Stanford Politics

Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” and Black Lives Matter have profoundly different visions for America, but have similar immediate policy proposals that the Democratic Party has yet to adopt. A cautious alliance between the two for pushing progressive economic and social policy could be both movements’ best chance to push for reform.

***

Under a likely Hillary Clinton presidency, the Democratic Party will have to deal with two major insurgencies within its left flank: Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution.” Both movements have a strong support base within the party and will assuredly push for the adoption of more progressive reforms. But they do have different aspirations. Sanders’ “political revolution” primarily hopes to limit corporate influence in politics and eliminate the harmful excesses of American capitalism, while Black Lives Matter struggles to dismantle the edifice of systemic racism. In pursuit of their goals, each movement will likely seek significant changes in the Democratic Party in the coming years.

Fresh off Sanders’ surprising primary run, his supporters have already pushed for the most progressive party platform ever and founded new organization, Our Revolution, to continue their movement (though it is already off to a rocky start). While these activists already have a significant donor base and a growing legion of supportive legislators on a local and federal level, they have had little success in recruiting underrepresented minority groups to their cause. Indeed, Sanders’ difficulties connecting with Black and Latino voters contributed significantly to his defeat in the primaries. At this point, it’s clear that Sanders’ vision of democratic socialism has yet to persuasively address matters of racial inequality. When Black Lives Matter leader DeRay McKesson came to Stanford in May, he praised Sanders’ understanding of the economy, but expressed concern over his understanding of race early in his campaign. He emphasized that Sanders’ prioritization of issues of class over issues of race cost the Vermont senator minority support.

Black Lives Matter has become a political force largely through protest, and has previously rejected national organization in favor of a leaderless structure (to the worry of many). Recently, the Movement for Black Lives (a conglomeration of many smaller groups devoted to racial injustice), released a visionary platform that addresses more topics than police brutality, such as economic justice, money in politics, and community building. Black Lives Matter is finally at the stage of its evolution where its organization and popular support can become force in policymaking, as evidenced by its impact on both Democratic candidates’ platforms this primary season. Though the Democratic Party continues to offer rhetorical praise to Black Lives Matter, the party has been cautious about making actual policy promises to the group, upsetting many of their organizers.

At this point, Bernie’s “political revolution” and Black Lives Matter stand at similar crossroads in their respective evolutions. They even share many mutual supporters, especially among young people of color. Millennials of color preferred Sanders to Clinton in the primary, and even to this day are worrying Democrats because of their skepticism of her establishment ties. Because both movements have little legislative representation in the party, they’ll have difficult roads ahead to build political power and enact their radical platforms.

However, what’s escaped national recognition is the similarity between the movements’ two platforms. Though Black Lives Matter’s platform focuses, of course, primarily on racial equality, both platforms agree on a number of policies spanning a variety of topics. As Ryan Cooper points out, they both share desires for “big progressive tax increases, federal job programs, environmental rehabilitation, breaking up the big banks, land reform, renegotiation of trade agreements, an increase in federal worker protections, federal help for black-owned institutions, universal health care, protection of workers’ right to organize, and more.” That is a substantial shared agenda.

A cautious marriage between the two could pressure the Democratic Party to move left on the issues they mutually care about. They’ll need to carefully choose which issues to tackle together, and which ones they’ll push alone. Both movements have so many places to start: together they could push the abolition of the death penalty together, tackle financial institutions, or campaign for the 15 dollar minimum wage. But it is important to note that, the marriage will not be symmetrical, given that Black Lives Matter and Sanders’ “political revolution” differ greatly in terms of immediate plans and long-term visions. Sanders supporters are currently organizing to raise money and elect officials who represent their interests, looking ahead to down-ballot elections in 2016 and beyond. But Black Lives Matter doesn’t have that luxury: without a sizable amount of votes or loyal politicians to rely on, the movement’s immediate goal is to convince existing lawmakers to adopt their reforms.

The dynamic of the alliance will also depend on how they reconcile their respective long-term visions. The source of their fundamental difference lies in Black Lives Matter’s philosophy of “targeted universalism.” Black Lives Matter aims for reforms that benefit everybody, while focusing in particular on issues affecting the Black community. In other words, Black Lives Matter does not trust Sanders’ “political revolution” to solve Black people’s problems, though their policies may be similar. It’s a significant problem that will hinder progressive reform, and one that won’t be solved easily.

The best place for these two groups to begin is criminal justice. Sanders’ “political revolution” and Black Lives Matter have very similar plans to end mass incarceration and end police brutality. In a political landscape teeming with overt racism and xenophobia, pushing Democratic leaders to adopt comprehensive reform would be politically opportune. Given the Democrats’ constant critique of Trump’s campaign as terrible for people of color, a strong push for the party to actually address existing systemic racism with substantive policy would be difficult to ignore. Calls to abolish all private prisons, abolish the death penalty, end the war on drugs, and demilitarize the police could have enough momentum to be successfully implemented. Although criminal justice is not the chief priority of Sanders’ “political revolution,” they absolutely need to gain the trust of minorities in order to actualize their progressive policies in all arenas.

Through working together on pushing criminal justice policy. Sanders’ “political revolution” can learn about how progressive economic policy and race interact, and what radical reforms minorities care about most. It’s necessary for them to appreciate that the wealth inequality they care about so deeply is not only related to, but reinforced by systemic racism. For a partnership to develop, Sanders’ “political revolution” will likely have to support reparations, a controversial but essential component of Black Lives Matter’s platform. The concept of reparations is one of the most important items on Black Lives Matter’s agenda because it acknowledges racism and a significant reason why it still persists: unequal distribution of money. Investing more resources in Black communities for the expressed purpose of finally ending the suffering of Black people should be a goal of any radical movement.

For Black Lives Matter, working with Sanders’ “political revolution” is their best inroad into the Democratic Party. Their most immediate goal is to make policy immediately, and there’s more potential in xworking with Sanders’ “political revolution,” which has shown enthusiasm in working with other social movements, than in working with the party establishment or entirely outside the party. Whether or not Black Lives Matter will have to compromise its values through working with other groups still remains to be seen. However, given Black Lives Matter’s limited policy clout, this is a chance they might have to take.

Even the simple act of raising awareness can change minds. In solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, both Sanders and Black Lives Matter criticized the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, bringing attention to an under-reported issue. Finally, after weeks of protest, President Obama ordered the pipeline company to cease construction of the pipeline. This kind of pressure on the party is strong enough to effect change.

Despite their strong support among young people and the Left, Sanders’ “political revolution” and Black Lives Matter have accomplished little in the way of policy. Alone, it’s possible that neither may be powerful enough to create this sort of permanent change. But their dreams deserve to be realized, and with their considerable overlap in policy, working together might be their only shot.

---

Hugo Kitano, a senior studying computer science, is a staff writer at Stanford Political Journal.