Coard: Should Blacks challenge Black candidates more than white ones?

Michael Coard
Feb 15, 2019 Updated Feb 17, 2019

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., left, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., confer before questioning Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. — AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

You’ve seen the numerous news clips of presidential candidates Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Cory Booker. In reaction, many of you rolled your eyes and then rolled up your sleeves and began writing furiously on social media about their failure to act and talk Black until they recently declared their candidacy.


But very few — or nearly none — of you wrote or even said anything about Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobucher, Elizabeth Warren, or any other non-Black big name declared candidate. Why is that? And is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure, so I’ll list the good and the bad and you decide which is more persuasive.

Here’s why such Black-on-Black political challenging is good:

It’s good because it weeds out the traitors. And a “friend” can do more harm than a foe. In other words, a traitor defeats you from the inside at the planning stage before you even face the enemy outside on the battlefield. Accordingly, Black voters need to make sure Black elected officials don’t strengthen so-called white supremacy by putting a Black face on it.


It’s much easier for Black officials to hurt us than it is for white officials. What I mean is if Black officials oppose affirmative action, minimum wage increase, prosecution of brutal cops, easier voting access, or civil rights, it appears non-racist. But if white officials oppose any of that, it’s obvious that it’s racist.  Read more here:

No comments: