimaginable 20 years ago is something you’d be ostracized for not supporting today. Young adults today are less intolerant, less religious, more politically amenable to the sort of politics you’d see in Europe.
They’re not perfect - they’ve also got their downsides - the sort of “whitesplain” “check your privilege” trigger warning obsessed nonsense where they’re trying to invent all sorts of new problems to replace the ones they’re fixing, which ironically is a lot of what this thread now consists of.
But absolutely - we saw the last vestiges of “OMG SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!!! THEY WANT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING YOU LOVE!” during Obama’s candidacy and presidency. People now see that despite the dire warnings of utter collapse, we’re not actually eating dog food and bartering with gold. The backlash against Obama is the last dying breaths of a fucking horrible generation who are in the process of dying off and letting our country grow up. They spent so much effort preaching doom and gloom, that when it rang false, the power of using the idea of a society that looks to eschew a social darwinism for a sense of community isn’t so toxic as it once was.
So, yes, actually, our society is simply going somewhere that a message like Bernie’s resonates with more people.
Your “plausible” reason is blacks are more immune to political bullshit? Mmkay.
There’s plenty of reasons Clinton is probably doing better with black voters. First and foremost is that between her and Bill they’ve spent a lot more time building connections with community leaders on a national scale. There’s no way Sanders could hope to compete with the amount of time they’ve put into that.
It is more the dog that did not bark. Clinton respected the communities enough to deal with them in the venues that matter to the communities and to engage in back and forth conversations. Sanders had events.
Here was a somewhat prescient piece from early February, before New Hampshire voted, discussing how his tone and attitude was coming off.
FWIW, and I am hesitant to overgeneralize from this and ask humbly that I get corrected and slapped down by our Black posters if I am inaccurate and inappropriate, I think the communities have more than their share of those who are very pragmatic and politically a bit risk adverse. Back in '07 to '08 I still had some hair. It was thin patchy bald and the best place I could find near my home to get it “cut” was a traditional Black barbershop bordering with the Austin neighborhood of Chicago. The owner and I would debate politics during my cuts. I was the Obama supporter and he was for Clinton as he thought Obama was too pie in the sky. Fact is he was not unrepresentative. It was not until after Obama actually won the Iowa caucus, proving that he could have White support, that many Blacks moved from Clinton to him.
SB we’ve debunked that so much more liberal shift bit before. Millennials are as likely to call themselves conservative as they are liberal and more often self-identify as moderate than either. When Boomers were that age more identified as “liberal” than do Millennials today. They overwhelmingly share their parents’ beliefs.
In fact it was true before this cycle that fewer Milennials had a negative view of the word socialism than older cohorts, but in was still less than a majority (it was 49% negative to 41% positive view in the 18 to 29 year old cohort), and more so they were least likely to be able to say what the word meant, and when the meaning was spelled out they prefer a free market economy to an economy managed by the government 64 to 32%!
But in that last bit? Your innate biases are showing, the ones you likely explicitly reject. We have been discussing specifically White Millennials, the group flocking to Sanders while Millennials and others of color do not, and after you claim how much more progressive they have become you claim “our society is simply going somewhere …” Think, in an open-minded way, about the fact that you define what you believe this particular subgroup thinks is therefore where our society is going.
It’s not informative to say “just as many Millenials view themselves as conservatives” when the definition of what that is varies from person to person, among regional cultures, and age groups. Someone who considered themselves conservative 80 years ago might’ve lynched blacks. Some 22 year old self-identified “conservative” from New England might mean they’re against universal basic income.
The word “socialism” itself has indeed become more palatable after all of the shrieking premonitions of doom around it are coming not to pass, but again, it’s a loaded word. Look at how many people support every major thrust of the ACA, or even the PPACA itself when referred to by that name, but detest “Obamacare” - it’s useful to look at actual opinions and not labels.
I would also say that your characterization as socialism as being in opposition to a “free market economy” isn’t what’s being discussed here. It’s not as if Sanders in his wildest dreams wishes to rid the world of their free market economy, nor do countries traditionally considered socialist lack “free market economies” - it’s more about eschewing the idea of social darwinism and just world biases. The idea that those who are successful deserve to be there and are better people, and those who aren’t are through their own fault and don’t deserve any help. That’s the sort of community-oriented governance I’m speaking of, not the idea of throwing away a free market.
I think it’s pretty silly to try to make a case that the youngest generation is not significantly different than the older ones. If you look at specific issues - and I used gay rights as a very clear one - it’s very clear they are.
Do we really have to have a debate on the definition of socialism? It’s a wide ranging word with lots of meaning depending on who you’re asking. If the USSR and Canada can be described with the same word about political system, it’s not a terribly useful word.
Bernie’s ideas are fairly centrist - maybe possibly slightly left wing - in most of western Europe. Which of those countries lack a free market?
Again, this is why your broad-brush poll responses aren’t very useful. They’re way too vague. If you want to examine the specific issues involved, I’m sure you could find questions about specific economic questions, views on social issues, issues of religiosity, etc.
You seem to be trying to make the case that millenials aren’t significantly different from their parents because a lot of them are willing to describe themselves as conservative, or that only 64% advocate for a free market economy (which is pretty insane to me - are 32% advocating for a command economy?). I think you’re cherry picking vague data to try to fight a point which is obviously true.