That is a good reminder of all the reasons we love, Bernie. And a good history of how he stands by his convictions even when it might not turn out good for him.

I have seen some posts like this, not in as much detail. And the "What has he said about it lately" crowd came along. A quick google search would have given them that answer. Bernie speaks about these issues often. There are enough issues that he could give a speech for a fortnight and still not cover everything.

And thanks.

progressive hero, he was not that to me, he was a traitor. Joe Biden. Chuck Shchumer. Dick Durbin. Marcy Kaptur. Pat Lahey, Patty Murray, Harry fucking Reid. Barbara Mikulski. The list goes on and on.

I would like to ask people to stop calling the rights of minority people a 'social issue' while the rights of the majority are just called 'rights'. Ugly.

and social justice is not the same thing as social issues.

It gets old, and it is a theme being worked by straight white people who seem to have created it out of whole cloth and confusion. You yourself try, and I know you are of good heart, but this whole trope is getting exhausting and insulting and it is meaningful only to straight white people.

I'm sick of being exploited by straights in politics, it's been my entire life and it's shitty. And this cycle, it has already started, all the Democrats finally and at last favor marriage equality and still the Straight White Hope demands that we made fodder out of teh gay again.

I favor of what they thought they heard, and providing an answer to a question that was never asked. {sighhhh}

If I don't tell them, who will?

this narrative is, actually, the result of ignorance (i.e., unintentional, arrogance, or just a lack of interest); or, a straw-man (intentional)?

If it's the former, then my spotlighting is/can be of effect; however, if it is the latter, then, it really is a brick wall.

You are on DU enough to know what's been happening, I'm sure.

Pointing out that Bernie's economic primacy argument is missing PoC, that is then interpreted by Bernie supporters as accusations of racism ... is baseless concern about Sanders? Really?

You must have seen one of the hundreds of posts accusing him of racist policy and the vile OP insinuating he is a racist by posting a disgustingly racist pic in it. You say you can't find them, well they are there. I will not link to them because I don't want to take a stupid hide. If I'm going to take a hide it's going to be one that's worth it.

This is quite simply his record and my informed explanation of his motivations.

I'd like to hear an explanation from a "liberal" like you

Feelz > Reelz. What Colbert referred to as truthiness. Get out of here with your facts, basically.

would elicit a response like that. Unbelievable. If a man posts something about how a politician is fighting for women's rights I don't get all angry that he's trying to speak for me, I'm glad he's on my side.

What do you have against someone showing how a politician is fighting for the people of this country?

To address what you said, I know PoC who disagree with you and agree with cali much more often. Do you think that all PoC have the exact same position on everything? That's... odd.

How cali's post is ignoring anything anyone says? It is addressing statements that have been made by showing that he has a record of being good on issues affecting ALL people. Or have you missed all the accusations of Bernie not caring about "social justice" and that his economic policy is for "white males only"? Surely you didn't miss the hundreds of posts saying that. Not to mention the vile OP trying to insinuate that he actually is racist by using a disgusting pic.

And again, you like to use quotations around "liberals" as if cali isn't a liberal. She's much more of a liberal than you are based on your posts on DU. If you have so much disdain for liberals, as you appear to by your posts and you constant use of quotations around that word and "progressives", why are you in the Dem Party?

And when that man casts your women's rights in terms of his interests ... e.g., "I oppose domestic violence ... my solution to domestic violence is women should simple strike a completely and utterly subservient role towards men because then men would no longer be threatened by male the emasculization of the independent women" ... you would be HAPPY he was on your side? Yes ... that is hyperbolic; but, my point is, that man's solution is disconnected to the your problem ... no matter how sincerely that man believes the solution is in your best interest.



No ... I do not believe that African-Americans all think the same ... Hell, I know Black tea partiers and I even know one Black Bernie supporter (I'm sure there or more out there, though); but neither is to be confused with the mainstream of thought of the Black community.



I searched for these hundreds of posts ... I have asked for links to these hundreds of posts insinuating that Bernie doesn't care about social equality/civil rights, or that he is actually racist ... I have yet find any. I HAVE found posts (primarily posted by PoC) indicating that Bernie's economic primacy case, misses PoC, as a convincing argument, as it is not our lied experience.



While I have my thoughts on Cali ... they are, likely, hide-worthy; but, completely off topic. I have explained that I frequently put the terms liberal and progressive(s) in quotation marks to describe this fairly recent phenomena on DU, where economic primacy (and all other traditional Democratic values, are secondary) has become the touchstone of proper liberals.

I am in the Democratic Party because I am a Democrat.



I don't ... I will, however, point out when that person answers questions that weren't asked.

I don't get it at all. Do you think white people who are fighting for equal rights are telling you to be subservient?

Your use of quotations is an insult. What if every time I spoke of a PoC I used quotations? Would that not give you pause? It is your definition only that casts liberals as not caring about social justice. Everyone has their own personal experience in life so each person will have something they feel stronger about than others, that does not mean they cannot stand for and fight for more than one thing at once. I honestly feel that is a meme designed to divide and conquer the Dem Party so as to allow centrist economic thought to take over. To me it seems that that is the only way Hillary supporters and centrists can rationalize not caring about the problems of Wall Street and the inequity in our country.

Liberals care about all of it and are fighting for all of it. You're not going to change what a liberal is by using quotations. The RW already tried to use liberal as a slur, it doesn't work. Liberals are proud to be liberal. And being liberal does NOT include accepting moderate Republican economic policy.

And whether you can't seem to find one of the hundreds of posts does not change the fact that they have been all over DU for the past month and a half. And that is what cali is speaking to. Your issues with her seem to be tainting your ability to be objective.

probably, because you are taking what I am saying, sprinkling on your (intentional or unintentional) misinterpretation and reacting to that misinterpretation.

The subset of people that you hold out as "fighting for equal rights", are not the folks I am referencing ... if you cannot/will not see that the economic primacy argument IS NOT "fighting for equal rights" ... but rather, a fight for income equality, that ignores what is most proximate to the denial of rights of a bunch of folks; then, I cannot help you, and will no longer try.



Actually, no ... because it would communicate that you are questioning whether the grouping to which you are referring are, in fact, PoC. My use of the quotation marks indicates my questioning how anyone calling themselves liberal (or progressive) can subordinate the social equality interests of PoC (and other historically marginalized groups), in favor of economic equality primacy.



Note: I have not said; nor, would I ever say, that liberals don't care about social justice ... BUT, I have said, and am saying, that a subset of liberals (whom I designate by use of quotation marking the term) care MORE about economic equality than social equality ... AND that this subset of liberals, also, tend to be the LEAST effected by the lack of social equality.



True, on both counts.



Or, you could post a couple of these hundreds of offending posts ... but, I suspect, you will not because it would be made clear (just like in the above, "It is your definition only that casts liberals as not caring about social justice&quot the posts do not, actually, say what you would have them saying.



I have no particular issues with Cali (though I do disagree with her ... a lot) ... it is the frequent false narrative that I have an issue with.

I don't understand why you used that hyperbole. Liberals, including Sanders are fighting for both. Period. That's the definition of liberal. Anyone who is not fighting for both is then a centrist.

As to the subset, of course, as I mentioned, people are going to have varying degrees of importance placed on different aspects based on their own personal experience in life. Your arguing that social is the most important is based on your life's experience. Someone who is economically disadvantaged is going to place more importance on that. That does not mean that they can't fight for both of them. I don't understand why anyone thinks that.

It's not as if people here are saying racial injustice is okay. (I do know that a lot of people don't get the concept of white privilege, but I don't think they think racism is okay.) Anyone who does think it's okay is not a liberal. Just as anyone who is okay with the current state of economics and Wall Street and 'free trade' is not a liberal either.

Oh, I am not going to link to those posts because as I said, I don't want a stupid hide. They are there. All over the place. You don't want to believe it, no big deal to me. I'm not the only one who knows it. That is exactly why people are posting about his record on civil rights, women's rights and LGBT rights. Search 'Bernie/Sanders white male'. You should find some. Or search 'lily white wink wink'.

Even though, both, economically disadvantaged AND affluent PoC, are telling/have told you otherwise? Tell me you haven't seen the hundreds of posts, saying exactly the opposite of what you claim.



Probably because our/my life's experience gives lie to the "economic justice brings social justice/social justice follows economic justice" fallacy that under-pins the economic primacy argument.



I asked that you PM them to me. And, I saw the Or 'lily white wink wink' ... and my objection still stands; that was someone interpreting what wasn't said.

People prioritize importance based on their life's experience. That's why you are saying that PoC make social justice more important as a whole.

I don't think economic justice brings social justice nor that social justice has to follow it, but without economic justice as well, TPTB get people to fight over scraps and people tend to decide those who are not like them are the ones who should do without. It's the plan of TPTB to keep the little people fighting amongst themselves so that they don't go after TPTB and ignoring economic inequity is doing just that.

Like I said, fight for ALL of it. Why leave anyone behind?

I didn't notice the pm request. But no, 'lily white wink wink'... pretty obvious what that is. If you are going to discount that I don't think I'll take the time to do the search, but they were posts that said Sanders' only cared about economics and that his policy is "for white males only" and that it is "trickle down".

Thanks for the good info...

He has been a strong advocate for social justice his entire public career.

happily and with no reservation(s). It's still early in the political season and I feel still, he has to address the CURRENT racial unrest. His record and voting history on all important social and racial issues is impeccable and without taint. Bernie is no racist and everything in his voting record says that. Bernie is as honorable a politician as has been in the public eye running for this important office in my voting LIFETIME.

If he doesn't speak up on the current devolving nature of racial relations in this country now, then I'll have to go on his record as stated by you, with informative link and of my knowledge of what he has done in the area of social justice and civil rights since 1963. Which, by the way, is more substantive than any Democratic Party candidate since that era.

As a political personality he has more integrity and principle than any Democrat in the field when it comes to social justice and civil rights. There is no argument from me. It's still early in the political season, so we'll see the what the evolution of his campaign brings.

of Ferguson early and unequivocally. But he does need to make it more central to his stump speeches. And I guess he has to do as other pols do and blow his own horn more about what he's done- beginning with his activism for civil rights when he was in college.

And we have to make sure he hears us and addresses those concerns.

Big giant clap

that I've seen. It was inadvertent. He doesn't even realize he's doing it.

Pretty much every time he speaks, it's all about economic justice… even when the topic is social justice.

He gets social justice on an abstract level. But it's his blind spot on a day to day and a world view level.

His supporters need to start pressuring him to wake up on this. Or he's going to down in Howard Dean style.

He's introduced and supported civil rights legislation repeatedly. Yes, he needs to talk about it more and be like other politicians and blow his own horn about his record more, but saying that he thinks of these issues in "abstract" terms really is simply dishonest. People don't do the things he's done if they only care on an abstract level. Period.

through an economic lens.

It's not just "talking about it more". It's his WORLD VIEW.

He sees things first and foremost as an economic problem to be solved.

And the way he has inadvertently minimized racial issues during interviews demonstrates this.

So it isn't me being dishonest here. But I don't think it's about "honesty". It's about being objective.

when did you lead civil rights actions to address racial injustice? funny how you ignore his actions. Oh, wait, it's not funny at all. it's your little agenda. You simply want to cast him as someone who doesn't care and thus ignore his lifelong record.

Getting people to recognize that Native Americans were people, deserving full protection under the law, and were God's children every bit as much as anyone, was the easier fight.

Getting the newcomers to this land to stop stealing from them, that fight seemingly never ends. And as the Native Americans tribes gained wealth, so did their political influence. An amazing coincidence.

What might look like a blind spot is (imo) likely just a realization that economic justice is fundamentally intertwined to social justice here in America, and maybe the whole world.

The blind spot, the beam in other peoples eye, is to think that people will proceed in advancing towards social justice without their being a concerted effort towards advancing economic justice. It doesn't happen that way.

Every (afaik) immigrant group to this nation improved their level of social justice as a result of their improving their economic circumstances. Hand in hand with that was their gaining footholds in the political system. Thank God for opur representative form of government.

Too many politicians talk of social justice while short changing its essential commitment, economic justice and opportunity. Talking of economic justice is far the tougher talk, it requires taking on people with something to lose. Though actually, in the long run, everyone wins from economic justice.

The interests against economic justice are numerous, and powerful, and with great resources to back them up. They'll spend a fortune to derail the message of economic justice. To carry it forward you need to thrust the message home like a spear, right into the heart of the matter, and over and over.

Senator Sanders knows what he's doing. He has my support.

P.S. I don't think this is just a matter of what Sander personally came to think. It's actually part and parcel of the form of progressive ideology he and many millions of others ascribe to.

It must take a great deal of effort to remain that clueless.

Sure he could message better, but that does not mean he doesn't have a great record on social justice. It's like cali said in the OP, he assumes equality and fights for EVERYONE so he doesn't single it out when he speaks about it.

I do hope he starts to do so since it has become a talking point in an attempt to divide people into thinking he just doesn't care about social issues. Couple that with the talking point that social issues are more important than economic issues and the false narrative that we have to choose one and so it should be social issues and you get people trying to structure the argument that Hillary is an okay choice even though her economic policy is pretty much moderate Republican and she is cozy with Wall Street.

So if he starts speaking about it more on the campaign trail hopefully that can be put to bed once and for all.

If so, what did you think about the Ferguson, et al. discussion?

...but I'll offer something here which will probably get pushed aside in favor of this reflexive political defensiveness, much like my other attempts to define what I think the concern about Sanders and other candidates' dearth of rhetoric IN THIS CAMPAIGN about race, immigration, and other issues *which he's clearly supported in the past in outstanding form and fashion is all about.

Presidential campaigns and other elections are more than an opportunity to advance a political career of a candidate. They are, as Bernie's call for a political revolution behind his own campaign suggests, an opportunity to elevate issues, interests, and concerns to a national level of debate and discussion to advance those along with the candidate's ascent into office; presumably, to further advance those interests, initiatives, or concerns into action or law.

What advocates of issues of race, gender, immigration, sexual identity rights and opportunity, are asking is for their issues, interests, and concerns to be given a prominent and consistent place in and among the candidates' political rhetoric and appeal to voters. It's just as relevant an expectation, for example, as demanding candidates address economic issues and give those prominence in their discussion and debate in the campaign.

One of the standard defenses in response to these calls for more vocal representation in the campaign for these issues is that a candidates' record should suffice, in the absence of vocalizing that support on the campaign trail. I think there are obvious problems with that reasoning; one of the most apparent is the inability of many voters to access that information, as well as the disassociation of that history with current policy or initiatives which may not be sufficient to the issues of the day.

Campaigns prioritize their rhetoric and message in very precise and calculated ways. It's not at all unreasonable to challenge those campaigns to highlight an interest or issue which one feels is important to them - individually, or to a particular group or constituency. Defending against calls or demands from candidates for more representation of particular interests or concerns on the campaign trail by pointing out past affinities is little more than a deflection from what is actually being asked for.

It may well be impossible to satisfy the desires of every interest or concern of every individual or group - as Bernie said, to the effect that he can't answer 50+ questions a day - but it is neither 'sleazy,' or necessarily 'political' in the demeaning sense that this writer suggests, to have such expectations or make such demands that theirs be an integral part of a candidate's rhetoric. It is the essence of a political election in which voters work to project their interests and concerns onto a campaign, as much as candidates attempt to project their concerns and interests to voters.


edit *: highlight

And the irony of you labeling others defensive is bizarre considering your pronounced defensive posture regarding O'Malley.

Bernie does address these issues regularly now and he always has. That is something you and others choose to ignore.

...you made your point, from your perspective - I made mine - only you see fit to label my opinion as that of a 'martyr.' I think that's despicable and vile.

I gave Bernie Sanders his due on his record. Asking that he give these issues more prominence in his campaign rhetoric is a small request, I would think, from someone who has had a lifetime of being directly affected by those issues of race. I certainly don't deserve to be accused of seeking to be a 'martyr' for expressing that.

He needs to say that and speak about social justice and civil rights issues frequently while campaigning, though. Most voters will not study a candidate's voting history or record. They simply will not. Right now, he's not being a Senator. He's being a primary candidate for the Democratic nomination.

During the campaign, he has to stress things that are of concern to primary voters. If there are complaints that he is not talking enough about social justice and civil rights, he needs to correct that in his speeches and remarks. It's a campaign, and what he says during the campaign is what people will know. Voters will not go study his voting record.

Campaigners must campaign on the issues that are of importance to people who might vote for him. That's job one.

The people who lie about him are small and, well, liars! Apples falling from the tree I suppose.

The facts are what they are and no amount of mudslinging can erase them.