Oh So Privileged Whites

Surely, it was purely inadvertent and probably would disappoint Slate's Jamelle Bouie to hear that his effort to explain the Trump phenomenon lays bare the misleading and offensive nature of one of the left's favorite bromides, "white privilege."  Bouie lays considerable blame for the popularity of the Manhattan demagogue on Barack Obama as a "political symbol" because

In a nation shaped and defined by a rigid racial hierarchy, his election was very much a radical event, in which a man from one of the nation’s lowest castes ascended to the summit of its political landscape. And he did so with heavy support from minorities: Asian Americans and Latinos were an important part of Obama’s coalition, and black Americans turned out at their highest numbers ever in 2008....

For progressives, this presaged a "durable majority" forged by a population growing more diverse, better-educated, and more cosmopolitan. Unfortunately

For millions of white Americans who weren’t attuned to growing diversity and cosmopolitanism, however, Obama was a shock, a figure who appeared out of nowhere to dominate the country’s political life. And with talk of an “emerging Democratic majority,” he presaged a time when their votes—which had elected George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan—would no longer matter. More than simply “change,” Obama’s election felt like an inversion. When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it couldn’t give material benefits.

After a couple of centuries in which blacks were oppressed, the era of the first black President, Bouie recognizes, has coincided with a constant stream of reports of a growing minority component and status. Consequently, he notes, "millions of whites were hyperaware of and newly anxious about their racial status."   Bouie quotes Brown University political scientist Michael Tesler, who in 2013 wrote “The election of the country’s first black president had the ironic upshot of opening the door for old-fashioned racism to influence partisan preferences after it was long thought to be a spent force in American politics,” Tesler rmarked that there are whites who have “concerns about the leadership of a president from a racial group whom they consider to be intellectually and socially inferior.”

Yet, such emphasis on racism not only overstates the extent of racism in Trump's support but also the nature  of the racial effect.  Consider that Bouie, recognizing "Trump's appeal to working-class whites," writes

The collapse of the industrial economy in the wake of the Great Recession caused real devastation. The middle class has been losing ground for a long time, and there are few jobs for people without college degrees—or at least, few jobs that hold a path to mobility. Even in places where new factories have cropped up, unions are sparse and wages are low, following a race-to-the-bottom among the towns and cities that vie for the remaining manufacturing jobs. When economic desperation meets hopelessness—as we saw in the 1980s, when an earlier wave of deindustrialization ravaged the inner cities—the results are tragic.

That usually is acknowledged, even by political and media elites who have supported who have supported policies with those unsurprising effects. However, Bouie adds

The effects of these trends were highlighted in a widely analyzed study released last fall that showed rising mortality rates among middle- and working-class white Americans, the group that makes up Trump’s main body of support. Princeton University professor Anne Case and co-author Angus Deaton found that white working-class Americans are increasingly dying from suicide, alcohol abuse, and drugs. “In 1999,” writes Case for Quartz, “people in this group died from accidental drug and alcohol poisonings at four times the rate of Americans with a bachelor’s degree or more. By 2013, they were dying at seven times the rate of their better-educated peers. In 2013, they also committed suicide at more than twice the rate of people with more education, and died from alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis at five times the rate of those with a college degree.”

These spikes in mortality are so large that, for whites aged 45 to 54, they’ve lowered overall life expectancy. Young whites, meanwhile, face rising rates of addiction and acorresponding increase in mortality.

Not only have there been a loss of good jobs, alcoholism, and growing morbidity but they and those "Republicans with modest middle-class incomes," generally better-off than the typical Trump enthusiast

.... have seen their friends and family fall into dependency, whether to drugs or alcohol or welfare. They are both sympathetic to this plight—which is why Trump’s call for more help for veterans and seniors resonates with them—but also frustrated and angry. The country, and its leaders, made a promise: If you worked hard, you would get ahead. But that didn’t happen. Instead, for millions of Americans, it was the reverse: They worked hard and fell behind. They’re afraid, for themselves and for their children.

"If you work hard and play by the rules," President Clinton promised them, "you'll be rewarded with a good life for yourself and a better chance for your children."  For all the trade, technology, and training- in some cases because of them- things have not worked out as expected. Then theywatched  read last autumn of minister and theologian Jim Wallis writing a book entitled "America's Original Sin:  Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America." It's likely those indviduals partial to Donald Trump didn't believe this "new America" included them in anything but a subordinate role.

About the same time, we watched the news as

More than 60 student activists at Wright State University marched through campus and squeezed into administrative offices demanding that President David Hopkins meet with them to discuss rights for African American students.

The protesters said they gathered to support their peers at the University of Missouri and to raise awareness for “institutionalized racism” at Wright State.

For nearly three hours the students marched from building to building on campus to decry “white privilege” and the “culture of mistreatment” toward black students.

Many of Trump's supporters didn't go to college because they couldn't afford to do so.  The same may be true of their sons and daughters, or they may have fallen victim to alcohol or other drug use, a pregnancy which might have interrupted education, or one of another problems presumably not encountered by those young people able to attend college and protest "white privilege."

About the same time, Trump followeres could have picked up a book, written by minister and theologian Jim Wallace, entitled "America's Original Sin:  Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America." It's likely most Trump boosters didn't, or wouldn't, believe this "new America" included them in anything but a subordinate role.

Earlier in the year, a black Missouri state senator issued a few tweets against "white privilege" and added  (emphasis hers)  "LET ME BE CLEAR When you exercise your #WhitePrivilege, don't think I'm not going to remember. I will use it for the future. Uncomfortable?"

This was to be heard not only as accusatory, but threatening.

Variations on the same theme have only become more common. Below, two young Washington Post reporters can be viewed assuming they know more about being white than Trump supporters (and the rest of us whites) ever would claim to know about being black.  White privilege is "about advantages conferred,not earned, solely based upon the fact that you're part of the majority group in America," says one.  Few people can as easily and naively postulate sentiments which most followers of Donald Trump recognize as "politically correct."

We then wonder "how come these Trumpians are harboring so much hostility?" Now, that's a mystery.















Share |

Paying Attention

In the end, Donald Trump will be disappointed.  At some point short of the Oval Office, he will come up short (no sex jokes, please). Among the reasons is that he underestimates the American people.

Hispanics, at the very least.  Vowing to "take jobs back" from China and Japan, Trump in July declared "The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they're going to love Trump." After he won the Nevada caucus, he labeled hispanics "incredible workers. I love them. I love them," presumably because he sees them less as individuals than as people who work for low wages at his properties in Nevada.

On that occasion, he remarked also “We won with highly-educated, we won with poorly educated! I love the poorly educated! We’re the smartest people, we’re the most loyal people.”










There is considerable reason to question Trump's claim that he received among Latinos more votes than did his rivals in Nevada.  In either case, the votes of Latinos can be moved by the same factors as those of any other demographic group.

Still, it appears Latinos are quite aware of what is going on politically.  Politico reports

More than three out of four Hispanics view Donald Trump negatively, according to the latest Gallup survey.

The billionaire presidential candidate has a 77 percent unfavorable rating and a 12 percent favorable rating among Hispanics in both parties, according to Gallup Daily tracking data collected between early January and early March.

The share of Hispanics who view Trump unfavorably has increased from this summer, when he was viewed negatively by 66 percent and positively by 14 percent.

It was in summer that when he announced his candidacy, Trump maintained

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

He would solve the problem, he vowed because

I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Mark my words.

Since the summer, Trump has only emphasized his commitment to building a wall, periodically crowing "the wall just got ten feet taller/higher."   As a campaign promise, it is empty boasting. As a message to both his supporters and to hispanics, however, it is a loud and clear signal, as was tossing Univision reporter Jorge Ramos out of a news conference last August.









Message received.  Politico's report further demonstrated the attention paid to the campaign by Hispanics, for

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is of Cuban descent, has the second-highest unfavorable rating (30 percent), though his favorable rating is more than double Trump’s at 26 percent.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — who is also of Cuban heritage — are tied with 26 percent unfavorable, though Clinton’s favorable rating is much higher at 59 percent. Rubio lags behind at 32 percent.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has 16 percent unfavorable, and 35 percent favorable. And Ohio Gov. John Kasich has 14 percent unfavorability and 15 percent favorability.

Rafael Cruz- who prefers to go by "Ted"- is the candidate, aside from Trump, most closely associated with opposition to what he calls "amnesty."  (Cruz's statements and actions have been more nuanced and complex; for policy wonks only.) Rubio was a member of the "Gang of Eight" but reneged on his support, suggesting that he no longer supports comprehensive immigration reform but is more open to it than is the Texas senator.  Mrs. Clinton is a full-bore supporter, as is Bernie Sanders. However, she still is better well-known and perhaps puts a higher priority on open borders than does the Vermont senator.

No one- not even the candidate himself/herself- can know for sure what will be accomplished regarding immigration reform or restriction in the new Administration.(If this campaign could go on longer, Trump might end up promising a new Tower of Babel. Only more beautiful.) But given what we do know about these men and women, the level of sophistication among hispanics appears high, a counter to the meme of the American voter as stupid and disengaged.  This is not good for Donald Trump.

Share |

Hot And Bothered By Cuba

Now that the pressure is off him, his presidential run having gone up in flames, Marco Rubio is more relaxed and the experts at POLITICO Caucus believe he won the debate in Miami. Of course, these activists, strategists, and operatives have far less knowledge of what base voters want to hear than what they themselves want want to hear.

But Rubio always has been on his game of grandstanding. Thursday night was no exception when he remarked

I'll tell you what the good deal now, it's already codified. Here's a good deal -- Cuba has free elections, Cuba stops putting people in jail for speaking out, Cuba has freedom of the press, Cuba kicks out the Russians from Lourdes (ph) and kicks out the Chinese listening station in Berupal (ph) Cuba stops helping North Korea evade U.N. sanctions, Cuba takes all of those fugitives of America justice, including that cop killer from New Jersey, and send her back to the United States and to jail where she belongs. And you know what? Then we can have a relationship with Cuba. That's a good deal.

If each of those things really is necessary, we would have to reassess diplomatic relations with a few significant nations..

We never would have to have a relationship with a nation whose government treats its female citizens "like children" who cannot travel, work, or leave their home without permission from a man, and cannot drive; which bans all public gatherings, violation of which subjects the individual to imprisonment; denies access to independent human rights organizations and prersecutes individuals who contact Amnesty International; which has jailed an individual who has used Twitter to criticize its Ministry of Justice; imprisoned and beaten a blogger who has questioned religious authorities; and which discriminates against a religious minority in access to government services and employment.

Our nation never would establish diplomatic relations with that nation or publicly support placing it in charge of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations.

We wouldn't, that is, unless that nation is Saudi Arabia, which still hasn't explained its likely involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

That part about Saudi Arabia being a theocracy probably appeals to Senator Rubio. Still, if the conditions he sets down for Cuba were applied generally, the USA would have to end diplomatic relationships with dozens of countries. Denunciation of Havana is safe politics, especially in the absence of an acknowledgement that the regime has been propped up for a long time by the remittances sent to Cubans from relatives in south Florida.

Rubio's performance in the debate was designed to convince the media and the GOP establishment that, whatever the size of his genitals, he is the serious, thoughtful, and knowledgeable government official they once thought he was.  He may have conned them, but he is still a big bag of feathers.











Release the 28 pages!



Share |

Debate Winner: Trump Or Cruz

Jorge Ramos of Univision proved himself a dogged interrogator at the Democratic presidential debate in Miami Wednesday night. In so doing, he increased the possibility of making a Donald Trump- or Ted Cruz - presidency a reality.

It was like pulling teeth, but in the end Ramos pulled off a major coup by getting the answer he was seeking.  After nine+ debates, former Secretary of State Clinton finally found something with which she disagrees with President Obama, the deportation of individuals who enter the country illegally.

The frontrunner's promise to extend due process to children threatened with deportation was insufficient to Ramos, and eventually to Clinton herself. She remarked

But if you are asking about everyone who is already here, undocumented immigrants, the 11-12 million who are living here, my priorities are to deport violent criminals, terrorists, and anyone who threatens our safety. So I do not have the same policy as the current administration does. I think it's important that we move to our comprehensive immigration reform, but at the same time, stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that's my priority.

Mrs. Clinton wants to "stop the raids, stop the round-ups."  Employers who hire illegal immigrants- presumably at the expense of  legal residents among whites, blacks,  hispanics or Asian-Americans- have the green light from her.

But that wasn't good enough, nor was it that a President Clinton would extend due process to children threatened with deportation.  Ramos asked "But again, yes or no, can you promise tonight that you won't deport children, children who are already here?" to which Clinton vowed "I will not deport children. I would not deport children."

Still not enough, as Clinton was asked "And that you won't deport immigrants who don't have a criminal record?"

Clinton initially seemed to acquiesce, responding "That's what I'm telling you." However, when she rambled on about asylum, the persistent Ramos wouldn't let go, leading to this exchange:

RAMOS: So you will stop those deportations.

CLINTON: I would stop...

RAMOS: The deportations for children...

CLINTON: Yes.

RAMOS: ... and those who don't have a criminal record.

CLINTON: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.

Oh, my.   Ramos then went on to extract the same concession from Sanders who, not to be found lacking in the pandering department, stated "I can make that promise."

Jorge Ramos did his job, and did it extraordinarily well. He will not have to live with the ramifications of these statements; only Sanders or more likely Clinton, will. And in a general election against either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, the consequences would be enormous.


















Share |

Benghazi In Perspective

IOKIYAR.

Generally not fond of abbreviations and disliking jargon, I've avoided IOKIYAR. Until now.

In September, 2012 four Americans were murdered in an attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Because it occurred during the 2012 general election campaign, the Obama Administration generally was blamed for, as Mitt Romney alleged at the time, choosing "to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions."  Sometime after the election, blame shifted to Secretary Clinton.

In the debate in Miami Wednesday night, Jorge Ramos asked Mrs. Clinton about Benghazi, introducing the topic by playing a video clip of the mother of one of the victims, stating "Hillary and Obama and Panetta and Biden and all of -- and Susan Rice, all told me it was a video, when they knew it was not the video. And they said that they would call me and let me know what the outcome was." Later that night, as Ramos pointed out, Clinton would send an e-mail to her daughter blaming terrorists for the attack.

The Secretary replied that, as she had testified to the House committee investigating the attack they all "were scrambling to get information that was changing, literally by the hour. And when we had information, we made it public. But then sometimes we had to go back and say we have new information that contradicts it."

After further remarks, it got juicy when Clinton noted

And this is not the first time we lost Americans in a terrorist attack. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11. We lost Americans serving in embassies in Tanzania and Kenya when my husband was president. We lost 250 Americans, both military and civilian, when Ronald Reagan was president in Beirut.

And at no other time were those tragedies were they politicized.

In May, 2014, after another round of GOP-inspired and led congressional investigations into Benghazi was announced, investigative reporter Jane Mayer recalled

Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.

Eleven months after the first, and five months after the second, attack, CIA's station chief in Beirut was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered. Three months prior, Mayer notes, Congress had issued a constructive bipartisan report citing "very serious errors in judgement" throughout the military command.

Neither President Reagan nor Secretary of State Schultz was hounded for years afterward, even after a US government outpost in Beirut was bombed in September, 1984. In one presidential term, 305 Americans serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Beirut in security lapses, to which President Reagan reacted “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

That was then, this is now, Mayer recognizes. The difference, however, goes beyond that. Democrats chose not to make this failure of a Republican president into a partisan issue because, in the end, it's O.K. if you're a Republican.














Share |

A Tiff Over Mental Health

Amanda Levitt is not pleased.

In the recent Democratic debate in Flint, Hillary Clinton noted "You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."   Bernie Sanders responded

Well, let me make a couple of responses. Let me pick up on the last point the secretary made. You know, we are, if elected president, going to invest a lot of money into mental health. And when you watch these Republican debates, you know why we need to invest in that.








"Those who do suffer from such disorders," writes The Washington Post's Yanan Wang, "are calling out Sanders’s ableism."   because he equated the GOP circus with mental health disability.

Wang doesn't explain what "ableism" is. It might refer to being able, though if so, I suffer from a severe mental disability given my level of skill at home repair (and various other things).   Wang cites the tweets of Ms. Levitt, who quite ably tweeted "Another way to not have people vote for you, imply that mental health issues are the cause of the GOP's behavior" and "I have a mental disability. Racism (etc.) is not a mental health problem. It's a hate problem."

Here is where instinct would compel someone to complain "get over it." But that trivializes the problem of mental health. Still, there was a lot wrong with the Republican debate that went beyond racism. which admittedly is not a mental health problem. It turns out, however, that neither is the vast majority of violent crime.  In an article published in 2003 in a psychiatric journal, researcher Heather Stuart acknowledged

The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.

Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence.

Third, substance abuse appears to be a major determinant of violence and this is true whether it occurs in the context of a concurrent mental illness or not. Those with substance disorders are major contributors to community violence, perhaps accounting for as much as a third of self-reported violent acts, and seven out of every 10 crimes of violence among mentally disordered offenders.

Republicans cite mental health to avoid confronting the peril of a dangerously armed public. Democrats- including Bernie Sanders- latch on to mental health to avoid the controversy of gun safety measures and because there are a lot of people, the vast majority law-abiding, who simply need help. Few if any politicians will openly recognize the mental health dodge. Advocates such as Levitt and Wang need not get over it or even be less sensitive. They should be more sensitive- sensitive to the cultural winds enabling them to enjoy their moment in the sun. Rejoice and give thanks.








Share |

Fitting Sanders For A White Sheet

Stupid questions- or good questions in the wrong context- yield stupid responses.  I'm not speaking of Charlie Pierce, who liked the question while recognizing "But it was the question that was the story. Can you imagine asking that same question of the four remaining Republicans? Can you imagine the reaction of the people in the audience if anyone asked?"

That is why it was a waste of time (other than for the over-heated reactions by surrogates) when CNN's Don Lemon at the Flint debate decided "to ask both of you again. In a speech about policing, the FBI director James Comey borrowed a phrase saying, “everyone is a little bit racist.” What racial blind spot do you have? "

This is not nearly as useful a question to ask Democrats as to ask of Republicans. (It wouldn't be so now, given they have been forewarned.) For Democrats, one might ask, about one topic or another: "And how do you propose to pay for all of this?" to which a legitimate answer probably would follow.

Nonetheless, Lemon did ask it, because asking about feelings is always an attention-getter, and somewhere there is a potential employer still sufficiently foolish to ask "what are your weaknesses?" It is not the responsibility of job-seekers nor political candidates to implicate himself revealing their own limitations..

Clinton gave her answer first, after which Sanders offered a response I didn't much notice at the time, given that it truly was unremarkable,

Jonathan Capehart noticed, however.in part slamming Sanders' response as being out-of-touch with "people of color," whom those familiar with the English language recognize as "colored people," justifiably considered a prejorative term.   The Senator, in full, stated

Well, let me just very briefly tell you a story. When I was in one of my first years in Congress, I went to a meeting downtown in Washington, D.C. And I went there with another congressman, an African-American congressman. And then we kind of separated during the meeting. And then I saw him out later on. And he was sitting there waiting and I said, well, let’s go out and get a cab. How come you didn’t go out and get a cab?

He said, no, I don’t get cabs in Washington, D.C. This was 20 years ago. Because he was humiliated by the fact that cabdrivers would go past him because he was black. I couldn’t believe, you know, you just sit there and you say, this man did not take a cab 20 years ago in Washington, D.C. Tell you another story, I was with young people active in the Black Lives Matter movement. A young lady comes up to me and she says, you don’t understand what police do in certain black communities. You don’t understand the degree to which we are terrorized, and I’m not just talking about the horrible shootings that we have seen, which have got to end and we’ve got to hold police officers accountable, I’m just talking about every day activities where police officers are bullying people.

So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.

And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system.

Salon's Amanda Marcotte approvingly linked to a post by Vox's German Lopez, who contended that the Vermont senator "seemed to characterize all minority Americans as impoverished." Lopez linked to Reid twittering "most African-Americans are not poor. The AA poverty rate is too high, of course, at about 28%, but that's not most or all."

The "AA poverty rate" to which Reid referred is not that of Alcoholics Anonymous but  of African-Americans.

It isn't surprising that the successful and well-paid Reid, an MSNBC contributor, takes offense at the idea that poverty is a problem plaguing African-Americans. She lives and works amongst individuals largely affluent, whether they are black, hispanic, Asian, or non-hispanic white. The people with whom she associates are much more likely to be white and affluent than poor and black and she may nott like being seemingly lumped in with poor blacks.

But of course, as Benjamin Dixon notes (video below), she and Capehart are generally not experiencing what far too many black Americans experience. Most of those difficuties escape the financially fortunate, who are loathe to acknowledge that class plays at least as important a role in society as does race.

Also taken aback by Sanders' linkage of blacks and ghettos was Capehart, who tweeted "He knows that all Black people don't live in ghettos, right?"

Well, yes, Bernie certainly knows, inasmuch as being a member of Congress for 20+ years exposes oneself to many prominent black people, such as Capehart and Reid. However, his experience, whether as a youthful civil-rights activist or more recently in government, has enabled him to understand that the issues facing many blacks go beyond race and that being poor and black is more problematic than being affluent and black.

Yet, Sanders does recognize the disadvantage of being African-American in a white-dominated nation. It is the purpose of his cab story, which Capehart virtually dismisses, notwithstanding that prosperous blacks have for years emphasized the indignity (and inconvenience) of skin color when they tell of being bypassed by a cab driver for no reason other than skin color.

Capehart argues that Sanders has a "shallow knowledge of African Americans compared to Clinton" because he represents a state in which blacks are only 1.2 percent of the population. Oddly, he also slams the Senator's admission "that he doesn't understand what police in certain communities" as being "more damning than you think." The contradiction escapes him.

"Democrats," Capehart inists, "know how to talk to people of color, especially African-Americans." (The first thing might be not to refer to them as "colored people.")  Because Mrs. Clinton does and Sanders- allegedly- does not, we "also see who the true Democrat is. It's not Sanders."

The ability to say what someone wants to hear- less generously, for a politician to be able to fake sincerity- is an odd criterion for genuiness.   If Sanders is unable to communicate with blacks, it's not for lack of trying, and sometimes the failure to communicate is a fault of both parties, or neither. Additionally, although Sanders hasn't been effectively connecting with African-Americans, he evidently is getting through to some people, including a few Trump supporters. They, too, vote, even though their economic status is beneath that of the likes of Capehart and Reid.

Capehart gives it all away when he concludes with a wish that votes from African-Americans "will clinch the Democratic nomination for Clinton and hopefully secure the legacy of the nation’s first black president."  He does not suggest that a President Clinton would reduce income inequality, provide greater opportunity for blacks, or reduce inter-racial tension.  He does not suggest a Clinton 46 presidency would provide lasting peace to the Middle East or at least stabilize the region, or bring a needed sense of proportion to the Pentagon budget. And fortunately he is not so disingenuous as to suggest Clinton is the Democrat more likely to prevent another Great Recession brought on by the financial services industry.

No, Jonathan Capehart, realizing that Mrs. Clinton has tied herself securely to the hip of President Obama, expects that the election of the former Secretary of State would "secure the legacy of the nation's first black president."

What President Obama has done, President Obama has done, most good, some bad. The legacy, however, refers specifically to how something is viewed; it is not necessarily reality, but perception. Most of us wished Mr. Obama would be a great President, and still that the aftermath of his policies prove favorable. Promoting a president's legacy is better left to the destructive Grover Norquist, whose Ronald Reagan Legacy Project has convinced much of the country that he was a good, even great, president.   It is unbecoming, not unlike pushing the idea of Bernie Sanders as insensitive to the interests of black Americans
















Share |