I had a chance to witness a little bit of the history of the 2016 Presidential campaign yesterday, being in the audience at the Netroots candidate forum in Phoenix featuring Democratic contenders Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders. As everyone by now knows, that event was interrupted by a group of Black Lives Matter demonstrators, chanting the names of victims of police killings and preventing Governor O'Malley from speaking for quite some time. From where I was sitting, it appeared that the first reaction was mostly curiosity. But then we started to detect some hostility, particularly from Sanders supporters who were impatient to hear their candidate, scheduled to speak immediately after O'Malley.
That hostility continues. The debate about the appropriateness of the protest and how it was handled continues. I would submit that it's because we are having that debate that the protest has to be judged successful. It's because the protest made people uncomfortable that it revealed some inconvenient truths. And it's because the two presidential candidates failed to respond effectively to the protest that the event may turn out to have been a watershed moment in this campaign. More thoughts below the squiggle.
I'm a believer in civil discourse and in listening to and trying to understand a variety of viewpoints. So I was initially annoyed when yesterday's protesters would not stop chanting and would not give the candidate much of a chance to respond. It became obvious that they did not come to listen. They came to demand that attention be paid to a serious problem that has been ignored for much too long. And they proved their point when, sadly, both candidates revealed a somewhat dismissive and condescending attitude--O'Malley by making the dumb remark that white lives matter too, and Sanders by launching back into discussion of his economic proposals instead of acknowledging that racism as well as economic disadvantage plays a role in oppressing the black community--that made white members of the audience uncomfortable and defensive.
So the protesters beautifully fulfilled their purpose. And attendees got a much more revealing look at the candidates than we would have obtained from hearing out their campaign platforms.
For those who are still angry at the protesters for showing such a lack of decorum, or who think that the conference organizers were wrong for not shutting them down sooner, think about the following.
Just what was so intolerable about this particular group of protesters? At past Netroots conferences, I have seen Senator Harry Reid challenged, Leader Nancy Pelosi heckled, and President Obama's spokesman Dan Pfeiffer subjected to hostile questioning. Hillary Clinton was also reportedly booed at the 2007 event. So this sort of thing is not only tolerated, but almost expected at Netroots conferences. But we did not see the same vehement reactions against those hecklers that we have seen against these hecklers. What was so different?
What was the alternative to allowing this protest? Imagine if the organizers had tried to silence these protesters. That probably would have involved calling security and escorting them out of the room. Imagine the reaction to that! Anybody who thinks that shutting down the protest was a viable option has to be completely insensitive to the issues that were being raised, and the optics that would have presented.
What was so bad about subjecting the candidates to this kind of challenge? They are involved in a grueling race for president. The campaign trail is supposed to present them with exactly these kinds of tests. If they can't handle being confronted by a small groups of people, how the heck are they supposed to be able to make the case that they could handle the far greater challenges of being president?
hopeandchange