In a political twist that few could have predicted, Black Lives Matter has turned its ire towards the Democratic Party, accusing them of undemocratic practices in installing Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee to replace President Biden. The sentiment echoes the frustration of many who feel sidelined by what they see as an elitist maneuver to control the party's future.
Kamala Harris has often faced criticism for changing her tone and manner of speech depending on her audience. Critics argue this is not only inauthentic but also degrading. Remember Biden's infamous "put y'all back in chains" comment? Harris's pandering is seen as equally offensive, alienating voters who crave genuine, consistent leadership. President Trump, on the other hand, is praised by his supporters for speaking consistently regardless of his audience’s race, which they see as a sign of integrity and respect.
BLM's discontent with Harris isn't just about her nomination process; it's about the perceived hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. BLM delegates are demanding a virtual snap primary, arguing that the current process resembles a dictatorship more than a democratic system. "We do not live in a dictatorship," they assert, highlighting a growing rift within the left.
Kamala Harris's history as a "psychotic wild-eyed sociopath" with a radical agenda doesn't sit well with many. Her support for extreme policies and her actions during the BLM riots—where she encouraged continued protests and even raised funds to bail out rioters—have only fueled the fire. BLM, while radical in its own right, finds Harris's methods and past too problematic to endorse unconditionally.
The way Harris secured her position has raised alarms. After Biden's drop-out, her rapid move to secure delegate support and the subsequent announcement of her nomination within 24 hours reeked of backroom dealings. This process, BLM argues, is anything but democratic. The Democrats, they say, are turning into "a party of hypocrites," echoing a sentiment that resonates across a surprisingly wide spectrum of the political landscape.
Harris's stance on various issues, including her cringe-worthy pandering and her support for BLM rioters, puts her in a precarious position. While she tries to align herself with progressive movements, her inconsistent actions and statements make her a polarizing figure. Her attempts to placate different factions often backfire, as seen in her awkward interactions and forced accents that come off as insincere and patronizing.
BLM’s call for a more transparent and democratic process is a slap in the face to the Democratic establishment. They argue that installing Harris without a proper voting process undermines the very principles the party claims to uphold. This criticism from a group that has traditionally aligned with Democratic values is a significant indicator of internal discontent and the need for a genuine, democratic process.
As we approach the next election cycle, the internal conflicts within the Democratic Party, highlighted by BLM’s accusations, reveal deep fractures. The call for a fair and democratic nomination process is a plea for integrity and transparency in a political landscape increasingly dominated by backroom deals and elitist control.
Comments