He went to talk about Social Security, that was his topic, that’s what he came to talk about. Is it reasonable to expect that pro-choice demonstrators can demand that he vacate his topic in order to address their agenda in the manner they feel is appropriate? What about the old guy who came to hear about Social Security, was assured that this was the topic, is he supposed to shut up and sit on his hands?
This is coalition politics, it is clumsy and difficult. And in the halls where the Forces of Darkness meet to conspire, this is the best news they’ve had all week. Maybe all month. I don’t like it when they are happy, I especially don’t like it when we make them happy.
I think of this as a practical rhetorical question, and not as a moral one.
If a fringe group of black people advocating for the US to split into two countries–a black one and an “other” one–were to step up to the stage and take over the mic, they’d be arrested in short order. And afterwards, their message will only be ignored or ridiculed. Most people understand this and so won’t try it.
If Black Lives Matter steps up to the stage and takes over the mic, they may be arrested, but their message won’t be universally ridiculed or ignored. Some people will talk about it on its merits. People will be looking to Sanders to see how he responds rather than (as in the previous case described above) assuming correctly he’ll go on as though he’d never heard the idea.
So it makes more sense for BLM to do something like this than other groups like those you mentioned. The time is ripe for things like this.
Note that after some such interruptions, Sanders actually hired a BLM activist for his campaign. (These latest interruptors admittedly didn’t seem to know that…) Do you think Sanders would have hired a communist for his campaign had a communist group done the same thing? Now–do you think Sanders would definitely have hired a BLM activist had BLM not taken the fairly drastic steps it has taken? How sure are you about that?
As an acquaintance of mine who blogs about this kind of thing has said in their facebook feed:
I haven’t verified whether it’s true that he hired her specifically as a result of her particular actions, but aside from that, this blogger’s point is dead on.
There’s sort of a general practical worry people have about whether the possibility of this kind of action makes it impossible for people to hold rallies in the first place. (“If we allow this then won’t people just always do this, making rallies useless for the ones holding them?”) But we know from what actually happens that this kind of thing is in fact exceptional. It’s always possible for people to do this (there’s no question of anyone being “allowed” to do it) and yet it only happens very rarely.
Most people will have a sense of when doing something like this is counterproductive (i.e. usually) and when doing something like this has a realistic chance to help accomplish something positive.
Sorry, but no. Ezra Klein: [INDENT]There are inconsistencies in Wilson’s story. He estimates that Brown ran 20-30 feet away from the car and then charged another 10 feet back towards Wilson. But we know Brown died 150 feet away from the car.[/INDENT] More: Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally. | Vox
I can see why the Justice Department might not want to die on this particular hill: arguably they were wise to shift focus to widespread and systemic problems in local judicial practices. But the “Virtually all evidence” claim is false.
That said, I disagree with BLM crashing the event and calling for 4 min of silence for a figure where the evidence is as mixed as this.
That’s one of the problems with BLM. Their demands don’t translate very well into specific legislation. I’m glad that Sanders has attempted to get ahead of this issue. It seems to me though that BLM needs to level up as well. As further evidence, I could point to last Spring’s local election in Ferguson, where reformers won a couple of seats when they should have swept the whole thing.
Well, that’s a classic Fox/CNN tactic: First state that there’s no evidence for what you’re about to say, then say it anyway so that it gains traction as “news”. Jon Stewart did a bit on that.
Bernie: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together Dems & BLM: We Are!! Bernie: We mustn’t fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy! Dems & BLM: The police!! Bernie: No, no! The oligarchs!
If he thinks shutting down Bernie Sanders would do that, he just made a big mistake. Few people would have seen that speech or cared what Sanders was saying, but now a lot of people have seen a sitting United States Senator and presidential candidate physically prevented from speaking by a bunch of punks.
When LBJ was campaigning in Texas on the 1960 ticket, he and his wife got pushed around by a hostile crowd in Dallas yelling that he was a turncoat, carpetbagger, etc. After that scene appeared in the news, Kennedy-Johnson surged in the polls and went on to win Texas and the election, because so many of the undecideds – Southerners who liked to think of themselves as chivalrous – were appalled by the treatment, especially of Mrs. Johnson, and wanted to distance themselves from the “right-wing crazies”.
Sadly, that conspiracy theory fits how a lot of us on the left see the Clinton machine. I’m not saying it’s true or false, just that it’s…plausible to some of us.
Bernie Sanders needs to get ahead of this now. He should ask a civil rights org (like the ACLU or NAACP or even an AME church) to host a forum for him to speak on this topic. The NAACP is usually pretty good about getting airtime for their events, so that’s probably a better avenue to pursue. If he does that, these protests will probably go away.
What he needs to do is get his cootie shot, which means changing his party designation to Democrat. As long as he’s not a Democrat he will not be inoculated from charges that he doesn’t care about black people.
I’m not sure, I don’t think the NAACP speaks for all black movements. I’d wager (based entirely on gut feeling, feel free to prove me wrong), that they’re probably seen as too “establishment” of a force for the more “radical” (for lack of a less negatively loaded term) movements.
AFAIK, Sanders has one of the best voting records as rated by the NAACP, so if their approval was all that mattered he’s kind of already got it. Though I guess displaying that approval in a more public, obvious manner couldn’t hurt from a game-playing perspective.
It doesn’t really matter the organization. I’m only suggesting the NAACP, because they’re used to organizing these type of events and have the ability to get airtime for their events. What matters is that he holds an event with a reputable civil rights org. to discuss this issue specifically.