Ta-Nehisi Coates has been critical of our Democratic candidates of late. First, he chastised Bernie Sanders for dismissing reparations for African-Americans even though Bernie advances other seemingly unreachable goals:
I thought that Bernie Sanders, the candidate of single-payer health insurance, of the dissolution of big banks, of free higher education, was interested both in being elected and in advancing the debate beyond his own candidacy. I thought the importance of Sanders’s call for free tuition at public universities lay not just in telling citizens that which is actually workable, but in showing them that which we must struggle to make workable. I thought Sanders’s campaign might remind Americans that what is imminently doable and what is morally correct are not always the same things, and while actualizing the former we can’t lose sight of the latter.
This article provoked a lot of pushback from Sanders’ supporters. Some claimed Clinton partisanship was behind this.
Apparently it’s not so simple. This morning Coates posted a sizzling response to Hillary’s ill-taken statement last night on Reconstruction. The comment in question, which came at the end of her statement of admiration for Abraham Lincoln, is here:
You know, [Lincoln] was willing to reconcile and forgive. And I don't know what our country might have been like had he not been murdered, but I bet that it might have been a little less rancorous, a little more forgiving and tolerant, that might possibly have brought people back together more quickly.
But instead, you know, we had Reconstruction, we had the re-instigation of segregation and Jim Crow. We had people in the South feeling totally discouraged and defiant. So, I really do believe he could have very well put us on a different path.
Coates puts Hillary’s line of thought here in historical context:
Clinton, whether she knows it or not, is retelling a racist—though popular—version of American history which held sway in this country until relatively recently. Sometimes going under the handle of “The Dunning School,” and other times going under the “Lost Cause” label, the basic idea is that Reconstruction was a mistake brought about by vengeful Northern radicals. The result was a savage and corrupt government which in turn left former Confederates, as Clinton puts, it “discouraged and defiant.”
…
[U]ntil relatively recently, this self-serving version of history was dominant. It is almost certainly the version fed to Hillary Clinton during her school years, and possibly even as a college student. Hillary Clinton is no longer a college student. And the fact that a presidential candidate would imply that Jim Crow and Reconstruction were equal, that the era of lynching and white supremacist violence would have been prevented had that same violence not killed Lincoln, and that the violence was simply the result of rancor, the absence of a forgiving spirit, and an understandably “discouraged” South is chilling.
Coates’ closes with an observation on the frustrating process of having to vote for the lesser of two evils:
In the American system of government, refusing to vote for the less-than-ideal is a vote for something much worse. Even when you don’t choose, you choose. But you can choose with your skepticism fully intact. You can choose in full awareness of the insufficiency of your options, without elevating those who would have us forget into prophets. You can choose and still push, demanding more. It really isn’t too much to say, if you’re going to govern a country, you should know its history.
It’s a powerful critique. (Go read the whole thing.) I imagine Hillary, if she had thought about it, would realize that she does not support the racist version of post-Civil War history and would have chosen different words to illustrate the loss to the nation of Lincoln’s assassination. She may well issue a clarifying comment (as Sanders has done regarding Planned Parenthood). Regardless, it’s excellent that Mr. Coates took this opportunity to make the point that our nation’s past is a lot more painful and shameful than some would like to believe. One hopes the day comes when our national candidates can speak freely about it, speak truth to power, and not resort to “both sides at fault” fairy tales.
As for his critique of Sanders on Reparations, I believe Coates overlooks one key aspect. The bold pieces of Sanders’ agenda — single-payer health insurance, large-scale infrastructure spending, bank restructuring, etc. — are all popular among large swaths of the electorate. Reparations is not, to the best of my knowledge. It’s not surprising that no national politician currently supports the idea, even though there is an excellent argument that reparations are deserved for African-Americans (and American Indians).
This primary is fun. Lots to talk about.