I'll tackle the issue this way:
Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in the country, gave a poor answer on a gravely important issue. It's unconscionable that people of color face such obstacles in employment, education, justice, and even their right to exist without being brutalized. Our goals should be to redress these inequities comprehensively and compassionately, by tackling systemic racism in all facets of American life: changing the current property-tax funding scheme that deliberately shortchanges public schools in minority-heavy areas; legalizing marijuana and retroactively pardoning the people of color disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs; enacting criminal-justice and sentencing reforms; imposing new standards on law enforcement to deter excessive force and trying to make police forces better represent the communities they police; and amending the Voting Rights Act to tackle voter suppression, perhaps the longest-standing way that people of color are marginalized and disenfranchised. We have a moral obligation to enact these changes, to ensure that people of color receive the rights and protections they've so long deserved but have been denied.
The Democratic Party's leaders, moreover, should try to discuss these issues sensitively and with understanding - and show unconditional support for movements like BLM. I know words matter, and I acknowledge that Pelosi faltered in this regard. I hope she'll use the opportunity to grow and improve.
But I also ask this question: of all the legislative initiatives I listed, do people really think that she wouldn't support them wholeheartedly, especially with a Democratic WH and Senate? If yes, we probably don't have much to discuss.
But I think she does support them. As
Kirblar said, the Democrats currently have a huge voting-rights package on the legislative calendar. Whether Pelosi was alluding to it last night, I know not and can't know. I do know, however, that such a bill evinces a commitment to improving the lives of people of color in a tangible way: by increasing their power at the ballot box. If this bill had been law months ago, we'd have Governors Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams. She clearly wants to address the issue and has made it a priority.
I'm saying two things: one, judge people by their actions and records. We call Republicans racist (they are) not only because they say racist things but also because they actively oppose measures that would help people of color. Pelosi, conversely, has a sterling record on women's rights, LGBT rights, and most minority rights in general. Her record is one of helping vulnerable people in this country, and I'm not prepared to dismiss someone whose career has been dedicated to that pursuit.
Two, when you teach, you learn that any punishment should be proportional to the offense. If a kid chews gum when he's not supposed to, you don't give him a week of detention. When a politician with a good record makes an awkward or even bad statement, you don't completely dismiss them. You criticize proportionally, tell them what they did wrong, and inform them that you expect better.
I hope Pelosi clarifies or apologizes, and I hope she recognizes
why her statement has elicited this reaction and why the rhetoric matters just as much as the initiatives she supports. But I'm not going to use this as an excuse to question or dismiss her leadership, legislative priorities, or commitment to remedying social inequities.
I am not person of color. It is fully possible that
I am the one downplaying this because I don't have to personally face the issues that power BLM and would lead to impassioned reactions against her statement. If so, I am willing to listen and learn, but I think we should also be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone who is clearly not an enemy and whose actions have shown her to be an ally.
