It has to be one of the most compelling endorsements an African-American activist can give to a white politician running for President.
https://newrepublic.com/article/124391/yes-she-can
He said something that many were shocked by-that Hillary Clinton can do more for black folks than Obama has been able to do.
It's interesting to compare his take here to the attitude of a another major AA icon-Al Sharpton. Dyson and Sharpton have differed over Obama for years. I suspect that Sharpton took at least some exception to Dyson's piece.
The Right still tries to tie some of Sharpton's earlier excesses-Tawana Brawley, etc-to him and generally has contempt for him as a racial demagogue.
But this rap is unfair or at least way out of date. Sharpton has long since taken what seems to me to be a much more constructive place in the civil rights movement. He has learned, and grown, and to use a word Bernie Sanders doesn't like, evolved.
When Obama came up in 2007, not all black activists and civil rights leaders embraced him with open arms. Tavis Smiley and Cornell West were somewhat cool. Jessie Jackson was conflicted.
No question this in part was that Obama changed the calculus. These leaders often saw themselves as the authentic voice of the black community and Obama in some ways threatened that.
Sharpton was very smart in the way he dealt with it. He saw that Obama changed the game. He realized that Obama needed a little room-he had to win the white vote as well, he had to be a racial optimist-and he gave him it.
Sharpton handled it much better than Cornell West who never got over what he saw as a demotion for himself. He has long since become a parody of himself with his peeved feelings over an alleged Obama snub over Inauguration tickets back in 2009.
Bernie Sanders has groused recently about 'This game where the Secretary talks about how much she loves President Obama and how much he loves her.'
But this is the problem for Bernie.
Most of his black surrogates are notorious Obama bashers, first and foremost among them, Cornell West.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/22/how-cornel-west-hurts-bernie-sanders/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/cornel_west_hillary_clinton_is_the_milli_vanilli_of_american_politics.html
Sharpton embraced President Obama and kept his criticism of him private. In 2011 he got into some fights with Dyson and Cornell West-not that Dyson and West are in any sense on the same side. Dyson certainly never committed the rhetorical excesses of West who said abusrd things about Obama being 'afraid of strong black men' etc.
Sharpton argued that Obama doesn't need a 'black agenda' and he can't be expected to lead the marches against himself. He's the President, not a civil rights leader.
Tell the truth, as an Obama lover all these years, I appreciated Sharpton's attitude as it gave the President more room to maneuver.
But now that I don't feel I have to defend Obama on a daily basis like I used to do-now I speak up for Hillary on a daily basis again!-I find Dyson's argument interesting.
One way to read it-this is my gloss-is that in American politics you can only really criticize your own race properly.
Like Obama would have some pretty tough speeches about the need for black folks to take responsibility and not blame everything on racism, etc.
With white folks, though, the President mostly was very cautious. If he seemed to criticize white folks, he worried, he'd be read as 'rooting for his own team.'
However, a President Hillary Clinton would be empowered to criticize her own tribe in ways that Obama never could. She already has done this, she's spoken of white privilege and how white folks shouldn't presume their own experiences are universal.
You think about Chris Rock's comment that racial progress is not about black folks but about white folks progressing.
In that sense, Dyson argues, Hillary will do more for white progress. She can speak tough truths that the first black President couldn't.
I have to say, you already see signs of this happening. The fact that she's gotten words like intesectional into her speeches, that she's spoken of systemic racism, that even more basically, race has become such an important topic in this primary speaks volumes to this fact.
A Chris Hayes said recently, when have we ever seen such competition for the black vote?
The mainstream media is talking about it. I myself no doubt have talked about it more than ever.
It's not that I didn't see it as an important issue before but this is putting it front and center. And she's not President yet.
One more thing I will note. In a previous piece I argued-I'm not the first-that black folks tend to be pragmatic in their voting choices.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-bros-and-hillary-lovers.html
There are a lot of pragmatic reasons to vote for Hillary and of course she is running as the pragmatic choice, the progressive who gets things done.
But there is one extra pragmatic reason for black folks to continue to be so loyal to her as they were in Nevada last Saturday.
Leverage. Think about it. A President Hillary will be very grateful to the African American community. She will be President thanks to them.
A President Bernie Sanders would not owe anything in particular to black voters. If he wins the primary it will be in spite of not winning black voters. At most he might hope to chip away at her lead among them-but never come close to leading outright.
So no matter how you look at it, his strategy at this point has to be to neutralize the black vote. He has to run the table in states where there aren't too many black voters.
Judging by reports of the dissatisfaction of Vermont 's black leaders in Bernie it certainly doesn't bode well.
https://newrepublic.com/article/124391/yes-she-can
He said something that many were shocked by-that Hillary Clinton can do more for black folks than Obama has been able to do.
It's interesting to compare his take here to the attitude of a another major AA icon-Al Sharpton. Dyson and Sharpton have differed over Obama for years. I suspect that Sharpton took at least some exception to Dyson's piece.
The Right still tries to tie some of Sharpton's earlier excesses-Tawana Brawley, etc-to him and generally has contempt for him as a racial demagogue.
But this rap is unfair or at least way out of date. Sharpton has long since taken what seems to me to be a much more constructive place in the civil rights movement. He has learned, and grown, and to use a word Bernie Sanders doesn't like, evolved.
When Obama came up in 2007, not all black activists and civil rights leaders embraced him with open arms. Tavis Smiley and Cornell West were somewhat cool. Jessie Jackson was conflicted.
No question this in part was that Obama changed the calculus. These leaders often saw themselves as the authentic voice of the black community and Obama in some ways threatened that.
Sharpton was very smart in the way he dealt with it. He saw that Obama changed the game. He realized that Obama needed a little room-he had to win the white vote as well, he had to be a racial optimist-and he gave him it.
Sharpton handled it much better than Cornell West who never got over what he saw as a demotion for himself. He has long since become a parody of himself with his peeved feelings over an alleged Obama snub over Inauguration tickets back in 2009.
Bernie Sanders has groused recently about 'This game where the Secretary talks about how much she loves President Obama and how much he loves her.'
But this is the problem for Bernie.
Most of his black surrogates are notorious Obama bashers, first and foremost among them, Cornell West.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/22/how-cornel-west-hurts-bernie-sanders/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/cornel_west_hillary_clinton_is_the_milli_vanilli_of_american_politics.html
Sharpton embraced President Obama and kept his criticism of him private. In 2011 he got into some fights with Dyson and Cornell West-not that Dyson and West are in any sense on the same side. Dyson certainly never committed the rhetorical excesses of West who said abusrd things about Obama being 'afraid of strong black men' etc.
Sharpton argued that Obama doesn't need a 'black agenda' and he can't be expected to lead the marches against himself. He's the President, not a civil rights leader.
Tell the truth, as an Obama lover all these years, I appreciated Sharpton's attitude as it gave the President more room to maneuver.
But now that I don't feel I have to defend Obama on a daily basis like I used to do-now I speak up for Hillary on a daily basis again!-I find Dyson's argument interesting.
One way to read it-this is my gloss-is that in American politics you can only really criticize your own race properly.
Like Obama would have some pretty tough speeches about the need for black folks to take responsibility and not blame everything on racism, etc.
With white folks, though, the President mostly was very cautious. If he seemed to criticize white folks, he worried, he'd be read as 'rooting for his own team.'
However, a President Hillary Clinton would be empowered to criticize her own tribe in ways that Obama never could. She already has done this, she's spoken of white privilege and how white folks shouldn't presume their own experiences are universal.
You think about Chris Rock's comment that racial progress is not about black folks but about white folks progressing.
In that sense, Dyson argues, Hillary will do more for white progress. She can speak tough truths that the first black President couldn't.
I have to say, you already see signs of this happening. The fact that she's gotten words like intesectional into her speeches, that she's spoken of systemic racism, that even more basically, race has become such an important topic in this primary speaks volumes to this fact.
A Chris Hayes said recently, when have we ever seen such competition for the black vote?
The mainstream media is talking about it. I myself no doubt have talked about it more than ever.
It's not that I didn't see it as an important issue before but this is putting it front and center. And she's not President yet.
One more thing I will note. In a previous piece I argued-I'm not the first-that black folks tend to be pragmatic in their voting choices.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-bros-and-hillary-lovers.html
There are a lot of pragmatic reasons to vote for Hillary and of course she is running as the pragmatic choice, the progressive who gets things done.
But there is one extra pragmatic reason for black folks to continue to be so loyal to her as they were in Nevada last Saturday.
Leverage. Think about it. A President Hillary will be very grateful to the African American community. She will be President thanks to them.
A President Bernie Sanders would not owe anything in particular to black voters. If he wins the primary it will be in spite of not winning black voters. At most he might hope to chip away at her lead among them-but never come close to leading outright.
So no matter how you look at it, his strategy at this point has to be to neutralize the black vote. He has to run the table in states where there aren't too many black voters.
Judging by reports of the dissatisfaction of Vermont 's black leaders in Bernie it certainly doesn't bode well.
No comments:
Post a Comment