How To Get Black People To Objectively And Critically Analyze The Democratic Party (Pro-Tip: Not Like This)

A friend of mine suggested to a Facebook group I'm in that we watch the video.  The video begins with Quannell X.  Quannell X is an "activist" that I was done with years ago, after watching him and Guardian Angels head Curtis Sliwa go head to head, and eventually making, of all things, Sean Hannity look like the voice of reason.  That's an almost unpardonable sin.  But, despite my own misgivings about Quannell, I powered through the video.  

The video is an attempt to get Black people to take a critical look at the Democratic Party, and to stop with the undying loyalty that Black people have towards the Democrats.  As an attempt to get Black people to look beyond the Democratic Party or consider the Republicans, this video fails.  And here's why.  I posted the following comments in the group.  And since I believe that sharing is caring, here are my comments for everybody.

The Quannell X segment was just half of the video. The other half featured the creator of the video attempting to make the case about Black people and loyalty to the Democratic Party. 

Unfortunately, his attempt fell short. For example, as I said earlier, he invoked "Democrat Plantation." Personally, that's a term that I can't stand, and yes, I coined the term "Pet Negro Apologist." But Black conservatives throw out the "Democrat Plantation" term to prove that THEY'VE escaped the "plantation" and left everyone else behind. And the people who invoke that term usually (and almost to a fault) ignore the racism that oozes and seeps from every pore of the current GOP.

Next, the Civil Rights leader says that while Trump is only "rumored" to be connected with the Klan, Hillary Clinton has legitimate ties. And as I mentioned before, the proof is the standard "ROBERT KKK BYRD" card. It doesn't work when it comes from Sean Hannity, and it doesn't work when Black people play that card. And whenever I talk to people and they play that card, I simply ask them why current white supremacists, like David Duke, Breitbart (the civil rights leader completely dismissed Breitbart's white supremacist ties, even though Bannon himself said that they're basically an alt-right clearing house) and others are flocking behind Trump and saying that he speaks THEIR language.

The Civil Rights leader then goes on to list the Republican accomplishments for Black people. He starts with the 13th and 14th Amendments, and ends with Civil Rights legislation. He, like everyone else, completely ignored the Southern Strategy and the ideological switch that took place between both parties.

Which brings us to where we are now. 

Does the Democratic Party take the Black vote for granted? Yes. Oui. Si. Are *SOME* of us loyal? Absolutely, to a fault. That loyalty is what wound up killing Clinton's 2008 run, because she took it for granted that Bill Clinton's Black Community "goodwill" would be automatically conferred upon her. When Bill showed his behind after the South Carolina primary, Hillary got her wake up call. But she was in the midst of a horrible campaign ran by (until now) the worst campaign manager in modern history, Mark Penn. No one forgets how she was in a Black church talkin' about how she "don't feel no ways tah'rd."

No one forgets how her Black surrogates at the time were her unofficial attack dogs, from Bob Johnson floating balloons about then-Senator Obama's drug use to John Lewis saying that Obama should wait his turn, to Jesse Jackson forever cutting himself off from the Obama Administration when he said, on Fox News, on a hot mic, that he wanted to "cut Obama's nuts off."

Where was I? Oh yeah. Today.

Is Hillary Clinton the perfect candidate? Not to me. Elizabeth Warren and Senator Sanders were my 1A and 1B choices. But when it comes to things that I support, like the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, the reversal of Citizens United (interesting that the HEAD of Citizens United is now an active part of the Trump campaign), support for unions, support for a living wage, an expansion of Obamacare into something like single-payer, a President Hillary Clinton is more likely to accomplish that. 

Doesn't mean that she will... after all, President Obama campaigned on universal health care, but wound up with the CONSERVATIVE compromise of the ACA. And President Obama has fallen short on several progressive issues. 

But dang it, I go rambling again. This is almost like my blog post. ANYWAY... 

(ed. note:  It is now a blog post... heh...)

YES, as informed Black voters, we have to hold the Democratic Party that we (those of us that vote Democratic) accountable. The accountability works up and down the ticket, at EVERY ELECTION. 

If Republicans want to woo Black voters, they have GOT to do better than the surrogates that they send out now. They have GOT to stop it with the "Black plantation" remarks, and assume that a light bulb will go off and they'll automatically switch parties. And while the Democrats aren't perfect regarding race, they are MILES ahead of the GOP. The GOP had a chance to nip the bigotry of their party in the bud with Michael Steele as head of the RNC. But when push came to shove, Steele kissed the ring of Boss Limbaugh and was nothing more than a figurehead. He was ousted and replaced with useless tub of goo Reince Priebus.

THIS is who the GOP/Donald Trump is sending out.  For God's sake, NO. 

Locally, the Republican platform stands for everything that I'm against, including things like "right to work" and the belief that tax cuts for big businesses will trickle down to the electorate. I'm against the privatization of essential government services. I'm a Christian, but I'm against my faith being used as a cudgel against anyone who doesn't pray and worship the way I pray and worship. And more often than not, the so-called Party of Family Values is nothing more than the Party of Rank Hypocrisy and Deflection.

Yes, we need to hold our elected officials accountable. And yes, changes need to be made. But as I said earlier, the changes that are needed are best implemented at the local level, and not attempted every four years. 

I've been doing a little research on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and they're not much better. Despite Stein being an MD, she has cozied up to anti-vaxxers and has said some goofy things about wi-fi being dangerous. Anyone who is in favor of civil rights legislation, voting rights legislation, government agencies that protect the public, etc should be against the Libertarian party. Their solution is to leave everything alone and let the market figure it out. So, if the EpiPen obscene price hike offends you, and companies polluting water, and fracking offends you, and if openly-racist businesses and establishments offend you (separate-but-equal, anyone?), then the Libertarian Party isn't for you.

Completely dismissing the Tea Potty behavior, the casual and blatant racism from the party, and history is not an objective analysis as to why Black people should join the Republicans. If they want to start wooing Black people, they can actually FOLLOW the things listed in their GOP Autopsy.

Until then, I welcome the upcoming Republican Extinction Level Event and hopes that the party as it stands now gets wiped off the face of the earth. The survivors will have no choice but to reevaluate themselves or die from the fallout.

Additional Note:  My friend who runs the Primarily Politics Facebook Page covered Republican Outreach in a three-part video series.  Do yourself a favor and check them out.  He covers a lot of things that I mentioned here.

Part 1:  Say No To The Democrat Plantation

Part 2:  Stop Attacking The President

Part 3:  Don't Ever Send Black Republicans To Recruit Black People

Tamir Rice And Why "Black Lives Matter" Is Needed

The other day, "independent experts" have ruled that the Tamir Rice shooting was justified.  Of course, this set off a firestorm of controversy.  I have been stating that this "justification" ruling was why Black Lives Matter was needed.  And people have been responding that the Black Lives Matter movement is racist.

Here is my response when people say that this movement is racist:

Black Lives Matter is not racist. People tend to translate "Black Lives Matter" as "Black Lives Matter, but others, not so much." But in reality, it's "Black Lives Matter, As Well As Everyone Else's." Black Lives Matter isn't to the exclusion of anyone else. In an ideal situation, the officer that shot Tamir Rice would be under intense scrutiny. But when innocent Black people are shot by police, THEIR lives are placed under a microscope. "They must have had it coming." "They deserved it." "They were thugs anyway."

Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old child playing with a toy gun, in a state where open-carry is legal. It stands to reason that if Tamir was an adult with a real gun, he would have survived his encounter. Now here, you might say that I'm pulling the "race card", but I have seen plenty of videos of adult white people with real guns encounter police, and they tell the police what's what. One guy even told the police to stand down. Tamir Rice wasn't given that luxury, as he was gunned down within seconds of his encounter with the police.

In the wake of the shooting, and this "justification" ruling, more people were blaming Tamir for the heinous crime of playing with his gun. In another situation with cops and a white person with guns, there was a white male walking the streets with a gun. When the police approached him, they backed off. Then, they formed a perimeter. Then, they talked to the guy. Eventually, they de-escalated the situation to the point where one of the officers could sit on a curb next to the gunman, TALKING. Again, a luxury not afforded young Mr. Rice.

Black Lives Matter because the cop that shot Tamir should not have been on the Cleveland police force to begin with, but TAMIR'S life was under a bigger microscope than this officer's life. Black Lives Matter because a 12-year-old Black child should have a greater benefit of the doubt in a case involving lethal force than an objectively incompetent police officer.

Black Lives Matter because Tamir Rice, John Crawford III, Amidou Diallo, Akai Gurley, Rekesha Boyd, Sandra Bland, etc ad infinitum, should not have had death as the ultimate consequence of their encounter with police. Black Lives Matter because Abner Louima should not have been assaulted with a plunger. Black Lives Matter because a baby should not be injured by a flash grenade. Black Lives Matter because a Black teenaged girl shouldn't be slammed to the ground by a police officer. Black Lives Matter because a Black woman shouldn't be pummeled by a cop straddling her like he's working on MMA ground and pound techniques.  Black Lives Matter because Bruce Springsteen should not have had to make this song:

And to those who talk about white people facing police brutality, I would simply ask these questions: Aren't you angry about that? If not, why not?

Because regardless, you still get killed for living in your American Skin.

Why We, As Progressives, STAY Losing

Black Lives Matter vs. Bernie Sanders

This is why, as progressives, as liberals, as people trying to fight the good fight, we STAY losing.  We stay too busy trying to fight the small skirmishes, fight the little battles, fight the inconsequential wars and then stay home when it really matters.  

The latest example comes from some Black Lives Matter activists shutting down a campaign rally by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.  He was there to speak about some of his campaign issues, specifically, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare.  He was shut down by activists who refused to let him even speak.  I don't understand it, and it's counterproductive.  Then, I saw a Facebook post that seems to encapsulate the defense of these activists:

 #‎BernieSanders‬ needs to get with ghe program. While we as young black people understand what he has done in the past, and we are well aware of the Medicare and Medicaid system and its affects on our elderly family members of color. Bernie needs to understand that his speeches aren't addressing racism. Until he addresses racism and how the system he wants to change was built on that notion, ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ will continue to interrupt his rallies. He is the only one talking the talk and #BlackLivesMatter wants him to walk the walk. He can and we hope that he does because he could win the election with a landslide. We will see how this plays out...

Bernie Sanders needs to "get with the program"?  Maybe it's me, but if I recall correctly, Sanders was "with the program" before most of these activists were even born.  As for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, this response is the epitome of being short-sighted.  EVERYONE can be potentially affected by cuts in any of these programs.  A simple Google search can help explain the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.  While Medicare is a program that assists senior citizens, Medicaid assists poor families, period.  And these activists are shutting down one of the candidates who has always defended these programs.  Then, this person says that Senator Sanders' speeches don't address racism.  If they were serious about confronting Sanders' stance on racism, then they might want to visit his site to see where he stands on the issues.  And here is just a snippet:

• We must demilitarize our police forces so they don’t look and act like invading armies.
• We must invest in community policing. Only when we get officers into the communities, working within neighborhoods before trouble arises, do we develop the relationships necessary to make our communities safer together. Among other things, that means increasing civilian oversight of police departments.
• The fight for minority voting rights is a fight for justice. It is inseparable from the struggle for democracy itself.
  
  
  • We must work vigilantly to ensure that every American, regardless of skin color or national origin, is able to vote freely and easily.Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act’s “pre-clearance” provision, which extended protections to minority voters in states where they were clearly needed.
  • We must expand the Act’s scope so that every American, regardless of skin color or national origin, is able to vote freely.
  
  
  • We need to ban prisons for profit, which result in an over-incentive to arrest, jail and detain, in order to keep prison beds full.
  • We need to turn back from the failed “War on Drugs” and eliminate mandatory minimums which result in sentencing disparities between black and white people.
  • Knowing that black women earn 64 cents on the dollar compared to white men, we must pass federal legislation to establish pay equity for women.
  • We must prevent employers from discriminating against applicants based on criminal history.

Then, the writer admits that Bernie Sanders talks the talk, but the activists want to see him walk the walk.  Maybe it's me, but demanding that arguably one of the most progressive, left-leaning candidates "walk the walk" while admitting that he "talks the talk" is counterproductive.  You want him to address racism, but then you shut him down to the point that he can't even speak about ANY of the issues, let alone racism.  

The activists promise to interrupt the campaign rallies.  But here's what gets me.  They are shutting down someone that is arguably on their side, while letting the people vehemently OPPOSED to them off the hook.  We just had a Presidential debate that featured a Kid's Table debate and a prime-time debate.  Not one activist tried to shut them down.  One of my friends posited that it's because these kinds of activists wouldn't be let near a Republican campaign event.  But because Sen. Sanders grants them access, they will use that access to disrupt the event.  Again, this is counterproductive, because if Bernie Sanders starts restricting access, then what have we won?  Who have we convinced about the issues?

This kind of ideological purity is what kills us every time.  EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.  We saw it when some progressives stayed home from the 2010 midterm elections, and it allowed the Tea Potty to gain the control it has now.  Why?  Because President Obama had not walked on water as part of his first term.  We see it again when the President is heckled... BY PEOPLE HE INVITES TO THE PROGRAMS... because he's not... what... behaving like a benevolent emperor and eliminating problems with a wave of his hand?

Someone on Twitter replied to my question by saying that the BLM activists don't like Hillary Clinton, either.  To my knowledge, I haven't seen a Clinton event shut down by some of these activists.  And to a bigger point, if this were a matter of simply "not liking the candidate", then they should be chasing EVERY GOP CANDIDATE across the country with pitchforks and torches until these problems are erased.

So, who are we going to go after and shut down:  The guy(s) on our side that doesn't say EXACTLY what we want to hear, EXACTLY when we want to hear it, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, or the guy(s) that openly stand AGAINST the things that we stand for, and dare us to do something about it?

It should be a simple choice, but apparently, it's not.