The question from George Yancy of Emory Univ for the New York Times was:
"But is it really possible to speak courageous speech while acting as the most powerful country in the world? Of course, we also have to admit the history of racism preceded Obama’s tenure and will exceed it. My point is that there is a deep tension that exists for someone who desires to embody prophetic fire and yet be in charge of an empire." - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...
His reply:
"I think that’s true for most politicians, actually. Now when it comes to the intellectuals who rationalize their deference to the politician, so they want to pose as prophetic even though they are very much deferential to the powers that be, they need to be criticized in a very intense way. That’s why I’m very hard on the Obama cheerleaders, you see, but when it comes to the politicians themselves, it is very difficult to be a prophetic politician the way in which Harold Washington was or the way Paul Wellstone was or the way Shirley Chisholm was, or the way my dear brother Bernie Sanders actually is. He is a prophetic politician. He speaks the truth about wealth and equality. He speaks the truth about Wall Street. He speaks the truth about working and poor people being afterthoughts in terms of the kind of calculations of the oligarchs of our day. He shows that it’s possible to be a politician who speaks the truth."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...
I present Mr. West's opinion in the hopes it will quell the baseless accusations that Sen Sanders is more a part of the problem than the solution.
Doubtlessly, since the problems that BLM are so passionate about persists, there is more we can all do, but Bernie has been wrongfully singled out & that exercise has been extremely harmful (& costly) to his cause.
In a Slate piece on 8/17, Jamelle Bouie says:
"In this environment, if you’re trying to make a splash, you go with Sanders, especially when he’s more open to change and adjustment than the alternatives. Disrupting Sanders gives you more bang for your buck: It keeps you in the news and puts indirect pressure on other campaigns that know they’ll have to answer to the movement’s questions. To that point, the New Hampshire demonstrators couldn’t crash the Clinton rally, but they still met with the candidate—quietly—and discussed their concerns. In all likelihood, the pressure on Sanders has forced Clinton—the likely nominee—to devote more time to Black Lives Matter, in a bid to protect her flank. And in turn, this brings their issues up the ladder, closer to the top of the party’s agenda." -http://www.slate.com/...
IMO this exposes the hypocrisy of this truly flawed approach. Take pot shots at your friend so you can have tea with his enemy? With friends like this, who needs enemies? If you have a leaky sink burning down the entire house, may be effective, but there is such a thing as "overkill". Shortsighted is an understatement.
In this case BLM has burned down the house to fix a leaky faucet. This perfidy may have cost more than it could ever possibly have gained. I'm talking about trust.
It's time to set things right. The BLM owes Bernie. They need to, at best get behind him or at least help by not merely accepting they can't crash the publicity of other candidates & have a press blacked out meeting. That's just bullshit.
IMO this is the only way they can prove their genuine relevance, otherwise their own actions will marginalize them. Time will tell.