Responding to Bill Clinton’s extraordinary meltdown and wild, racially tinged rant at two BLM protestors in Philadelphia on Thursday, the co-founder of BLM, Alicia Garza, published an editorial today that criticizes the Clintons in terms so strong I can’t quote it here.
Is it violent? No. Is it obscene? No. Is it inappropriate? No. Is it illegitimate? Hell, no.
But it is so pointed and so forceful there there is no way I can cite even a sentence or two, or paraphrase its argument and themes without using concepts and language that are no longer welcome on this site.
I will not even post the link, because I don’t want to run afoul of the nebulous “rules” that now govern what we write.
There was a time, not so long ago, when many here claimed to care deeply about BLM.
Its concerns were explored in detail, in both proprietary DK and rec-list stories. Every protest was chronicled and analyzed, and the response of the targeted politician minutely examined and judged for how well they listened, and established effective dialogue.
Now that BLM and BLM-inspired protestors have repeatedly confronted the Clinton campaign, they are marginalized and ignored by the majority on this site, and, one imagines, within the larger Democratic Party. With Southern voting complete, and the Clinton nomination at least relatively assured, BLM has been rendered — again — Invisible.
Worse, not content to merely ignore BLM, many here chose to defend Bill Clinton’s outrageously offensive manner and words to BLM Thursday. Bizarrely, some carried their defense so far as to praise Clinton’s odd right-wing talking points offered in support of his administration’s notorious Crime Bill — a Bill he had famously repudiated before the NAACP last year.
Mr. Clinton walked back all these remarks Friday, but did his defenders here? Crickets.
It’s pretty much like the events didn’t occur. It’s pretty much like BLM has ceased to exist.
Well, they haven’t.
They don’t disappear because you don’t want to pay attention to them anymore. Or because a website opted to thumb the scale prematurely for its desired primary outcome.
But their abrupt erasure from Democratic politics and discussion does not bode well for BLM concerns in the years to come.
You censor, ignore, and sideline at your own risk.
The powers that be, both in the party and at this website, would be wise to think long-term about who they are including and who they are excluding from the conversation. If the gambit is to shame, persecute, and eliminate the most politicized, dynamic, activist younger voices of dissent, that only leads to one outcome: capture of the party by the privileged few.
That’s great for the few. It’s what they want.
But for the party itself, as for this website, in the long term it is not healthy. Ignoring BLM and its ilk will have consequences.
We had best include them in our conversations, and continue to address their concerns with vigor. Or they will take their conversations to other platforms and other forums. And, if you haven’t noticed, they already have. And as a Party and a community, we’re well on our way right back to ignoring the heck out of those conversations.
If we can’t talk about the BLM co-founder’s published words on CNN, you can be damn sure others can. They are. And we’re plugging our ears, covering our eyes, and looking the other way.
If we keep it up, it won’t end well.