What is missing from the significance of South Carolina is that presidential races are generally not close enough for the votes in South Carolina to make a huge difference. Votes in South Carolina are weighted heavily over votes in California for electoral purposes, but it still takes a lot of South Carolinas to make one California. There are so many confusing issues at play that the subject of Black people really only seems to have time for discussion when there is a potential marketing campaign that can exploit the image we have of "Black people." Having a small state with a higher-than-average Black population may not mean much in political clout, but, for those in the DNC, it is like the last reed they are grasping for before they drown.
I mean to pull that reed away from them. From my perspective, Black people have in common what any demographic broken down by race has in common: little to nothing.
Some of my Black friends are devout Christians. Some of my Black friends are Christians, but also like bacon. Some of my black friends like bacon but like to get stoned. Some of my Black friends like to get stoned but are dedicated to healthy diets. Some of my Black friends are dedicated to healthy diets, and still bring some delicious food to potlucks. When "Black people" are cataloged, there is too much diversity within the group to suggest that any one thing actually defines the interests of Black people.
My Black friends aren't even as Black as one another. Some of the lightest Black people I know seem closer to my color than to the darkest Black people I know.
Despite that my Black friends come in all shades with different beliefs and with their energies focused on different things from one another, they still all have one thing in common: they are Black people.
Most of them are descendants of Black people who were slaves. Even more of them are descendants of Black people who were brutalized during Jim Crow. Huge numbers of Black people today have been directly damaged by redlining policies that older Black people may have first faced when they migrated from the segregated south to segregation with a different name in the north.
Seven white people were on a stage in South Carolina. Why? Because a rather insignificant percentage of the nation's population includes the first test in which that insignificant percentage of the nation's population contains a higher-than-average Black population.
My personal bias is that Tulsi Gabbard is the most qualified person running for president to be the president. Many people disagree with me, but many of them rely on lines that they don't trust her, or they get an eerie feeling about her; those are not reasons.
If someone doesn't trust her, they should be able to say why. They should also say why in the light of the lawsuit for $50 million that Tulsi filed claiming Hillary Clinton defamed her. They need to be able to support it by something they can point to that she has done, and not some commentary of another person whose narrative they like. There is one person who is noticeably quiet about Tulsi Gabbard, and that is almost certainly because her lawyers told her to shut up. The narratives many of these people like are based on the claims Hillary is being sued for by Tulsi, and also the reasons she was told to shut up by every lawyer who hopes to get the case settled for seven figures instead of nine.
Tulsi is my personal favorite, but, as a realist, I know that Hillary's allegations have damaged Tulsi's chances to be perceived for who she truly is. The DNC also doesn't like her putting its candidates in their places. She did that to Kamala Harris over drug and prison policies. She also did that to Pete Buttigieg regarding his seemingly reasonable response that most people would overlook but would negatively affect the military community.
No candidate supports the military community like she does. Since the military population also has a larger Black population by percentage, her support of the military and its causes help Black people more to that same proportion.
But that isn't what Black people mean when they talk about Black issues, and why bring up a candidate who is only impressive in person and when you listen to her or watch videos of her?
Realistically, the Democratic nominee will come from the seven white people who were on stage at the debate.
So, what is important to Black people that is not also important to all people? The only thing that separates "Black people" from "all people" when it comes to political interests is reparations.
If anyone wants to argue that it is equal justice under the law, that simply is part of reparations. Besides, who of the seven candidates supports unequal justice based on race? Only Michael Bloomberg, and any Black person who supports him should lose their credibility as a Black person. Similarly, any white person who supports Michael Bloomberg also loses any credibility in discussions about race relations. There is simply no way to support Bloomberg's policies and not be racist.
If you think "yeah, but," quit thinking. The next thought is racist. If the shoe fits, it's okay to wear it. In fact, you should also put on the other shoe and get out of any discussion in which you don't want to be seen as a racist.
So, that leaves only six white people for Black people to consider, and only one issue that separates Black people from all people in political ideology. Tuesday night one of those white people said the word again: Tom Steyer said that he is the only candidate on the stage who supports "reparations."
Well, that should clear that up, right?
We don't want to get ahead of ourselves. How much credibility each candidate loses should also be considered so there are at least choices to the only candidate who supports reparations.
There doesn't seem to be much support among Black people for Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg is an unknown quantity. Both are already dragging some heavy baggage regarding race. If there are any Black people supporting either of them, they will need to explain why. If they do explain it, though, I will respect the opinion even if I don't agree with it. Also, I probably won't agree with it.
Some people may think that endorsement should keep Biden in consideration. What I think people should think about is that Clyburn is poised to be a superdelegate if a single candidate cannot be popularly elected on the first ballot at the convention. I do not believe that Representative Clyburn endorsed Biden out of personal political motivation. The fact that he is a superdelegate is simply also an indication that he is an insider.
His inclination to go for the candidate who is the most inside of any of the insiders can be explained better by another demographic in which Clyburn is represented: older, long-term Democrats. In other words, the establishment. Much of Biden's support comes from older people, whereas younger people of all races prefer Bernie Sanders. While it does not diminish the value of Clyburn's endorsement, it calls into question whether his endorsement best represents his race or his age. In the case of comparing Sanders and Biden, regardless of the race, the likelihood to support Biden goes up as a person's age goes up.
Anyway, if I have to bring it down to which of the white people is best for Black people, I have to eliminate those who do not meet the standard. If Biden does not support reparations, he cannot logically be the best alternative for the people to whom reparations marks the only significant interest they have that separates them from all people.
Then there is Bernie Sanders. Bernie seriously stumbled around the question posed by a Black correspondent who specifically asked him about his opinion on reparations. It has been the subject of a lot of commentary by Black people pondering what it means about Bernie. The video itself is only a couple of minutes long and is included at the end of this post. You should make your own decision if what Sanders says about questioning reparations but supporting the concept isn't the same as how Warren supports reparations.
After the "stumbling" Sanders allegedly did for a couple of minutes, a commentator follows up with the question asked again: do you support reparations? He says he doesn't know what they mean except that he and Warren said the same things.
My goodness! How can any self-respecting candidate not only sidestep the question about it, but also admit they don't know what is meant by "reparations?"
Now, you might think that I could take you to the pages of one of the candidates who "supports reparations" to explain what "reparations" means. However, neither of the candidates who supports reparations apparently has a plan that could actually be implemented. Of the two, Elizabeth Warren has done the best job explaining herself. I'm going to drop Tom Steyer from the conversation for claiming to support something he has no plan to support. He was only in the conversation because he gave the right answer. If he doesn't know why the answer is right, then he loses credit for the answer.
If that doesn't suffice on its own, we can drop Steyer because nobody really knows who he is. I will leave him out of my discussion but will respect any supported opinion by Black people for him.
Elizabeth Warren's explanation about how she supports reparations is a year old. She supports things like affirmative action and targeted school appropriations, but so does Bernie Sanders. You will hear him describe his support for Representative Clyburn's legislation to target racial inequality. You will hear Wolf Blitzer define what Warren said she meant. You will hear Bernie tell him that is essentially what he just said.
Only one presidential candidate supported the actual payment of reparations with a plan defining what she meant by the term "reparations." Marianne Williamson was never considered a serious candidate by the pundits, and never really had the support of anyone except the most extreme of idealists. I cannot make a case for her to be the best nominee for the office, but I can certainly make a case that she brought a wondrous imagination with intellectual integrity to the discussion.
Here is Williamson's plan for reparations from her website (link provided here):
- According to (her) plan, reparations for slavery will be paid in the amount of $500 Billion.
- These payments will be made over a period of twenty years to a Reparations Council made up of black leaders from across the spectrum of American academic, cultural and political leaders.
- The Council would include 30-50 members, all descendants of slaves, and all who have some scholarly, cultural or political connection to the issue of reparations.
- This Council, not the American government, would determine how the money is to be disbursed.
- The stipulation on the part of the American government is the following: that the money be applied for purposes of economic and educational renewal.
However, Williamson's definition of reparations, though certainly the most defined of any of the candidates, is a far cry away from the definition of reparations that is called for by the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS). This group has on its site what it calls The Black Agenda (link provided here) that is much more comprehensive and adds the zero before doubling the cost.
I like Marianne Williamson's authenticity and plan that actually could be a start, but, if we are honest with ourselves, the cost of reparations to actually repair the estimated damages is closer to $10 trillion. Even if we split the difference, the cost would be ten times the $500 billion that Williamson proposed.
I give a lot of weight to the numbers that ADOS has come up with. Much of the calculations were made by noted economist Sandy Darity Jr. Darity is one of the economists who has most studied the economic consequences of slavery upon the descendants of slavery. Economists who oppose him oppose his argument that it is due and payable with the logic that the inconvenience of paying what is due means that what is due is not payable. It is faulty logic.
"WE ARE SORRY TO OUR BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO HAVE DESCENDED FROM SLAVES FOR HOW WE TREATED YOUR ANCESTORS. HERE IS SOME OF THE MONEY YOU ARE DUE FOR OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY OF TAKING AWAY YOUR ANCESTORS' OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSETS. MORE REPARATIONS WILL BE COMING AS WE CAN AFFORD IT."
Bernie supports the same programs that Warren describes as her support for reparations, but he asked the question that everyone except for Marianne Williamson needs to answer: what does "reparations" mean?
Ultimately, "reparations" means that if your support for a candidate relies upon them actually having a plan for any reasonable definition of the word, you don't have a candidate to choose from. Marianne Williamson was the only candidate to make the payment of reparations part of her platform, and she supports Bernie Sanders if you think that was the only issue worth supporting.
If, however, even that is not enough to convince some Black people that Bernie Sanders is the best of the two white people I have left in the discussion, then perhaps someone would like to explain how Elizabeth Warren is going to survive an exploration of her background on racial matters.
What it boils down to in this particular election for Black people is that there is no candidate who supports the only issue that makes a difference between "Black people" and "all people," which is a defined plan for the payment of reparations.
If you are a Black person who supports Elizabeth Warren, the argument must be that you think she is the best candidate for all people, since there is no significant difference between her "support for reparations" and him "not understanding what they mean by reparations." They gave virtually identical answers as to what they support, so the difference between the two essentially is that Bernie did not begin his answer with "Yes" before saying what he supports that isn't reparations.
In actuality, Warren's support is not defined or even a platform position she has taken with any regularity or emphasis. It was a vague statement that was supported by the same programs that Bernie stated when he "sidestepped the question."
It's marketing. I hate seeing Elizabeth Warren doing this, but she does still bring the strongest background of any of the establishment candidates. She is regarded as progressive, but that is a marketing ploy that does not stand up when it is critically evaluated. She has been the single best consumer advocate and regulatory expert in Congress since she has been elected until Katie Porter was elected to the House in 2018. Elizabeth Warren's knowledge of corporate rules regarding accounting principles that can be abused goes way beyond Sanders' understanding of that specific subject.
Bernie's forces are mostly young people. Within the age demographic, young Black people support Bernie Sanders the same as young people of all racial demographics do. There also seems to be no racial disparity in the older a person is, the more likely they are to back the establishment candidates.
That said, two people who are in the progressive wing and who ran for the same reason are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley. Both progressive Democrats unseated incumbent Democrats because they were superdelegates who voted for Hillary Clinton. Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed Sanders; Pressley has endorsed Warren. Both endorsements cite reasons that fall more in the interest of "all people" rather than specifically for "Black people." The point is that Warren does have legitimate support from people who fall well within the definition of "progressive."
When I examine my own reasons for not supporting Warren, I must acknowledge that my bias is toward Bernie. However, my actual bias is toward progressive politics, and Bernie just happens to represent what "progressive" means today. There is no one definition of it, but there is one common factor that best describes the philosophy: the exclusion of corporate or special interest campaign donations eliminates the incentive that anything the candidate supports is supported because of those corporate or special interest donations.
Okay, it's time to quit dancing around the elephant in the room: is the best whitey the old white man or the old white woman? If everything else is the same, isn't it time to elect a woman?
The question I would ask back is "which question do you want answered first?" They refer to two different people.
However, I suspect that it will not be leaving her out of the long-term conversation. There are still a lot of roads to travel, and there are still demands that need to be made to the DNC to get the only person of color still running for the nomination back onto the stage. If all people demand that Tom Perez resign along with the entire DNC, perhaps the reasonableness of getting Bloomberg off the stage and Gabbard back on it could be implemented.
Is that the best thing for Black people? Is that the best thing for all people? I can't imagine a legitimate argument that supports the premise that Bloomberg is more legitimately a candidate than is Tulsi Gabbard. If you can, you almost assuredly are not Black.
That's why the problem is so difficult to analyze. It starts becoming more about the identities than the issues. If you want the best white person, my opinion is Bernie Sanders best represents Black people, but only because he best represents all people. If you want the best woman, you have to replace Elizabeth Warren with Tulsi Gabbard. If that were to happen, the discussion about whether or not it is time for a woman to be elected is far more supportable with "all things being equal" as a qualification.
Otherwise, all things are not equal. Bernie is the definition of progressive. Elizabeth Warren says she is progressive, and then doesn't support any of the progressive causes. The logic behind supporting her is on the order of "if not nominating Bernie and running an old white woman in 2016 didn't work, we should not nominate Bernie and run an old white woman in 2020 to see if that works."
I wish reparations were on the table. They aren't. They should be. They still aren't. They still should be, and they still aren't.
I wonder who best serves the interests of my Black friends who don't have similar interests to each other? If reparations is not really in the plans for any of the candidates, how do Black people decide which person best serves their interests when their interests are diverse except for the topic of reparations? Except for Bloomberg, they all publicly state that they support equal justice under the law for minorities. So, is there a Black interest left that really isn't just in the interest of all people?
To be clear. I am excluding all Black people who vote Republican. I am also excluding all Black people who support political parties aligned with Black movements, such as the Black Panthers. The former are excluded for their loss of credible argument. The latter are excluded because of their much greater dedication to their political beliefs in support of issues facing Black people. In either case, "Black people" as defined in the title are "Black people who are going to vote for a Democrat."
Also to be clear, "reparations" in the title is defined as "a semblance of a plan to repay Black people for economic losses caused by slavery and subsequent eras of being jerks to them just to be jerks to them." That would exclude claims of supporting reparations because they support an education bill that designates money to poor neighborhoods. To even think that qualifies as reparations is to not understand what is meant by reparations.
The final thing to clear up is that "whitey" in the title of my post is defined as "the candidate not named Tulsi Gabbard." I could have used the term "old person," but that wouldn't show the inherent racism in the system that really needs to be talked about. However, that, too, would exclude Tulsi Gabbard. Either way, the candidate who best fits the discussion about whether or not it is time to elect a woman is left out because she, like Bernie, is just too ethical for the DNC to keep its scam going.
* * * * *
Here is a link to more information about the book.
