August 31st, 2016 saw the release of emails by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 regarding the Democratic Party's stance on Black Lives Matter. Suffice to say that it dosen't bode well for the Democratic Party. Why? Because the leaks exposed all to clear the notion that despite rhetoric condemning Trump's racism and the alt-right, Black Lives don't matter for the Democrats.
These documents were supposedly uncovered from Nancy Pelosi's files. It stated Black Lives Matter was a "radical movement" and that while Democrat party leaders should meet with them and avoid snubbing them with racist terminology such as "all lives matter", they should not support the platform the BLM.
The Democratic party has tried to shrug off the implications of these leaks. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee(DCCC) has stated that BLM has evolved into a political force with a significant impact on the nation as a whole, and that they welcome dialogue and cooperation with BLM. They sidelined the contents of the leak by stating that "they will not allow for" the contents of the leaks to negatively affect their relations with the BLM activists.
BLM leaders and activists however, were unconvinced. Their facebook page offered the statement that the DCCC response was simply used to obfuscate the implications of the issue and silencing black communities. They state that regardless of party lines, that elected officials in a democratic society have to make legislation reflecting the needs of their constituents. BLM activists such as Shaun King have stated that the democrats have chosen to not focus on transformative policies to address racism and policy brutality, but instead just chose to "act polite and supportive without giving any real support".
This was also not the first time BLM activists have been wary torwards the prospect of a Hillary administration. On August 4th, 2016, Alicia Garza, one of the founders of BLM stated that the Clintons routinely use Black People for votes without doing anything for black populations. She stated that Hillary may rhetorically voice supposed support for BLM, but neglect how she exasperated racism torwards people of color in America. As such, Garza declared that the black community is not “indebted” to the Democratic party in any way just because of rhetoric.
What can be made of the Guccifer leak regarding BLM?
What can be made of this leak is that regardless of Hillary's commitments to fighting Donald Trump and the alt-right's racist ideology, it is clear that supporting Hillary does nothing for black communities and would only provide a temporary reprieve from Trump and the alt-right, the alt-right submitting to fully racist views on BLM and crafting bogus conspiracies on how BLM is supposedly this mob riled up by the democratic party or George Soros to supposedly destroy America(this racist denigration of BLM as some sort of frenzied mob of course ignoring facts pointing to the Democratic party only using BLM as a vechicle for votes such as the recent hack, ignoring the positive impact of radical and grassroots activism in American history, and ignoring the police brutality and racism in America that gave rise to BLM). Yet simply because the alt-right denigrates BLM with their psychotic racist, ultranationalist, neo-fascist rhetoric does not mean Clinton will be the panacea for racism against blacks in America.
The reason that blm and progressive activists should write off Clinton's election as hopefully leading to sudden relief for black communities is because of her own track record disenfranchising the black communities. And if these leaks do indeed prove that the democratic party don't really care about BLM's policies outside of votes, then don't expect change this time unless activists constantly hold Clinton's feet to the fire.
The Clintons track record with disenfranchising black communities was first seen in the 1994 Crime Bill. The justification for that Crime bill was a need to supposedly confront the homicide rate at that time by strengthening police, prisons and supposedly controlling violent offenders. Yet this bill had a negative impact on black communities. While there have been decades of crime bills beforehand that ramped up the rate of incarceration for blacks in the US(such as LBJ's Safe Streets Act, and Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Acts), this bill increased the prison population of the US on the Federal Level. The crime bill also had negative impact outside of mass incarceration for blacks seeking better education, as part of the Crime Bill stripped Pell Grant funding for college education; Clinton himself supporting a "one strike, you're out" policy that evicted public housing tenants if they were involved in criminal activity, making it hard for inmates to find any housing.
According to Factcheck.org. The bill had negative impacts on the black community, but its sucess at reducing crime rates is often overexxagerated by Clintons to justify the bill despite it's negative effects on the populace. It also noted that the growing Prison-Industrial Complex on the Federal level also trickled down into state level, with states given incentives to create more prisons, therefore increasing the incarceration rate.
Legal Scholar Michelle Alexander has accused the 1994 Crime Bill for "decimating black communities" in America in the Nation magazine. She condemns the bill as ushering in a "New Jim Crow" that by targeting blacks through the war on drugs and the crime bill, the US justice and legal system has created conditions of racial control that has locked up millions of African-Americans and created a "caste" system where they are relegated to permanent second-class status. The provisions of the Crime Bill was justified through racial slurs by the Clintons, with Hillary defending her husband's actions by condeming black youths as "Super-Predators" supposedly with "no conscious or empathy"
Recently Hillary has supposedly apologized for these racist slurs, abeit in a "I worded it poorly" sort of discussion, and have also stated the need to reform the prison system. However, once again BLM activists and progressive must challenge and question her claims and if she is really sincere or is only using the black community for votes without any real plans to address racism in America. For instance, Private Prison Lobbyists have raised money for Hillary Clinton; two of them being Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group. The Geo Group went as far to state that prison reform could be a threat to their intrests; that is because "more lenient" prison and immigration policies would weaken their profits. Some of Clinton's bundlers, such as Richard Sullivan, have also been lobbyists for the Geo Group as well.
With support by organizations that would benefit off the Prison-Industrial Complex, it can be seen that they expect Hillary to follow through with their intrests. Therefore, progressives should not have faith in Clinton to challenge how the Prison-Industrial Complex and the 1994 Crime Bill disenfranchises black communities and perpetuates racism in America or make her supposed apology meaningful. This is because when the prison lobbyists support of Hillary Clinton is framed in the context of the recent Guccifer memo leak, it is just as likely she will use BLM for votes and talking points, but do little to earn their support or address their demands for transformative policies addressing racism and police brutality.
The only candidate remaining in the race to have addressed the policy concerns of Black Lives Matter and put fourth equitable policy positions is Jill Stein of the Green Party(Note: Before her, Bernie Sanders has also raised the issue of racism in America with a focus on how blacks are disenfranchised and disproportionately punished by American society through a militarized police and prison system, combined with political and economic disenfranchisement through his own supposed sincerity has been questioned by BLM activists). Jill Stein's platform regarding racism and criminal justice reform reveal she plans to end the War on Drugs that Michelle Alexander has accused of as helping to disenfranchise the black population. The platform also proposes the dismantlement of the Prison-Industrial complex, the establishment of community policing regarding police brtuality and the demilitarization of police. She has also proposed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the consequences of slavery and the historical roots of current race relations in America.
As such, maybe for once Progressives should find an alternative to the two party duopoly politics more attractive than the most derided "lesser evil" candiates in America when it comes to addressing the issue of systemic racism in America. And with the election shaping up to be less of a genuine rallying of progressives to fight the alt-right and more of a Republican Civil War between elements of the right spread between two parties, maybe it's time for progressives to seek an alternative to the two party system in addressing systemic racism of blacks in America.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, despite the democratic party's supposed commitment to BLM's positions and Hillary's vow to oppose the alt-right, the Guccifer leak, when framed in the context of her actions and her receiving of Prison Lobbyist support, shows that despite rhetoric, Black lives don't really matter to the Democratic Party. Therefor rather than welcome an alliance between the Democrats and Black Lives Matter against the alt-right, the motivations of Hillary and the democrats should be viewed with scrutiny and suspicion as it seems, to the democrats that "black lives don't matter, but black votes do". And if the democrats continue to view Blacks as a source of votes over genuinely committing to structural change or making concrete efforts to earn the votes of black activist, it may be time for BLM activists to support independent progressive candidates with visions to make the structural and transformative changes needed to challenge racism in America, whether that racism stems from the alt-right, the prison-industrial complex, or the democrat party itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment