The article I read was written by Glen Greenwald of the Intercept. He highlighted the agenda of MSNBC as being a tool of the Democratic Party establishment. He cited an example of a former Clinton campaign official being the first to comment on Sanders speech and her comment was negative and false. Zerlina Maxwell commented and posted to twitter that Bernie didn’t mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech which is verifiably incorrect.
I usually begin my day reading news articles. This morning I see an article on my recomended feed concerning a Bernie Sanders speech which interests me in itself for the purpose of critque.
The reason for this commentary isn’t the painfully obvious fact that MSNBC is the propaganda wing for the Democratic party establishment, and it isn’t when Bernie mentions race or gender. What strikes me is the priority and attention with which race and gender is made to be an issue.
The first comment on the speech of a serious presidential contender is about when he mentions race and gender, and the woman making the comment implies that these are voting issues.
Race and gender are tools intended to draw attention away from class. Class is the most important factor of an individuals quality of life, individual power, and liberty. While there are varying degrees of struggle for the middle class which consists of the middle 20 to 30 percent of income earners, the bottom 50% of the population face struggles to maintain basic neccesities.
Race and gender inequality is amplified in the media not only to drive a wedge between underclass people, but to maintain the great myth of the American system by offering racial and gender discrimination as the explanation for why people are not more prosperous.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate based on sex and race. From a legislative stand point what more can you accomplish? More important, as I frequently mention, a person who is black in the United States and born into money benefits from the same advantages as a person who is white, wheras a person who is white and poor faces the same disadvantages as people who are poor and black. The same applies to men and woman.
The main source of contention with the previous statement would be because woman on average earn only 80% of their male cohorts salary that women face an increased disadvantage. I haven’t had the opporunity to explore the methodolgy of this statistic, although I am sure there are alternate explanations. The reason there are alternate explanations is because no company has offered the same job to woman candidate at a lower salary than what they are offering a male candidate without the justifiction of qualifications. I know this because that would be discrimination.
The voter turn out of poor people tends to be much lower than the over classes. My definition of poor is generally the bottom 50%. The reason being is the bottom 50% are essentially without wealth, meaning their incomes are sufficient to meet their needs, or is evident by the bottom nearly 40% who have negative wealth (more debt than assets) inadequate to meet their needs. This is because poor people understand that no matter who is elected their situation isn’t likely to improve. Of course the United States doesn’t have poor people anymore, as the poor are now refered to as the working class.
The fools posistion is the poor are under represented because they don’t vote, but regardless of their turnout their interests are unrepresented or marginally represented only when it is profitable for some sector of the economy. There are only two parties, and both are by money for money. Bernie’s keys to victory include increasing underclass voter turnout and he ceaselessly panders with rhetoric to accomplish this task. Bernie is also an exception to the rule of campaign finance. As someone who tends to follow elections through the collaborative papers of Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Lie Chen, I was as surprised reading their discovery as they were discovering that Bernie’s 2016 campaign did infact raise 240 million in the primaries chiefly through small contributions.
The resurgence in white nationalism and even the election of Trump is driven by the emphasis of race in the media. In any situation where it can be made to be an issue it is made to be an issue. It causes poor white people to have a deeper racial identity and for them to be more suceptable to groups organizated around racial pride. The same as racial minorities are taught that their lack of prosperity is linked to racism, is implied as much if not more that the reason poor and middle class white people are not more prosperous is because of racial minorities.
Racism is not a serious issue in the Unied States, what is a serious issue is race being the pretext to divide the underclasses and to drown out class discussion. If wealth existed among all households in the US, meaning their incomes were greater than their expenses by a margin wide enough to meet all of their needs and have something left over each pay period, we wouldn’t be talking about race, and we wouldn’t be talking about gender.
To reiterate my main point, the greatest concern of the MSNBC commentator is race and gender. I don’t say that race and gender discrimnation doesn’t exist, but even if the minds of all the people who hold views of superiority based along those lines were magically changed, it would not significantly improve the quality of life for people. If we achieved compete racial and gender equality at a decrease of 10% of everyones income it would decrease the quality of life of people. More important than these points, is the main point, that the gender and racial bias that does exist, exists among individuals, it is no longer state sanctioned, it is socially unacceptable, and outside of specific incidents it has no place in political discussion. Yet it is peddled as an important issue and becomes an important issue in the reality of popular perception. The fact the woman leaves impressions on people that race and gender are important enough “clock” when they are brought up is more of a problem than the shunning of a career politicans who says things that are not in line with the preferences of the democrats.