This is a tale of two op-eds.
On 7/22, Joe Dinkin published a piece at The Nation and Robert Reich posted at his own blog. Both focused on what happened at Netroots Nation days earlier.
Their perspectives were very different. Dinkin got it right. Though I'm a big Reich fan, his take fell short.
First, what happened at the event: Bernie Sanders (and Martin O'Malley) blew an opportunity to win hearts and minds of people of color.
Black Lives Matter protesters, fresh with outrage over the crazy-unjustified arrest of Sandra Bland and her subsequent death in police hands, shouted the names of black women who have died in police custody.
Dinkin:
With the protest, Sanders was presented an opportunity on a silver platter: He could overcome his perceived negatives and grow his base. All he would have had to do was act with a little humility.
But instead, he talked over the protesters, got defensive about his racial-justice bona fides, and stuck to his script. Essentially, he appeared to be arguing that economics and class trump all. For an audience mourning the death of Sandra Bland, a woman who was arrested at a traffic stop on the way to her new job before mysteriously dying in police custody, the jobs program Sanders suggested just didn’t seem like a sufficient answer.
How did Reich handle it? See below.
After describing the Netroots disruption, Reich explained that economic and racial inequality "are not the same but they are intimately related." True. But then — instead of honoring protesters' rage and pain — Reich went straight to a call for unity:
Black lives matter.
But it would be a terrible mistake for the progressive movement to split into a “Black lives matter” movement and an “economic justice” movement.
This would only play into the hands of the right.
Reich has spent decades fighting for justice and fairness. But here, unfortunately, he comes across as a white liberal arguing that black protesters shouldn't make too many waves so they don't mess up the economic justice movement (which is led primarily by whites).
It would have been far better if Reich had stopped at "Black lives matter." No but's.
When you make a declaration and follow it with "but," people often hear it as equivocating — even negating what you just said. That's regardless of your sincerity.
Meanwhile, after blowing it at Netroots, Sanders got the memo. On Sunday 7/19, in front of a roaring Houston crowd more than 5,000 strong, he delivered his economic message but also called out the names of African Americans murdered by police.
What a change a day makes.
Gotta hand it to the man for listening hard, and changing his tune. I hope and expect he'll keep it up.
My own take goes like this. . .
I'm not black. But if I were, economic justice might be my #2 issue. #1 would be staying alive and protecting my kids, including (and especially) from cops.
Last month Nate Silver published an eye-popping analysis: If you're a black person in the US, you'd have to go to places like Myanmar and Rwanda to face a greater risk of being murdered. Wait, that's wrong. In Myanmar, a nation in chaos, you'd still be 27% safer than here.
In the US, police don't do most of the killing. But those murders matter more because, well, you know, "protect and serve." Right.
Maybe if those cops did more protecting and less brutalizing, the whole picture would start to change.
So yeah, you bet, Black Lives Matter. And that matters more than anything.
Economic justice affects us all. But if you're white and I'm black, according to Nate Silver your children are seven times safer than mine.
You want a united progressive movement? Get behind that issue first. No but's.
Then we'll talk economics.