C’mon, this
is textbook from the tropes used by some to paint Sanders supporters as sexist/ racist, and you can’t be naive enough to think otherwise. So while you specifically may not have leveled that charge, you know others have.
And, know what? You are absolutely right that White Males, as a cohort, have largely voted in such manner. But the Venn Diagram of white males, and Sanders supporters, has rather large sections with no overlap, in both directions. And if you want to make the argument that to draw in more white males into the Democratic caucus, you would by necesity need to draw from peoples that support racist or sexist policies? There may be truth to that. But it is equally plausible that there is people you can draw without supporting such things. Bernie draws a crowd with different emphasis. And focusing on the identity politics angle isn’t helpful there. Because there is absolutely room to emphasize policy from the economically Progressive wing, and do so in a manner that also benefits those core constituent groups of the DNC tent. To do them while also pushing for policies like criminal justice reform. We can, and should, do both!
But, clearly, when talking Omaha it’s hard to ignore the obvious, that Sanders is asking people to support a candidate that has some troublesome policies when it comes to reproductive rights. There is absolutely no denying that. So the question is, should this person be able to run on the Democratic ticket? And how far should the national party go to ensuring ideological purity at the local level like this? Because if you want to take Sanders to task for supporting a candidate that, if not fully anti choice, is certainly somewhat hostile, then that is fair! There is a discussion to be had there!
But equally the answer may come back that, nationally, you may have a platform that you expect national candidates to adhere to, but do not enforce as strictly at the local level. Supporting candidates for a mayors race or state house that you would never support nationally because policies X,Y,Z. Or perhaps you decide, no, you don’t want to do that. And perhaps some policies you hold such a purity test for, others not so much. Where to draw that line is subject for discussion. If you want to draw a hard line that ‘supporting choice is a requirement for DNC support at any level’, well, that’s your choice. I’m not even gonna say I disagree. But also recognize that it, nesicarially, will close you off to certain areas. Perhaps that’s what you need to do. Perhaps accepting a candidate in a solidly R area that espouses some views you find unacceptable is something you feel we can’t, or shouldn’t do. Perhaps others disagree.
But also recognize that such was the case before, so here we are. There is a dearth of local and state level talent because the DNC would not field competitive candidates in wide swaths of the country. Choosing the message, and the emphasis, is critical to rebuild the grassroots.
