Actually, it isn’t. There are often policy prescriptions that put these two coalitions at odds with one another. For example,
Obama’s “promise zones” initiative gave businesses massive incentives to create new areas for expansion in poorer and majority-minority areas.
It is true that we might have a candidate that can one day marry those and consider both to be a priority. But, as has been litigated in this thread (and I think even Sanders fans have conceded that he is primarily concerned with economic injustice with his supporters left to argue he is right to not really be too concerned with social justice policy, because “economic justice
is social justice”), Sanders isn’t that candidate. Admittedly, neither is Biden. We had candidates that could do this, but they all flamed out for one reason or another. It is the choice we are now faced with as a result.
I can see that. Actual empirical studies showed Obama talked about solutions for black folks and their social plight less than white Democrats did. However, he also did experience disproportionately worse blowback when he did discuss these issues (see Trayvon Martin) than white presidents did. He also kept a lot of his work, such as the “My Brother’s Keeper” Initiative pretty quiet and had local leaders really take the reins. Still, I think it might’ve been over simplistic to say he didn’t do anything and even more so to say he didn’t try his hardest, but it doesn’t help he was more private about these programs, especially relative to other programs and initiatives he had.
FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps, sent Jewish folks back to Europe where many of them ended up in concentration camps, and made up regiments of black soldiers who were disproportionately put on the front lines. FDR’s international and wartime policy was far worse than Obama’s too.