Department of African American Studies; Ph.D, African American Studies Northwestern University and BLM activist).
During the conversation she made a couple of statements which shows the severe distress the Democratic Party is in.
Right out of the gate is Keeanga's assertion that "(the Democratic Party) take that for granted their base, and consistently try to appeal to more rightwing forces in the country" and this is why they are failing. I agree with Keeanga. The D Party leadership is as Neo-Con as they come. They just obfuscate that fact by arguing about who can use which bathroom.
A second comment made that caught my attention was "I wrote the book in large part as a way to understand the meaning of Barack Obama’s presidency, really beginning with the question of, how do we explain the emergence of this black social movement, the sort of longest, most enduring black social movement, really, since the 1960s and ‘70s, with a black president, and with the highest concentration of black political power in American history? So not just the black president, but the black attorney general."
What does that mean? Are blacks expected to act in a uniformed way once in positions of power? Did Obama create an administration overweighted with minorities in order to push an agenda for black people? Does the Attorney General and POTUS work hand in hand to promote political agendas? That comment concerned me because she says it carefree. No worry that what she is suggesting is the DJT was correct in assuming that the Hispanic judge ruling on his case might act in a way that is politically motivated to promote an agenda. This is obvious to anyone that uses critical thinking but opposite of what the Fake News reports.
Another excerpt to note: "Obama actually did have a mandate in a way that there’s nothing resembling that with Trump, he did absolutely nothing with it, and instead, sort of wasted that opportunity to just step on the throat of the Republican Party, and put them in a can and bury it in the backyard for a generation, he refused to do it."
In case you had any doubts, these people are playing for keeps. They want permanent, radical, societal change.
We share a lot of similar beliefs however: "I have never voted for a Democrat, and I never will, because I think that that is a party of war. It’s a party of the market. It’s a party of poverty, a party of police violence (Make mental note of this for later), of executions and the death penalty, and I will never vote for it."
Summing up a centerpiece of her political beliefs: I think there’s a basic contradiction between what free marketers and the capitalism and black liberation, or women’s liberation, or LGBTQ liberation, or what liberation would look like for poor and working class people. I think that those two things are in dire conflict with each other. And so, when you have a political party that is steeped in that system and loves it, and does everything in its power to maintain and uphold it, then there’s a basic contradiction in being able to come through for the things that ordinary people need to maintain, let alone improve, any standard or quality of life.
Her promoting identity politics "For people who are concerned about police terrorism and police violence, that is not just a black issue. That is an issue that Latinos have to deal with. That is an issue that Arabs and Muslims have to deal with. And we have to highlight the ways in which those things are connected...And so, we have to see how all of these working class issues are women’s issues. And so, I think the main thing is that we have to see how these issues are connected, and that is the basis upon which we can build a broad movement."
I would love to hear Keeanga's explanation of how she intends for her socialist dream world to be governed. First off, its a given that the govt will be forced to use physical violence against the current middle class to assist in redistributing wealth. Surely, she understands that the policies she promotes are all enforced under the Jack Boot of a militarized police force and would require an ever larger Federal Government. A Federal Government with unconstrained access to personal data.
This is trouble for the Democratic Party. Once leadership changes hand to the next Generation of Dem Leaders and the Boomers become even more conservative in their elderly age the D's will have no connection to Middle America and the "race war" will be on. The Dem Party is firmly under control of the "Big Money Dems" whom use the Black Caucus for muscle and will fall apart in the coming years unless they change their branding.
All this brings me back to the question I have asked since she announced she was running for POTUS: Why Hillary?
Why did the 1st African American President choose as his successor HRC? Why turn to the past when we are trying to move forward? All that she symbolizes besides being a woman is a total turnoff to most voters. They knew she had bad metrics before choosing her. They knew Bill was a liability. They knew she was on tape calling TPP "The Gold Standard". Her negatives could go on for pages yet Obama still chose her.
