Originally posted by Jon`C:
You have this exactly backwards.
Sanders's main problem is that he identifies wealth and income inequality as the root cause of most social problems. Under capitalism, the people who have the most are automatically able to achieve the most. That means (certain) white males have more potential for success than anybody else does. That means, for example, there are much fewer successful and influential black women than there should be, because they originally started with less. Socialists (some more than others) believe fixing the economic issues will eventually shake out the social ones; by offering equality of opportunity, people from disparate backgrounds will act upon those opportunities, gather wealth, influence, and respect, and eventually (if nothing else) make it extremely inconvenient to be racist or sexist.
This perspective is not popular among people who believe capitalism (read: extreme inequality) could work for them "if only". If only there weren't racism. Or if only there were better jobs. Or if only someone would give me a chance. They believe their success is being obstructed by specific people who are discriminating against them, rather than it being rooted in a structural economic flaw that gives them a much lower likelihood of success in the first place.
Social democrats like Sanders don't blame specific people for their problems, they blame a broken economic system that needs to be managed better, recognizing that poor behaviours are mostly rational and cannot be corrected without active intervention. It's the latter types who blame specific people - the bankers, the racists, the job creators - and expect them to magically "behave better" and fix their problems, while never giving them any incentive for doing so.
Sanders's main problem is that he identifies wealth and income inequality as the root cause of most social problems. Under capitalism, the people who have the most are automatically able to achieve the most. That means (certain) white males have more potential for success than anybody else does. That means, for example, there are much fewer successful and influential black women than there should be, because they originally started with less. Socialists (some more than others) believe fixing the economic issues will eventually shake out the social ones; by offering equality of opportunity, people from disparate backgrounds will act upon those opportunities, gather wealth, influence, and respect, and eventually (if nothing else) make it extremely inconvenient to be racist or sexist.
This perspective is not popular among people who believe capitalism (read: extreme inequality) could work for them "if only". If only there weren't racism. Or if only there were better jobs. Or if only someone would give me a chance. They believe their success is being obstructed by specific people who are discriminating against them, rather than it being rooted in a structural economic flaw that gives them a much lower likelihood of success in the first place.
Social democrats like Sanders don't blame specific people for their problems, they blame a broken economic system that needs to be managed better, recognizing that poor behaviours are mostly rational and cannot be corrected without active intervention. It's the latter types who blame specific people - the bankers, the racists, the job creators - and expect them to magically "behave better" and fix their problems, while never giving them any incentive for doing so.
My point was that Sanders failed to directly resonate with the self-narrative of minority groups. Pointing out that you think that minority groups should have a different narrative is neither here nor there.
So I have it exactly forwards.