Bernie has NEVER said that economic justice would automatically end bigotry.

[Ken Burch]

Nor that we shouldn't bother trying to fight bigotry.

Nor have any of his supporters here ever said that, AFAIK.

What we have said is that you pretty much can't end institutional bigotry AND keep "market values" economics in place. The end of the 1960's and then the trends of the 1970's and 1980's have taught all of us that capitalism is always going to try to keep a certain level of bigotry in place just to protect itself against revolts from below.

We've never had a time in this country when there truly was anything like economic justice, when the wealthy and business were simply treated as one part of life, not as more important than everyone and everything else.

We've never had a time when nobody was facing want or the fear of ending up falling into want in this country.

We've never had a time when we all had a real say in the economic decisions that affect us, and that always condition almost all the other decisions that affect our lives.

So we have no measures, here, for how a country that had economic justice would deal with race, sexual orientation, and the other forms of group identity that have historically been subject to hatred and that still face hatred, repression today.

But it has generally been the case that we've been a far less hateful society, a far more accepting society, when everyone felt they had something close to a fair shake economically.

So we can assume it's likely that it will be a lot easier to defeat bigotry when we have a society that is economically fair for all.

And it will be far easier to get broad national support to deal with the issues facing particular groups(issues that can't be addressed solely through the achievement of economic justice, as we all understand) when people in general feel their lives are being made easier, their insecurities are being addressed, and their voices heard.

By the same token, it will pretty much be impossible to get that broad support, and to make any lasting structural gains in the fight against bigotry, including institutional bigotry, while the current claw-each-other-to-death economic system we live under remains unchanged.

Saying that is completely different than saying "economic justice will end bigotry"-which is a claim nobody has made and which is a belief that does not live in the hearts or the minds of anyone who backs Bernie, or Bernie himself, or anyone at all in the post-1956
left.

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[arcane1]

2. Well-said! It's a FUD talking point, nothing more.

[Cheese Sandwich]

5. I heard Bernie says bigotry is over because we overcame racism.

There's a whole thread about that.

[AgingAmerican]

6. It was never anything more than a strawman

The Third Way® do not want to talk about economics, so they use social issues as a smoke screen. They have been doing so for years now. This is just the latest version of it.

It won't help Hillary one bit. If anything it will harm her, because people are tired of this sort of political nonsense.

[SoapBox]

7. ^This!^

[Populist_Prole]

8. Bingo

Very astute observation there.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. Yup, and cherrypicking is STUPID after the Bush Administration cherrypicked intel to send us to war.

[uponit7771]

10. Strawman, no one said he did... I'm glad this issue isn't going over Bernies campaigns head like

... it's going over the heads of Berniacs here at DU.

Getting "broad support" doesn't mean a message that is overly homogenized and doesn't address, with answers and details not just declarations, issue people of color in the US face frequently.

If Bernie would address resume name issue with answers, again... not just declarations, for instance he'd get an instant bump because it address something people of color face DAILY!!

That's not an economic issue and if all people of color were dripping rich they'd still face it often enough

[JDPriestly]

12. What can a president do to end the bigotry?

What has Obama done?

These are my sincere questions, not snark. What can a president do about bigotry?

[uponit7771]

13. Nothing, they can mitigate the effects of bigotry on any minority population or people

... and that's what Bernie can speak about not just economic justice which only covers 45% of the racial issues blacks and Hispanics and Asians face in the US or anyone would face under the current racial mix.

Obama has strengthened the EEOC by funding it PROPERLY (not just adding some money on top of depleted conservative funds) so they can add staff and proper leadership

I'm not expecting a president to be a penacea to bigotry or racism just make sure the minority of societies are protected

[JDPriestly]

15. How can they mitigate the effects of bigotry on minority populations or people?

What can they really do about it?

I have been thinking about this a lot, and I am interested in finding the answer. I haven't yet. What are your ideas?

[uponit7771]

16. Build on what Obama did with EEOC and other state HRC's by funding the state level HRC's past just

... giving them the ability to mitigate.

Too many cases either don't get investigated because of lack of funding.

Setup banking arm of EEOC to prevent discrimination in business lending to minorities by making business's who want to do business with federal government report their numbers on who they're giving loans to.

There are a slew of things that a president can do other than just talk about issues...

Also, make local PDs report their shootings and numbers on investigatory stops... if these guys want federal funds they keep good records... none of that FBI can't find stats crap either... the FBI doesn't want the stats

[JDPriestly]

18. California has been considering a bill to require that police file a report on the race and other

information about each person they stop. That law is proposed to discourage racial profiling. We shall see whether it works. That is if it passes.

[Ken Burch]

20. Those are great suggestions, and I'm sure Bernie would be fine with them.

Thanks.

[kenfrequed]

22. It was actually repeated wildly by one poster

One poster on this board made it his raison d'etere to continually and constantly separate economic justice from civil rights and stated repeatedly ad nauseum that the two were completely not connected. Therefore it was argued Bernie's hard work for economic justice was somehow inadequate. Because optics.

So no, it isn't a strawman because people actually made that argument.

Nice try though.

[bigtree]

11. another instance of distorting what's been said

...that's your own distorted version of the criticisms made - that 'economic justice would automatically end bigotry.'

No one has said that - not even 'implied' it.

I'm sure this makes you and the rest of the folks deflecting the criticisms feel secure in your dismissals, though. Here's something...why don't you just try and listen to what's being asked? That would be a good start.

(and, no, I'm not debating your strawman with you, or anyone else, kicking up this sad and obtuse thread)

btw, Sanders is just fine with me if he achieves the nomination. I just don't support him for that nod. Even in the presidency, having voted for him in the general, I'd still have these expectations. so make of it what you will. Deflect, or listen and try and understand. Your choice (and his).

[Ken Burch]

14. There's nothing TO deflect.

Bernie has no actual deficiencies on these issues-and he's not worse on them than the other candidates.

O'Malley, for example, not only never did a thing to stop police violence, but actually encouraged it by emcracing t he "broken windows/stop and frisk" mode of policing. Yet you're fine with him, even though he's way to the right of Bernie on anti-bogotry issues. And you say nothing about HRC, who never said a thing about racism until two months ago and ran as the "stop the black guy" candidate in 2008(and spent her whole career before this spring being "law and order/tough on crime&quot we both know what those terms are code for, y'know). Why do you ONLY go after Bernie on this? Why do you treat him as though he, alone out of all the candidatesto , has to prove he can be trusted, while you give everybody else in the race

Criticize Bernie all you want where he's actually done something wrong, or if he's actually betrayed you or sold you out(if you can find such an issue)all anybody is saying here is don't attack him on an issue where he's done nothing to deserve it. And don't single him out, when you could find far deeper flaws on anti-bigotry issues among every other Democratic candidate. Is that asking too much, really?

[uponit7771]

17. You're right he's not worse and not better either. On everything else the guy is out front save

... a couple of issues and guns is one of them along with racial issues in America of the day.

That's ok... long way to 2016 and the guy has a good chance...

Just don't want him to become a Kerry to communities of color...

2% less blacks voted for Kerry and that was after 4 years of Bush

[Ken Burch]

19. Well, I'm with you on that.

The problem has been all these people acting like they'd caught Bernie pulling a fast one(or worse, trying to win votes from committed bigots, which was never what he was trying to do).

I appreciate the tone you've taken in this thread. You sound like somebody who is actually willing to listen and is actually open to dialog. Thanks for that.

[sheshe2]

21. Talk to the people.

Not at them. Listen to them. How hard is that? Bernie and his supporters need to do this.

[bigtree]

23. O'Malley actually did reduce police violence during his term as Mayor of Baltimore

...but let's not deflect for just a moment from your candidate. The criticisms are directed at Bernie with the aim of helping him increase participation of black voters in his campaign. Hillary's not deficient in that area; Bernie is. That should be simple enough for you to understand. If he's going to be president, I'll expect him to address these issues critics here have outlined as regularly and directly as I'd expect him to on the campaign trail. He's not going to be able to deflect from that by questioning Hillary's record or anyone else's.

But here's the thing. Starting your own thread and making up issues you think concern critics isn't responding to them, it's responding to your own contrived rhetoric; like saying, 'O'Malley not only never did a thing to stop police violence, but actually encouraged it by embracing the "broken windows/stop and frisk" mode of policing.'


I'll leave Hillary's record for Hillary supporters to defend. I'm certainly not going to be deflected to that in discussing your candidate here. But, to your false point about O'Malley:

___First of all, that policing tactic did not 'increase police violence.' The issue wasn't about police violence at all; it was about arrests for petty crimes in an attempt to put an end to the open-air drug markets in Baltimore which attracted so much of the violent crime that residents had to endure. At the time O'Malley took office in the 90's Baltimore was one of the most violent cities in America with record homicide rates and record rates of violent criminal behavior. Zero-tolerance was a police tactic which many urban areas similarly affected by crime and violence adopted at the time. While it was effective at cleaning up the streets of criminal elements in these drug-infested neighborhoods, it also drew in an untenable number of people into the dragnet who may or may not have played an active role in the rampant criminality which was plaguing the neighborhoods.

More importantly, not only did he campaign for the Mayor's office on a zero-tolerance policy, but it was being asked for, demanded, by many in the community, including some prominent members of the black leadership and clergy who were desperate to make the streets safe from the explosion of violent crime and drug activity. That's not to excuse the abuses of civil liberties, but it an explanation which belies the cynical reasoning that O'Malley was just practicing some political 'clean up the streets' stunt. There were real and consequential reasons for instituting the police strategy; a focus on reducing violent and aggravating criminality in the Baltimore neighborhoods which persists today.

"With nearly 10 percent of the population—60,000 people—addicted to drugs, more than 300 murders a year throughout the 1990s, only 16 percent of third-graders meeting state reading standards, 15 percent of teenagers neither in school nor employed, an unemployment rate twice that of the rest of Maryland, and somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 homes left vacant by the fleeing population, the city turned over to O’Malley was on life support."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_can_mayor_omalley.html

It's one thing to accuse his police dept.'s zero-tolerance policy of an abuse of civil liberties - it undeniably was, it was found unconstitutional by the courts - but the totality of his administration's efforts on policing and crime included a strong community outreach and consultation effort, as well as actual police reform. There were real and concrete successes during his term as mayor in reducing crimes, including criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson and motor vehicle theft.

“What was positive was that there was zero-tolerance for criminals and drug dealers locking down neighborhoods and taking neighborhoods hostage,” said the Rev. Franklin Madison Reid, a Baltimore pastor. “Does that mean there was no down side? No. But the bottom line was that the city was in a lot stronger position as a city after he became mayor.”

Benjamin T. Jealous, a former president of the national NAACP who worked with O’Malley when Maryland abolished the death penalty in 2013, credited him for supporting a civilian review board as mayor and for a sharp drop in police shootings that occurred during that time. Jealous said O’Malley’s “mass incarceration” police strategy is “a separate issue” than police brutality, and “a conversation for a different day.”

“It was a period where a lot of mayors were doing whatever they could to try to reduce crime,” Jealous said.

It's actually a separate issue from the criminality surrounding the police killings and abuses today, and it's ludicrous to suggest, as critics do, that policies over a decade ago, policies which were supposedly ended by the administration which followed his term, are responsible for 'mistrust' between youth and police in that community today. God forbid someone assume he actually cared about keeping the community safe, with a murder rate that was six times higher than New York’s when he took office. Heaven forbid we focus on his reform of the police department to make officers more accountable, reform which NAACP's Ben Jealous says resulted in a sharp decline in officer shootings. Don't say a word about his community outreach, expanded minority hiring, creation of an independent civilian review board - don't mention that as governor he decriminalized marijuana possession and repealed the death penalty.

Over the past year, as he has criss-crossed the country, O’Malley has talked about alleged police misconduct in places such as Ferguson, Mo. and North Charleston, S.C. On Saturday, he called Gray’s death “another awful and horrific loss of life.”
“Whether it’s a police custodial death or a police-involved shooting,” O’Malley said, “we all have a responsibility to ask whether there’s something we can do to prevent such a loss of life from happening in the future.”

Earlier this month, at a civil rights event convened by the Rev. Al Sharpton, O’Malley said his crime-reduction efforts as mayor saved many lives. “There are a thousand fewer black men in Baltimore who died violent deaths over the last 15 years than otherwise would have died had we not come together.”

... yet some critics think it's just fine to blame today's problems with the Baltimore PD on policies a decade ago.

O’Malley (refers) to 1999-2009 data from the FBI, which tracks crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. Part 1 crimes are serious crimes that are likely to be reported to police, and are divided into violent and property crimes. These crimes include criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson and motor vehicle theft.

FBI data confirm his calculation. The overall crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 people) fell by 48 percent during that decade, more than any other large police agency in the country. Specifically for violent crimes, the Baltimore City Police Department saw the third highest drop (behind Los Angeles and New York City) during the period.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/28/omalleys-claim-about-crime-rates-in-baltimore/

This political griping today about a disbanded police policy during a term as mayor which ended over a decade ago looks to be a way for some to deflect from that point and obscure O'Malley's successes in bring those violent crime numbers down. That's not just some abstraction to the people in those communities who have to deal with those criminal acts and enterprises every day.

Leaders at the NAACP — the group that brought the 2006 lawsuit against the city — said they no longer believe O'Malley should be held responsible for the police strategy. Gerald Stansbury, president of the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, said the organization has a solid relationship with the governor.

"Clearly, the police problems go well beyond Martin O'Malley," Stansbury said. "There's been ongoing mistrust for some time."

Tying O’Malley to Baltimore is an old political saw. When you tried to run for governor of Maryland, Republicans ran ads with flashing police lights, talked about how O’Malley would do for Baltimore what he did for Maryland. O’Malley won statewide twice though, boosted by those same Baltimore neighborhoods that he is now blamed for turning into powder kegs.

From 2000-2010, the incidents of crime in Baltimore dropped 43 percent, outpacing by a stretch the 11 percent drop that the nation saw during that period. The violent crime rate dropped by 40 percent. Graduation rates rose. Median home prices doubled. A new biotech park was built on the city’s east side. A new performing arts center was built on the west side. O’Malley was obsessed with numbers and metrics, and set up a 311 call center to track citizen complaints. A program called Project 5000 enlisted volunteer attorneys to help deal with the city’s massive vacant home problem as titles to those homes was eventually transferred to individuals and non-profits for redevelopment. The school system was pulled back from the fiscal brink. CitiStat, designed to track crime, helped bring the crime rate down and created a budget surplus of $54 million that was then reinvested in schools and programs for children. At last, the population stabilized. It was no longer necessary to flee, if you could. The number of college educated 25-to-34-year-olds living within three miles of downtown Baltimore increased 92 percent in the ten years after O’Malley became mayor, fourth among the nation’s 51st largest metro areas.

Time Magazine named O’Malley one of the five best big city mayors in America. Esquire named him the best young mayor in America. CitiStat won Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government “Innovations in American Government Award.” . .

It's interesting how disconnected critics of his zero-tolerance policy are from his overall approach to crime in Baltimore which saw the violent crime rate drop on a wide range of offenses, many of those which could well have resulted in deaths. That overall approach included the institution of a community policing program; a focus on police accountability which resulted in a sharp reduction in police shootings; and a crime tracking program which was hailed as a major innovation by Harvard and others.

It's also notable how violent crime has increased years after his term, coinciding with a drop in the number of arrests. I find it remarkable how much criticism there is about an arrest policy which coincided with a reduction in violent crime, and the failure to even acknowledge the actual lives saved as a result of his police department's efforts.