The Disloyalty of Our Friends: Why Bernie Sanders Lost People of Color

At the risk of offending Bernie Sanders’ supporters, I wanted to remark on a problem many with lots of numbers to support it have said before: there’s a persistent gulf that remains between Sanders and people of color, especially those headed to the remaining primaries.

I’ll go one better though, and tell you why.

With the New York vote near, the Sanders camp is doing a full-court press to demonstrate diversity. They should. From social media to surrogates, the campaign is focused on making sure you believe African-Americans and those of Latin American descent do, honestly, #FeeltheBern. Campaign organizers have done an admirable job of trying to change this conversation.

The problem is, obviously, that it’s not enough, the data doesn’t bear out particularly good results and people of color are getting blamed for Sanders’ failures. Even when Sanders backers talk up how young voters of color, in a few polls, prefer Sanders, they’re missing longstanding statistics that indicate young voters, well, don’t vote often.

There’s a very simple reason why Black people and Latinos, by and large, side with Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. You don’t even need to look far to see why.

During a recent episode of the Undecided podcast, I suggested part of the interest among African-American and Latino voters, who compose a cornerstone of the Hillary Clinton coalition much like the Barack Obama coalition in 2008, was due to so many efforts to destroy the legitimacy of the first African-American president. Sanders may not have led the pitchfork and torch brigade, but the feeling he turned on the first president of color is palatable.

Is it fair? Probably not, but perception is reality in politics.

Hillary Clinton —neoliiberal political flaws, 2008-era dogwhistle racism and all — is seen as fundamentally loyal to a president that white supremacists, hardline GOP lawmakers and Donald Trump all despise. Bernie Sanders isn’t. In a country where elements of white America are actively striving to erase anything Barack Obama has done as president, loyalty to Obama matters to his ardent supporters, of which African-Americans and Latinos are central. More critically, Obama’s forgiveness of past feuds with Clinton is blessing enough for many in the electorate to forgive her too.

It’s not as if Bernie Sanders has been adversarial of the president of course. Politics is nuanced and Obama has, in fact, praised Sanders in the past. But the Clinton campaign’s success in bringing up Sanders’ many remarks against Obama has made an indelible impression.

Most famously, Sanders pushed back at Clinton over 2011 remarks Sanders made where he suggested Obama should have a primary opponent. Sanders’ retort that only Clinton ran against Obama didn’t stick, because Clinton ran in 2008, as George W. Bush was leaving, while Sanders hoped for someone to oppose the president after his first term.

It was a telling moment. During that period, Obama was the target of many attacks, from the outlandish to the conspiratorial. Republicans were the bulk of it, but a fair number on the left, many of whom were cheerleading Obama in 2008, were among those 2011–2012 critics. Cornel West, whose celebration-to-disdain Melissa Harris Perry artfully deconstructed and Michael Eric Dyson ethered, is perhaps the best known of the anti-Obama liberals.

These episodes don’t make Sanders’ views wrong, but probably ill-advised. One has to suspect when he started lending his name to and defending the liberal anti-Obama cottage industry, he wasn’t thinking about a presidential bid, let alone one in which he’d have to answer to mainstream African-Americans. Sanders’ willingness to stand by criticism of the president is only matched by Clinton’s commitment, in general and in principle, to Obama’s leadership.

Like Obama, Hillary Clinton is a lot of bad things to the right and the left. To the far reaches of the right, she’s a lesbian feminist radical. To far left, she’s a neocon war criminal. One thing neither can say of her time in the Obama Administration or as a presidential candidate is that she’s not, on the whole, supported Barack Obama’s vision for America. Such support may fire up the reinvigorated extremes against her, but to quite a few voters of color, Clinton’s willingness to uphold Obama is meaningful.

Sanders’ history as a Civil Rights Movement activist and insistence he’s a friend to people of color carries some currency, but in this age of anti-Obama hysteria, his lack of presence to speak as Clinton does for the president and his agenda undoubtedly hurts him. What African-American or Latino community hasn’t felt the sting of those who’ve presented themselves as our friends, only to be silent, to wound or betray us when we needed them? It’s as if those cuts are even worse than our political enemies, because we expect better. While Sanders may have a more progressive racial justice platform, Barack Obama is seen by communities of color as an embodiment of practice, as opposed to theory. Right or wrong though it may be, Clinton showed up in the eyes of many. Sanders didn’t.

In tying her campaign so closely to the presidency of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has chosen a strategy that depends on African-American and Latino communities. These communities still admire the president tremendously. They also appreciate Bill Clinton in robust numbers. What Obama has been through, polls hint, has a lingering racial divide over perceptions of the president. People of color often see the hatred of Obama as symbolic of the intense, often unfair, scrutiny prominent people of color face. Women, white and of color, know it too. It’s the sort of scrutiny that seems like it goes beyond a single act, policy, decision or office. It feels like a shot at our collective existence, our intelligence, and our ability to lead, to be trusted and to have power.

Thus, that Clinton is believed to want to build on Obama’s legacy, despite what white conservatives and liberals may think of Obama, is sure to cement her coalition. Conversely, to have people like Sanders rep Susan Sarandon essentially siding with Trump — yes, I know what she said, but let’s be real that Sarandon isn’t ignorant of the political implication — if Sanders loses and over the only person in the race seen as arguing for the African-American president; to have Sanders question his female rival’s competence; to insist the campaign is right, even when it sounds stupid — Sanders taps into a proud white resentment that is far more damaging among voters of color than the Sanders camp realizes.

Add to this other missteps —Rosario Dawson going to softcore victim blaming against Latino activist icon Dolores Huerta, Killer Mike sputtering ahistorical misogyny — that the Sanders team failed to adequately address or stayed silent and you shouldn’t be terribly surprised that Black people in North Carolina and Latinos in Florida, among many regions, gave Hillary Clinton resounding wins in their respective demographics. Smart money says Bernie Sanders continues to get that spanking in primaries to come.

To be clear, I’m not arguing Hillary Clinton is better for people of color, that both candidates don’t have inconsistencies or made mistakes, or that Bernie Sanders is an unfit candidate. However, to underestimate Barack Obama’s influence and his popularity, even in the final months of his term, among key constituencies is a fatal error. In trying to endear himself to supporters who harbor disillusionment with President Obama, Bernie Sanders has lost the people Obama depended on for victory. What’s more, Sanders’ team shouldn’t point the blame at Blacks and Latinos, the media, voter suppression and everyone else for the polls. A revolution of reappraisals is in order.