We need to answer, “Vote for what?” before we ask, “Vote for whom?” in the 2020 election.
Over the last several decades, Republicans have consistently run for election on America for some of us in explicit opposition to an America that works for all of us.Racial antipathy has been central. That strategy has resulted in electoral gains in local, state, and federal elections. With Republican ascendancy inequality and racial division have increased. The white nationalism that had been hiding under the rock of public opprobrium has fearlessly emerged into full view.
In contrast, many Democrats, bathing in the pool of corporate campaign contributions, wavered and struggled to find a resonant response or consistent winning strategy. Periodic outrage at conservative and racist excesses have been offset by embrace of deregulation and other manifestations of free-market thinking. Alongside that Democratic shift, inequality and racial division increased.
Bipartisan abandonment of working people and the disruptive effects of globalization contributed to a crescendo of alienation in peoples’ connection with one another and confidence in their ability to make a difference. The winning Democrat candidate at all levels needs to challenge the prevalent us/them framing rather than avoiding it. The winning Democrat needs to reenergize not just voting but independent citizen action.
In that context, beating Trump is paramount but “Who can beat Donald Trump?” is the wrong first question. It leads to dubious assumptions about what does or does not appeal to wavering potential voters, baseless predictions, questionable polling results, and political pandering.
So, let’s start by asking, “What would that wished for America look like?” The candidate who has best answers–ones that will inspire, resonate with, and unify most of us–is the best person to beat Trump and his allies.
Put aside the obfuscating labels, such as progressive, moderate, centrist, neoliberal, and identity politics for a moment. Instead begin with what we know:
- Most Americans–no matter their race–yearn for a decent, secure life, with a job that pays at least a living wage;
- Too many of us have yet to achieve that and many that have are anxious that they will lose it; Too many feel powerless to control the sense of precariousness that pervades their lives.
- As long as Trump and his allies are in power, we will never achieve what we want and deserve;
- To defeat the politicians and their benefactors who stand in the way we need more young and non-white people to register and show up to vote in 2020 in addition to everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, especially in close Electoral College states that Trump won.
Across the political spectrum insecurity, racism and inequity are the dominant issues in the current political campaigns. Modern Republicans use overt racism (and its xenophobia cousin) to inflame insecurity in order to hide their primary goal, maintaining varying degrees of inequity among different members of the majority in order to secure the privileges of the few. Their storyline is, “Helping others is for chumps. Be out for yourself.”
An alternative–and I must believe, winning– narrative is summed up by the old labor slogan, “An injury to one is an injury to all.” That perspective identifies racism and inequity as the mutually reinforcing sources of insecurity for the majority that protects the privileges of the few.
Unfortunately, too many Democrats have been loath to surface the clear link between the racism that directly hurts some of us and the inequity that affects most of us. Somehow, they imagine that if we don’t talk about it, it will not reveal itself. The reason for this avoidance, I think, is that fundamentally they believe that the prejudices that have long plagued us cannot be overcome, morally by love or politically by common struggle. Nonetheless, Democrats are still the only currently viable potential challenge to the empowered protectors of extreme inequity. The increasing frequency and volume of their challenges to the ugliness and danger of Trump’s constant overt racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, corruption, and lies are essential, but alone they will not secure electoral victories.
Of course, personal appeal is essential. People who win elections must pass the he or she “gets me and is on my side,” test. But that too is not enough. They need substance to sustain identification and limit the effect of cheap shots.
Most important, successful candidates will directly expose and provide an explicit alternative to the underlying false assumptions of the last several decades: Inequity and scarcity are unalterable facts of life. As a result, fighting for your share–at others’ expensive if need be– is the only reasonable survival strategy.
We can get to the alternative by asking Americans, “How do you want to live together?” How candidates frame their education and health care policies provides illuminating examples of either conflict-averse obtuseness that inspires no one or alternatively, energizing clear unifying language.
Ask any of the Democratic presidential hopefuls, “Do you think children’s zip code should determine the quality of their education?” The reflexive answer will undoubtedly be a resounding, "No.” That is a good thing, but it is insufficient. We need straight talk about the two factors with the most significant influence on inequity. First, local property taxes, which vary widely by community residential and commercial wealth, provide the lion’s share of education funding. That results in vast differences in resources and quality. Second, racial and socioeconomic segregation has persisted and increased over the last several decades.
The result, to borrow a lyric from Billie Holiday, is:
Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose…
Ask the same candidates, “Do you think everyone has a right to high-quality health care? Their 2020 answer is, “Of course.” That’s great. Progress. However, we need to clearly confront whether or not it is possible to achieve that within a system that still maintains the influence and profits of insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
In attempting to avoid what they think are divisive issues, too many politicians end up abetting it. A few examples:
• Politicians say, “If you work hard and play by the rules everyone should have an opportunity to climb the ladder”. That is supposed to sounds like an equity pitch. But what people hear is, “Some folks (not me) want a free hand out because they don’t want to work hard and are lazy.” Inevitably, that contempt is associated with non-whites. That is divisive. Such framing reinforces the inevitability of a hierarchy of access and undermines unity
• Polls find that the most Americans support universal health care. One of the big show of hands” questions of the first Democratic debate was, “Many people watching at home have health insurance coverage through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?” That was a loaded question, ripe for misunderstanding. About 55% of Americans get their health care offered through their employers. While they may find its limitations and cost troublesome, they do not yet know what the government-sponsored alternatives would offer. In addition, decades of purposeful defunding of all variety of government programs and accompanying anti-government propaganda has undermined confidence. The, “What you’ll lose,” framing trumps the yet to be known, “What you’ll get.”
So, when asked about giving up their private insurance (or even current Affordable Care Act benefits) they say, no. Rather than confront the inefficiency, profit-taking, and campaign contributions of the insurance industry, the Affordable Care Act baked private profit and differential coverage it into the new health care law.
• Faced with escalating charter school corruption scandals many Democratic politicians eschew for-profit charter schools. However, by supporting the concept of privately-governed non-profit charter schools they give tacit support to the notion that giving a few families an individual “choice” to opt out of public schools that have been purposefully underfunded is democratic and a solution to the systemic crisis of inequitable education. That is divisive.
Too often, inequity is framed as a problem for select "disadvantaged" groups rather than a problem of social and economic structures that affect everyone even when some people suffer more than others. As a result, too many people see gains for "them" coming at the expense of "me." The winning Democrat candidate at all levels needs to challenge the prevalent us/them framing rather than avoiding it.
Many Democrats are willing to damn the disparate impact of inequality on non-whites or rail against the 1%. However, it is exceedingly rare that a candidate for any public office says explicitly, "It is because our nation abides poverty that the rest of us are also struggle to make ends meet. And it is because of racism and the prejudices that support it that we fight with one another for left-overs instead of a bigger meal for all. The low bar for some of us undermines a decent life for all of us.”
The avoidances do not arise from ignorance. The vast disparities in local education funding within and across states are well known, as is their racial foundation. For example, nowhere in the United States can children in poor wealth districts find the same physical and human resources that higher wealth communities enjoy. That is not even on the table. Some states supplement local funding, but only up to a point For example, while New Jersey has made significant efforts to augment local education funding, a decade of flat budgets leaves the poorest students in underfunded schools.Utah, Delaware and Minnesota provide their highest poverty districts with, on average, over 30% more funding per student than their lowest poverty districts. Nevada, Illinois and North Dakota – students in high poverty districts get less than 75 cents for every dollar received by their low poverty counterparts.
Sixty-five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that separate black and while schools are inherently unequal. The clear logic was that in a country that devalues non-white children and systematically limits their parents’ political power and life chances, Black students could not get an equitable education. They reasoned that the presence of white children would bring with them necessary resources and attention. Court ordered integration, often through busing, followed and with it, improvements in academic achievement for African-American students with no fall off for white students. It also brought violent resistance and eventual abandonment of integration as a goal.
Kamala Harris’s sharp questioning of Joe Biden during the recent Democratic debate about his opposition to federally mandated busing brought to the surface an issue most politicians prefer to dodge. The candidates must have breathed a sigh of relief that the moderators passed on as asking, “Show of hands, who supports busing to achieve education equity?”
Many white parents oppose busing because of internalized prejudices. They do not want their white children sitting next to brown children. However, systemic inequity is the enabler that creates resistance to integration anew in each generation. That is because the nation steadfastly refuses to fund schools equitably. Parents observe under-resourced schools and underachievement in majority minority schools. As a result, busing children to achieve integration is seen as helping someone else, at best with no benefit to all and at worst as helping some at the expense of others. Few politicians make the essential case for why integration paired with equity would be a benefit to all.
Similarly, even with existing broad public programs, such as Medicare, wealth-based access to supplemental insurance buys more extensive coverage. Most politicians know these things but avoid challenge. Rarely does full universal coverage that does not preserve the privileges of the few get a full hearing. Rather, it is dismissed at unrealistic.
The Affordable Care Act was a remarkable achievement. However, it came to be seen as an increased tax on the insured majority for the uninsured minority. That is because its original framing accepted the supremacy of private insurance, rather than asserting the unifying, first principle: Ensuring high-level care–with no deductibles, cost-shares, and minimal bureaucratic red tape–for everyone paid for with fair, progressive income, capital gains, and corporate taxes.
The decades of Democrats asking, "What do we need to say to win?" has resulted in overwhelming Republican victories and disunity among Democrats’ natural constituencies. Maybe, the problem is the expectation that just electing the right people will make things better in the absence of a forceful diverse social movement. Maybe, faith in and attention to the former diverts energy away from the latter. Over time, too many people concluded, that most politicians represent someone else and that voters’ voice did not matter. That can change when people mobilize. Let’s demand that politicians lead by listening and projecting an America for all of us. Let’s demand that candidates skip the hollow platitudes or timid half-measures. The, “Who?” should be decided by which candidates counters the divisions that divides us, with an inspiring vision and substantive policies that ensure a decent life for all.
Arthur H. Camins is a lifelong educator. He works part-time with curriculum developers at UC Berkeley as an assessment specialist. He retired recently as Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at Stevens Institute of Technology. He has taught and been an administrator in New York City, Massachusetts, and Louisville, Kentucky. The ideas expressed in this article are his alone.
Follow Arthur at: https://twitter.com/arthurcamins