After Black Lives Matter protesters ended the rally of Bernie Sanders supporters last Saturday, most responsible Democrats criticized the activists for interferring in the democratic process.
But several black lawmakers are taking a different view and are supporting the disruptions.
The activists have employed the controversial tactic of interrupting stump speeches and other public forums, which has drawn ire from many Democrats as an uncivil and misguided effort that targets allies, rather than opponents, of such reforms.
But a number of black Democrats disagree, arguing that race-based problems have been neglected for too long, even by liberal policymakers, and the activists have tapped into a vein of frustration that justifies their methods.
“They really are speaking to the issues, and we're really long overdue responding to those issues,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said in a phone interview. “They've been pointed, nonviolent and strong, and I'm not offended.
“They're asking for nothing more than to lift up a system to treat them with justice.”
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) echoed that message, alluding to recent high-profile cases of young unarmed blacks killed by police officers as proof that America's racial problems persist and demand a specific response from the presidential candidates — liberal and conservative alike. The public debate that’s followed the recent protests, he suggested, merits their controversial tactics\
“For Black Lives Matter activists, the issue is literally a matter of life and death as evidenced by the continued killing of unarmed Black men and women by police officers across the nation,” Johnson said in an email. “When presidential candidates fail to acknowledge how the current criminal system detrimentally impacts Black lives, they [the activists] resort to disruptive tactics to force attention to the issue.
“While disruption is uncomfortable, it does result in candidates acknowledging and addressing the issue with policy proposals,” he added. “When that happens, the need to protest is abated.”
In other words, threats and intimidation are just fine because they force candidates to change their agendas. Is this really how we want to conduct a campaign for the next president of the United States?
This is an extremely dangerous position. Supporting the veiled threat of violence from the protesters empowers the mob and encourages them to up the pressure on candidates. Disrupting rallies and preventing candidates from speaking is anti-democratic and shows the activists to be little better than angry thugs.
