Proposal for anti-oppression accord involving blm and Democratic presidential candidates:

[Ken Burch]

1)At all rallies, blm or other anti-racist groups, prior to the candidates' entrance, will be given a chance to address the audience(while remaining neutral as to who gets nominated)and to remind the audience that police are still murdering PoC, that institutional racism must be defeated and that the crowd has an obligation to actively work to address these issues;

2)blm and other anti-racist, anti-oppression groups will also be given the chance, before the candidate speaks to tell the audience about upcoming protests, resistance actions and continuing campaigns that the audience should participate in;

3)the candidate herself or himself will read the growing list of the names of police violence and then lead the crowd in a period of silence; The candidate will also address institutional racism and present a plan for combatting it.


In exchange for this, the candidates will not be prevented from speaking and the audience will not be accused of supporting racism.

Open to additional constructive suggestions from anyone who has them to offer. Critiques welcome.

This is meant to stir more effective tactical thinking, without compromising anyone's independence.

[Vincardog]

1. Can I speak against BBV too?

[Ken Burch]

3. Not until you learn to spell a bit better

Why do you want to speak against "Beats, Brags and Variance"?

[NCTraveler]

4. I really like the thought, but I think it puts too much control on our candidates.

I want to make a couple of comments on your thoughts here with respect to our candidates, mainly Sanders with small reference to Clinton and O'Malley.

It is my position, in the area of social justice, economic justice, and equality; Sanders has a great record for decades of standing up and speaking to causes that will benefit the oppressed. For the most part, flawless and more consistent than any current candidate. He rises to "best friend" status in these areas. At the same time, I think I can make a strong argument that all of this has been done as if he is an activist, not as someone in a position of power that is needed to generate change. He is now fighting for that position of power. Some might see what I just said as a shot to Sanders. I see it as the exact opposite and I think he would agree with me. It is why so many of us, including myself, have such respect for him running. He knows he wasn't in a position to actually create the change he has been promoting his whole life. I believe upon personal reflection, he want to go from activist to an agent of change. Power is needed to do so. He knows that.

I think he needs to make serious changes to his campaign strategy. Right now, certain groups are attempting to co-opt his campaign. They are groups that have been marginalized and are tired of the shit. Their tactics are becoming more aggressive and I applaud them. Why are they doing it to Sanders, and to a lesser extent O'Malley? They are accessible. Their number one goal over the last months has been to gain name recognition. In order to do so, they have put themselves in a vulnerable position where they did not have complete control. Hillary is laughed at for doing this, and in all honesty, she has taken control to a level I wouldn't expect from Sanders. That would be unrealistic and unfair to say he should campaign like her. It wouldn't make sense on his part.

I do not believe they are doing it out of hatred of Sanders. They are doing it out of hatred for a system that systemically oppresses, a political party they vote overwhelmingly for and are pandered to every couple of years, and then the rhetoric is toned down after the election. He is a representative of the system and has made himself too accessible and vulnerable. Sander supporters can say "well, he is different. He is an outsider." Do you know how many times the oppressed have been told that about a democratic contender for the white house? Including in '08. We become personally involved with those we support. It hurts to see someone like Sanders being referenced as a white supremacist.

I don't want to see Sanders interrupted again even though you have seen I will not take part in trashing those who interrupt him. Those two thoughts can be held at the same time. I think some here have a difficult time contemplating that. Not talking bad about the disruptions or disruptors, while at the same time not wanting to see them happen to Sanders. Originally, I think Sanders message was not being fully understood because he was all economic justice all the time. Yet he has a clear record of speaking to economic and social justice(I do think that economic justice is social justice, in words we have created distinction). Not just one even though I fully understand the overlap, and to really well thought out individuals, we know that in the end economic justice is a game changer and necessary in the area of oppression. After the initial interruption at NRN Sanders almost immediately started including more aspects of social justice into his speeches. It wasn't a "new Sanders." He has always believed in those aspects, and has a life of talking about them, he just ramped up his rhetoric on the campaign trail. He was originally simply speaking to economic justice alone because it speaks to a larger audience. I think people missed the point that he was simply speaking to something that all in society would benefit from; he wasn't speaking against anything by way of omission or ignoring any issue. He was speaking to an issue that is probably the most pressing issue we as a society face today.

The change Sanders needs to make, in my opinion, is that of campaign control. I think he has made changes to rhetoric that are excellent. Once again, when I say changes, I don't mean to his thoughts. He has always held these thoughts. When Sanders is drawing the crowds he is, he doesn't need to accept every invitation to everything because of name recognition. Hillary didn't go to NRN and Sanders should have never been there. Did anyone in his campaign even research past political presidential events at NRN. If they did, did they just assume "well, Sanders is different. They will just show him more respect because he is an outsider." They can't make that thought work. He is running for the democratic party nomination for president. Whoever didn't do research on past talks at NRN, or did and still decided to accept, should no longer be a part of that aspect of his campaign. He is gathering crowds in the thousands on his own. Many areas he is going these crowds are diverse. He needs to simply continue that. Not accept invitations to everything offered when he and his camp have no control. People laugh and mock Hillary for her control. Not so much anymore.

I don't want to put the onus on Sanders or any of our other candidates to be forced to do something. My personal opinion is that they are all doing great in this area. Where some are missing, that includes O'Malley, is that there has to be an extreme level of control. Sanders needs to move from the thought process of town halls, to I need to win this above all else. It needs to be about winning. If he thinks he is the best person to promote change at the highest level of government, he needs to win. Not speak to NRN. That in itself demeans his campaign and what he stands for.

Sanders need to bring some additional people into his campaign for event scheduling, control, and negotiations with event centers. He has skyrocketed in a very short amount of time. If a business grew at this speed, one of the most difficult aspects would be quality staffing. His people are making him vulnerable to these groups when in realty they should be his best friend. They have access to him and are using him as a tool. That really pissed people off and I get it. People think Sanders is the agent of change they have been waiting for and that we need. They might be right. But to the oppressed and BLM overall, he isn't doing anything they haven't heard before. He is a image of the machine that has been oppressing them and they have access to him at some of his events. Like Sanders needs to be on stage next to Hillary at a debate, they need to get their message out as well. That access is directly related to campaign decisions being made in the Sanders camp. He needs to change that immediately.

Sanders needs to do this on his own. He isn't and shouldn't be getting help or agreements from other candidates. That would be unfair to them. He knows that and has made some positive changes to rhetoric. His problem is from within his campaign and is staff related. They know it and are making changes as we speak. He is a smart man. Each of your points would be excellent for each of our candidates to think about.

As for your direct thoughts:

1) I hope not. Sanders is speaking to their issues. Candidates often have people come out before them Sanders is no different. If I were him, I would find BLM representatives with a long record of public speaking, who are know backers of his. People have this misconception that BLM is anti-Sanders. I don't think that to be the case. I will guarantee he has many supporters in the movement. He can also go to many other groups to tap a speaker before his events. Control. It is what he needs. Some of the areas he will also get state representative to speak before he does. Just like all of our other candidates. In no way do I think he should come to agreement with an individual group and give them time on his stage. It is his stage, his managers are just giving other access that is too easy. I don't want his campaign, or any of our candidates campaigns, co-opted.

"to remind the audience that police are still murdering PoC, that institutional racism must be defeated and that the crowd has an obligation to actively work to address these issues;"

I think Sanders started doing a very good job of that on his own after NRN.

2) Once again, not on Sanders stage. That being said, not going to dismiss this thought, but bring it to a different area. His campaign should have all of this coordination done and literature and information should be done at the entrance to or outside of the event. He needs to bring them in no further than that. Give them access to his crowds without the ability to harm his campaign. I'm willing to bet he has done that and is working to improve it. All of our candidates should be doing that.

3) Personal campaign decision. Sanders is doing it. He is doing it in his own way and it is really a thing of beauty. The changes in his rhetoric after NRN encompass your thought in number three for the most part.


None of our candidates should be co-opted. This is on Sanders, as it is on each of our candidates and the campaign decision they make. He and his campaign put himself in a very precarious position that they should have never done. NRN was a no-brainer. He shouldn't have been there. Neither should O'Malley. He needs better control and doesn't need to accept all invites when he is filling places to the level of five thousand plus people.

Some here seem to feel a side needs to be picked. Sanders or BLM. That is not the case. Sanders staff needs to keep people off his stage. When they give control to others in this area the results aren't that surprising. I fault no one for using him as a tool if he is going to allow it.

I want to say this clearly because I think some believe not willing to talk bad about BLM is anti-Sanders in itself. At least the impression of that is given here. Sanders needs to keep BLM, and any other group off of his stage. It is his stage. They have given others access by way of poor control, or by giving control to other groups and trusting they would keep the stage secure. A sure way to open yourself up to these things. Keep them off the damn stage by way of good management and control. That is not a bad thing.

Thanks for your op. This has truly made me feel hurt for Sanders. I look at the photos of him on that stage after it was taken over and it hurts. I have the same feeling many of Sanders supporters do seeing his stage taken by others making a point, when he has spent his life being an activist for them. It truly hurts to see he has to endure this. That doesn't mean I will take shots at anyone who he gives access to the stage. By campaign decisions, he gave them the opportunity and they have now taken it twice.

I think Sanders has a control problem, not a POC problem. He is one of the oppressed best activists and friends.

[cali]

5. no. it should be up to the candidates. If they want to do what you suggest, great

but it's their right to run their own campaigns as they see fit. And what's next? Should climate activists get equal time? What about immigration activists?

[HereSince1628]

6. I don't think anyone is going to turn a mic over to people they can't fully trust.

Message control is too important to the campaigns.

There is no way of knowing if a BLM protest activity will turn violent, BLM is as subject to subversion by radicals as are the Democratic campaigns themselves. No campaign is going to want to be linked to announcements that help get people to an outbreak of violence.

I am pretty sure Sanders is -already- naming names, I suspect the other campaigns are as well.

One of the problems in reconciling BLM and democratic presidential campaigns is the goals and the working paradigms of protest and campaigns don't mesh well.

Campaigns are about building coalitions. Protests are calls for attention.

The more sizzle you can put in a protest, the more people notice, and it doesn't matter if the attention is good or bad.

Campaigns don't have those degrees of freedom, they've got to get disparate groups to link up and form a coalition support. That requires things like cooperation, and compromise. Everybody's concerns get a moment.

But as we've seen, via reactions to 'all lives matter', BLM doesn't want a coalition that works on the problems of everybody. They want focus on Black lives only.

[ibegurpard]

7. there's no one to deal with

It's a loosely knit coalition of activists that anyone can claim to represent. Someone better step in and do some organizing and strategizing or they will continue to alienate people. And that would be a tragedy.