Recently, Hillary Clinton has come under fire for going back and forth regarding the subject of race. In the video above, a Black Lives Matter activist named Ashley Williams approached Clinton at a private fundraiser in Charleston, SC. Williams asked Clinton to "apologize for mass incarceration," and even slipped in the bone-chilling statement, "I'm not a super predator, Hillary Clinton."
There has been a lot of uncovering of Hillary's past as of late; her former beliefs about racial tensions have been brought to light. Williams was referring to Hillary Clinton's description of African-American children who have gotten wrapped up in gangs and drug cartels as "super predators" back in 1996. This label is viewed by Black Lives Matter activists as insensitive because it is a broad generalization and an umbrella term which may well include many African-American youths who are either suffering from massive amounts of pressure in their communities to engage in illegal activities, as well as people who are just in need of help and compassion.
The reason why Clinton is being questioned about this encounter in particular is because of the way she spoke to Ms. Williams. In the video, Clinton uses a rather demeaning tone, saying "Well, can I talk? And then maybe you can listen to what I say" (Scott). Hillary certainly seemed to tense up when she was approached by Black Lives Matter activists and, frankly, I think it may have something to do with the fact that she wasn't always trying so hard to be on their side. Recently, Hillary has put out propaganda regarding her reforms to benefit the Black community, but her promises seem empty. She may be locking in some of the black vote, but I am worried that she is putting on a front just to get these votes.
This would not be the first time Hillary Clinton changed her mind on something just in time for the 2016 election. In fact, until 2013, Clinton believed that marriage should be "denied to gays and lesbians." I think that is important for us, as young voters, to acknowledge that Hillary may be seesawing a little too much with her positions on major social issues.
1. Do you think Clinton is putting on a front to get votes?
2. Do you think that Bernie Sanders will do more to benefit the African-American community?
Final Disclaimer: In case this influences your opinions on this at all, Ashley Williams was technically trespassing at Ms. Clinton's private fundraiser.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-whichhillary/
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/5-reasons-black-lives-matter-hillary-clinton_b_7969452.html
Source: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillary-clinton-black-lies-and-white-lives/
4 comments:
Hillary Clinton is absolutely putting out a front to get votes. Throughout this campaign she has shown herself to be an embodiment of the Democratic platform, shaping her political positions to fit the mold of the party ideology. The fact that she is such a flip-flopper on so many issues is truly unsettling, as it indicates that she wants to hold the power of the presidency more than she wants to help the American people. She is willing to do anything to rally party support, even if it means adopting a set of values that formerly meant nothing to her, and she is becoming increasingly desperate as the young members of the Democratic party realize how much of a fraud she is. She is implicated in a scandal regarding classified emails, she has been very close with Wall Street benefactors (you know, the guys who caused the 2007 recession), and she simply has no leg to stand on when it comes to the issues. As much as I can't stand the conservatives in the GOP race, at least people like Ted Cruz stand by a strong set of political values. Even though gay marriage has been legalized, Ted Cruz continues to advocate in support of "traditional" marriage, and as much of a swine he is for doing this, at least he has an unflinching set of ideals. Clinton, on the other hand, makes whatever changes necessary to her political positions, to the point where she is not willing to offer anything original. She does not seem to be nearly as committed to reform as she once was, and now her mantra is basically "whatever Obama did, we're keeping it." This isn't necessarily bad, but it isn't the least bit inspiring. In fact, its kind of depressing, considering that the top candidate for the Democrats (the party pushing reform) has the same amount of excitement to enact change as a stale potato chip.
This reason exactly is why so many young people are turning to Bernie, while the older members of the electorate are playing it safe and voting for Hillary. Young men and women want a breath of fresh air from all the rehearsed lines and bland ideas of Clinton, and an unapologetic socialist who demands wide-spanning reform is just the man for them. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that Sanders would do much more for African-Americans. Unlike Hillary, Bernie marched alongside Civil Rights leaders during the 1960's, and he has never stopped pushing for the reform of our criminal justice system. He showed incredible humility when he was confronted by Black Lives Matter protesters during a speech, while Hillary shows obvious disgust and condescension towards this activist. The candidate pushing fr reform could be more obvious. Hillary isn't "fighting for us." She's fighting for herself.
I think that the Clinton consistency challenge calls to mind a larger, even philosophical problem beyond the 2016 election. Should we treat a vote for a candidate as a holistic approval of all of their views? How about all of their views throughout their history in public office? This problem of the importance of long-term consistency often seems to manifest itself as a weapon against a particular politician, rather than a steadfast ideological position. In this election, it is a weapon of the Sanders campaign against Clinton. There are certainly merits to mistrusting a politician who changes his or her views regularly, in order to gain support. Clinton's recent policy switch on gay marriage is particularly concerning. However, there is a nebulous point where insisting on such consistency becomes absurd. Political ideas, and the ideas of the electorate, change sometimes very rapidly, and politicians are remaining in public office for longer than ever. Should they be expected to maintain their views exactly?
In terms of racial issues specifically, Clinton has substantive proposals to aid the black community, even if some say it is pandering to gain votes. She proposed spending $2 billion to end the “school-to-prison” pipeline by means of school-climate support teams, a combination of social workers, educators and behavioural-health specialists, placed in schools with high rates of suspensions and in-school arrests. She vowed to bring inequalities to an end in her presidency.
Certainly, politicians should maintain their integrity over time. But insisting that they should in all cases opens up a can of worms that is illogical at its fringes.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/02/black-votes-matter?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2
I agree with Will about consistency, up to a point. I think there is definitely validity in changing one's views. In fact, I think it's admirable to be able to re-evaluate your previous position and say "You know what, I was wrong". Though, of course, it's nice to have a person who has always been on the "right side" of history, it's unrealistic to insist that they must always have been so. That said, there is a line between changing your ideology because you truly believe your previously held opinions were wrong, and changing your stance in order to appeal to a broader range of voters. I think that we have definitely seen Hillary, especially, try and fail connect to youth and minority voters (see: snapchat disappears! joke and dabbing on Ellen).
So, to some extent, I do think that Hillary is putting on a front to get votes. I'm not sure if we can condemn her totally for reacting the way she did to Ashley Williams, considering that I think most people would get flustered if put on the spot like that. However, I do think her reaction could have been much more gracious and controlled. I think that Williams and the Black Lives Matter community absolutely has a right to confront Clinton about her previous statements. Though, as I said, we cannot hold people 100% accountable for views that they once had, I think it is important to hold Clinton's feet to the fire a bit on important issues like this. Black Lives Matter is a movement focused on supporting and strengthening the black community and I absolutely consider Hillary's previous remarks to be both gross generalizations and extremely ignorant and insensitive.
As for your second question, I think it is hard to say exactly which candidate would be better for the black community. Of course, both Sanders and Clinton were questioned by Black Lives Matter activists, so we cannot say that either is immune from judgement based on previous actions. As Will said, Hillary has laid out plans that can help our black population, but Bernie has a history of fighting for minority rights.
Overall, I find Hillary's flip-flopping to be disturbing (especially on the issue of gay marriage), but not totally inexcusable. If she is able to prove that her changes of mind are valid and independent of popular opinion, then I think that she can be considered by her most recent comments. Still, though, we mustn't forget her past entirely.
I agree with both El KittyCat and Will. I like Will's point that political figures are in public positions longer nowadays and getting more media coverage than ever before; therefore it is likely that their views may not be the same as they were when they entered the field twenty years ago. This being said, one must be careful to distinguish between those who change their views because they genuinely had a change of heart/mind and those who say they now believe something different just to appeal to the public. Hillary Clinton has switch positions on so many different topics (race, gay marriage, and more) that one cannot help but suspect that she is simply putting up a "front," as raswaglia said, to help bring in votes. Now going into El KittyCat's view that Clinton's stance on race is most definitely a front, I would agree. Only during this 2016 campaign has Clinton said that she is in support of racial equality and will work to protect the rights of African American people. However when it comes to taking action, such as was displayed in this video, she does not behave as eloquently as one would who naturally wanted to help. After Ms. Williams spoke out, Clinton immediately went on the defense and her tone changed to annoyed and condescending instead of understanding and willing to listen. Clinton wants to be heard without listening first, a quality that is dangerous in a President. It seems it Clinton has a hard time addressing the issue of race, most likely because she does not see it as the headlining problem that it is. In my opinion, Sanders is much more open and comfortable with his views. Everything he states in the media has been consistent and spoken with convincing passion. Therefore I think Sanders will continue to bring in more and more young and diverse voters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/5-reasons-black-lives-matter-hillary-clinton_b_7969452.html
Post a Comment