In the fallout to the disruption of Sanders' event this weekend in Seattle, I've noticed many diaries lamenting the fact that Sanders does not have widespread support among the black community, and that it is a travesty that the candidate most likely to be on the side of #BLM interests is being targeted by individuals of the movement.
I don't think the incident in Seattle is that much of a deal in isolation, but if it continues to build a narrative that Markos describes in the Hill article on Sanders struggles on race this will continue to impact Sanders' primary campaign and roil his supporters. And while there has been much attention given to the BLM movement in how this dynamic is developing, not enough attention has been given to a correctible failure by the Bernie Sanders campaign to define the candidate.
As far as my affiliations go, I will vote for Bernie in the primary (it's a no-brainer to me), but have little confidence in his chances to secure the nomination. I will support Hillary or whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
Bernie Sanders, like any politician, has the responsibility to define themselves in any campaign for office. And here is where I think the Sanders campaign has failed, so far.
The vast majority of voters, of all racial and ethnic groups, had no idea who Bernie was when his campaign was launched. His campaign has defined the candidate as a person who is not in the pocket of billionaires, who is a champion in the fight against economic inequality, and isn't afraid to call for bold policy measures that most establishment politicians wouldn't touch. His campaign has also defined him as a candidate that can reach out to constituents who aren't normally Democrats, because he is used to a rural, very 'independent-streaked' Vermont constituency.
Now, it is perfectly understandable that the black community wouldn't naturally think he's the candidate that best understands its concerns. He represents a state that is 95% white.
But but.. fellow Sanders supporters say, "he participated in sit-ins in the 60s, he attended the 'I have a dream speech', he was an organizer for SNCC, he endorsed Jesse Jackson for president!" Sure, but nobody knows that, and there wasn't an active push by the campaign to get that message out.
It takes time and active messaging to win over any group. Bill Clinton didn't automatically have that support. In 91-92 he actively reached out to the black community, he actively chose to relate his story as growing up poor in Arkansas as a reason why he could feel the struggles of the black community. Like Bill Clinton or not, he was effective, and that support stayed even after the "Sista Soulja" moment.
The same with Obama in 2007, he didn't have the support of the majority of the black democratic primary constituency before launching his campaign either, and faced skepticism. He had to actively broadcast the narrative that he went from Harvard Law School to community organizing in Chicago, because the struggles of the community were important to him. He had to actively show that he was inspiring a young generation in the way that young people were inspired in the Civil Rights movement in previous generations, and by inspiring them Obama could effectively achieve changes that were not possible before (whether or not he was effective at delivering this in office is irrelevant, I'm talking about what it took to build support in a campaign).
All constituencies understand that candidates remember who were their champions, and the biggest champions get the best seats at the table if the politician wins. And that means that candidates must prove their viability and chance to win. Obama had an uphill struggle against Hillary Clinton in 2007-8, and had to prove his viability to the black community before getting broad support. Bernie Sanders has a similar (if more pronounced) struggle, but again the onus is on the campaign and the candidate to win that argument, that Bernie Sanders has a good chance at winning the nomination. (You see the same hesitancy from the major unions).
By campaigning for national democratic office, a candidate must realize that priorities of major constituencies are critical, and the BLM movement is part of the dynamic that has racism, criminal justice reform, police brutality, etc. at the forefront of the concerns of the black community.
So instead of more diaries lamenting BLM, the passionate Sanders supporters here should focus more on:
What are the best ways to define Bernie Sanders to make him more attractive to the black community?
What went wrong early on in the campaign, and how can that be corrected?
How to best get knowledge of Sanders' civil rights bonafides out to a broader community? It looks like the campaign is trying out something that Markos suggested, bringing in more diverse voices like Symone Sanders.
Another possible idea, what bold policy measure could Sanders call for and rally around (similar in scope to tax Wall Street to provide free college), to distinguish himself in the issues of racial injustice, criminal justice, etc. ?