THE 2021 VIRGINIA ELECTIONS PART II: A DIFFERENT QUESTION FOR DEMOCRATS

In our last post, we explored possible reasons for the Democratic Party’s difficulties in the recent Virginia elections. Former Governor Terry McAuliffe lost to political newcomer Glenn Youngkin in his bid for another gubernatorial term and Republicans scored major gains in the Virginia legislature. Media predictions abounded that Virginia foreshadowed big Democratic losses in the 2022 midterms and potentially in the 2024 presidential election.

We suggested a number of possible reasons

for the Virginia outcome, but asked if Democrats should think about the issue differently. Perhaps a broader focus on what polices they should pursue now, instead of wringing their hands about the Virginia results, would better serve Democratic prospects for 2022 and 2024.

 

It’s the Income Inequality, Stupid

We assert that a credible, though not infallible, argument exists that if Democrats focus on waging war on behalf of the middle and working classes they can prevail in the upcoming elections.  By taking executive

actions and passing legislation that address the nation’s  income inequality problem, they can win. If they follow this course they could keep or expand their narrow majorities on Capitol Hill and retain control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2024.

Democrats must make plain that since 1980 –the beginning of the Reagan Revolution – thetop one percent of the population has increased its share of the nation’s wealth from ten percent to 20%, a trend that continues unabated every year.  The pandemic only made it worse. The tax burden on the rich has been lowered, with no concomitant increase in jobs or other economic benefits for the middle and working classes.

This development has been well documented in books like The Triumph of Injustice: How theRich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman and Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty. These works demonstrate the degree towhich the rich have gotten richer while the rest of the population stagnates economically. They also show the impact of a regressive income tax system and of income inequality on our politics and people’s lives. 

President Biden’s human infrastructure bill –the one that hasn’t been enacted yet and that keeps getting trimmed and adjusted at theinsistence of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema – represents a start, but only a start. Democrats should pass legislation that increases taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. What increases, if any, will end up in the human infrastructure bill remains uncertain. Under the analysis we suggest, only meaningful tax reform that makes the rich pay their fair share will convince the working and middle classes that the Democratic Party really has their best interest at heart and insure Democratic victories in the upcoming elections.

 

Good Politics

The Virginia outcome demonstrated that a lot

of noise infects our politics. Misinformation about Critical Race Theory could muck up any election, despite the fact too many of the people yelling loudest about CRT know little or nothing about

it.  The truth is it probably can’t be explained in an intellectually honest way in this toxic environment, so Democrats should emphasize bread and butter issues. Americans know income inequality gets worse

each year. They know a progressive tax system built this country into what it became before 1980. Making income inequality the center piece of the Democratic Party’s governing effort may well present that rare situation in which good policy makes good politics.

We’ve pointed on several occasions to Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum’s book That Used to be Us as providing the best

explanation of what happens when the rich pay their fair share. The country blossoms and the proverbial rising tide lifts all boats. Getting back to that arguably represents the Democratic Party’s best route to sustained electoral success.

 

No Guarantees

Despite the appeal of this approach anddespite how it fits with the moral compass of many Democratic leaders and Democratic leaning voters, no assurance exists it will prevail in the upcoming elections. At least two things stand in the way. First, no one should underestimate the Republican party’s capacity for distortion and disinformation about whatever Democrats do or propose.
Despite the appeal of this approach and despite how it fits with the moral compass of many Democratic leaders and Democratic leaning voters, no assurance exists it will prevail in the upcoming elections. At least two things stand in the way. First, no one should underestimate the Republican party’s capacity for distortion and disinformation about whatever Democrats do or propose.  Republicans will turn every executive action, legislative proposal, and electoral appeal that takes this approach into “socialist class warfare” and exclusionary “identity politics.”Some Americans, even some who would benefit economically from the polices promoted here, will buy into these straw men. Democrats must, therefore, develop their own marketing strategy for selling their ideas. 

Second, as the battle between “moderate” and “progressive” Democrats in the House over the infrastructure bills demonstrates, real differences exist between Democrats over how hard the party should lean into policies

like those suggested here. Making income inequality the centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s appeal doesn’t have universal support within the party.  Some “moderate” Democrats fear objections to tax increases from middle class voters. Many tax proposals supposedly aimed at the rich end up affecting tax brackets to which middle class voters aspire or may fall into because of inflation.  A vote for a tax increase can create a

negative dynamic in any political race. When combined with divisive social issues like race, guns, and abortion, a vote for a tax increase may become another tool in the arsenal of a Republican claiming a Democrat is “too liberal.”

The arguments in favor of an attack on income inequality resonate strongly with us, both morally and practically. America must do something about this.  We’re aware, however, that powerful forces stand arrayed against a full assault on the problem. Not all those forces fall into the category of evil. Like most things in life, the country probably must find a compromise that addresses the problem, though perhaps less aggressively than it might in an ideal world. 

THE VIRGINIA ELECTIONS PART I: DEMISE OF THE DEMOCRATS? NOT SO FAST!

                                                             

A Republican victory in Virginia’s off-year elections (and a closer than expected win by incumbent Democrat Phil Murphy in New Jersey’s governor’s race) prompted a spate of media stories about the Democratic Party’s supposedly dismal

electoral prospects. Coupled with President Biden’s falling poll numbers, the loss by former Governor Terry McAuliffe to Glenn Youngkin and GOP gains in the Virginia legislature generated rampant speculation about Democratic prospects in the 2022 midterms and through 2024.  Some

pundits suggested it’s a foregone conclusion we’ll have a Republican Congress in 2023 and a Republican in the White House in January 2025.   We don’t subscribe to the hype, but we recognize the Virginia outcome merits discussion of where Democrats stand and what they must do so they can keep a sufficient numerical advantage.

The question takes on so much importance because

of our fractured political landscape. Republicans seem bent on destroying Democracy. Only the Democratic Party obstructs the way. It’s essential, therefore, to evaluate where Democrats stand with the electorate

and understand how the country maintains this precarious equilibrium and doesn’t buy into the Republican zero-sum game.

 

The Narrative

Virginia has trended increasingly Democratic in

recent years. Biden won the state 54-44 in 2020. George W. Bush, with a 53-45 victory over John Kerry in 2004, was the last Republican presidential candidate who won the state.  Both Virginia’s Democratic senators, 2016 vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and Mark

Warner, easily won reelection the last time they ran (Kaine, 57-41 in 2018 and Warner, 56-44 in 2020). In 2017, in addition to the 53-45 gubernatorial victory of Ralph Northam, Democrats won majorities in both houses

of the Virginia legislature. A year later, they flipped control of the state’s congressional delegation. Because of these outcomes, the view of Virginia as a swing state eroded. Before the 2021 elections, many observers saw it as safe Democratic territory.

                                              

That prognosis, however, masked another truth

about Virginia. In its quirky odd-year races that follow election of a new president, the candidate of the party that lost the presidency usually wins the Virginia governor’s chair the next year. That happened when Northam won in 2017 following Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory. After Barack Obama won the White House in 2008, the next year Republican Bob McDonald took the Virginia governor’s race. In 2001, after George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential triumph, Warner captured the Virginia governorship. Republican George Allen won in Virginia in 1993 after Bill Clinton took the White House in 1992. Democrat Doug Wilder, the state’s first black governor, won in 1989 after George H.W. Bush captured the 1988 presidential election.

Virginia’s voters apparently like this arrangement, since they’ve engineered it so often. Perhaps analysts need not look beyond the history books for an understanding of the 2021 outcome.    

 

The Other Explanations             

Despite the history, however, political observers offered other explanations for Youngkin’s win and McAuliffe’s defeat:

·    The fact House Democrats didn’t pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill before the election. They approved it a few days later, but Warner asserted McAuliffe might have won if he could have campaigned on the roads, bridges, and other improvements the state would receive under the bill.

·    The Critical Race Theory boogey man. Despite no evidence any Virginia school district teaches Critical Race Theory or anything like it, Youngkin capitalized on the concerns of white parents about what’s being taught about race in public schools. McAuliffe made things worse with a tone-deaf comment that he didn’t “believe parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

·    Biden’s performance as president. This explanation begins with the messy Afghanistan exit. McAuliffe tied himself closely to Biden. Some conservative commentators argued that as Biden’s poll numbers fell in the wake of the bad Afghanistan optics, McAuliffe suffered some of the fallout.

·    Economic anxiety. Even if the economy is doing reasonably well in bouncing back from the pandemic, fears about inflation have ramped up. Some thought that hurt McAuliffe as well.  

 

Virginia and Malcom Gladwell

We’ve taken note before of the work of social commentator Malcom Gladwell who observed in

his 2008 book Outliers: The Story of Success, that one thing seldom causes an airplane crash. Instead, most air disasters result from a cascading series of events piled on top of each other. We think that also applies to political outcomes. Races one candidate should win but doesn’t – as happened with McAuliffe – usually have many explanations, not one.

Our list of what may have created the Virginia result probably isn’t all inclusive. Other things could have played a role.  But the cause is important in light of the question we began with: What does the Virginia outcome say about where the Democratic Party stands with the electorate as the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential cycle approach?

We adhere to Gladwell’s basic principle – one thing seldom causes a disaster. We point to the things we’ve listed and raise the possibility that winning

in 2022 and 2024 requires that Democrats look at the question in an entirely different way. While not ignoring the list of  possible reasons for the 2021 Virginia loss, perhaps Democrats should focus on the broader question of what policies they must offer that will insure their

standing with the electorate in the upcoming elections. Just on the politics, the Virginia outcome suggests Democrats are not now in a good place with voters. In our next post, we’ll offer suggestions about how they might rectify that situation. 

                                      

A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE N-WORD: DISTURBING HISTORY/TROUBLING PRESENT

In our last post we expressed the idea that perhaps today’s racists should abandon their fake civility and speak like they think and act. We noted thatcurrent day racists don’t regularly use the n-word in public, unlike their more obviously racist predecessors, who often did. The thought occurred to us that we should take a deeper dive into the history of this racial slur. Maybe we could explain there isn’t any difference between the fake civility of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson and 1960s era segregationists like Mississippi Senator Jim Eastland, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, and Alabama Governor George Wallace. The words differ, but the policies are the same – voter suppression, gerrymandering, and fearmongering that prevent the accumulation of black (and brown) political power and quash challenges to white supremacy.

 

‘The Atom Bomb of Racial Slurs’

In the O.J. Simpson trial, prosecutor Christopher Darden called the n-word “the filthiest, nastiest word in the English Language.” One British Member of Parliament (MP) termed it “the most offensive word in English.”  Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy dubbed it the “atomic bomb of racial slurs” because “if you want to put somebody down, analogize them to the [n-word].”  These characterizations of the n-word haven’t stopped its use in contemporary society, on either side of the Atlantic.

Just in 2017, Diane Abbott, a Labor Party MP of African descent, described being repeatedly referred to by the n-word on social media and in e-mails from members of the public.  In the United States in 2016 a Charlotte, North Carolina television journalist was reporting on a hurricane when a man walked by and dropped the n-word on him. Donald Trump’s election as president spurred numerous accounts of racial slurs, including the n-word, being hurled at public school students.

 

History

Where did the n-word come from and how did it become the slur it’s now recognized as?  Scholars seemingly agree that the word originated around 1619 with the arrival of the first African slaves in what’s now the United States. The slaves were referred to by the Spanish and Portuguese term for “black.” The word—N-I-G-G-U-H-S—for a time was seen as merely descriptive, but before long it became derogatory. By the 1820s and 1830s, white people had begun using it as a way of admonishing children not to engage in certain behavior. It became a widely recognized epithet aimed at making black people feel inferior and unworthy. As one British professor observed, “It’s really tied into the idea that African people aren’t really human beings.”

 

Substitutes

It’s clear that much of the public now won’t stand

for use  of the n-word. The BBC, for example, received over 18,600 complaints about a July 2020 story that included the word in an account of a racially aggravated attack. Scrubbing the word from accepted public discourse, however, hasn’t prevented racists from getting their racial message across. Consider:

•       In 2014 then-National Football League star Richard Sherman noted that he’d been called a “thug” and “ghetto” for a rant he went on about events in an NFL game.  Sherman said such terms had become “the accepted way of calling somebody the n-word.”

•       Beginning in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan, code words like “welfare queen” in essence became a surrogate for the n-word as conservative political figures put a black face on abuse of public assistance programs.

•       “States’ rights” was a favorite term of southern politicians in the ‘60s in opposing civil rights measures. Reagan gave that term new life by opening his 1980 general election campaign in Mississippi in the same county where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. The n-word wasn’t used in his speech, but it was an undercurrent of his message.

•       Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, saved his 1988 presidential campaign with the infamous Willie Horton ad that put a black face on crime. The ad didn’t use the n-word, but it wasn’t needed. His base got the message.     

Former NBA star Charles Barkley was once quoted as saying many people “don’t have enough courage to say the n-word, so they say things like ‘thug’ or ‘street cred.’” Even if Barkley is controversial as a social commentator, he’s not wrong about this.  Many people won’t say the n-word in public, but their policy preferences get the message across.

We’d prefer a world in which people didn’t use the n-word. What we really prefer is a world in which

people  didn’t think the thoughts that lead to the n-word.  In advocating an end to false civility and for honesty about the n-word, we’re really suggesting that what we’d like to know is where people stand. If they won’t stand with us in opposition to racial oppression, we prefer seeing who they are and understanding how they think.  As we said before, talk like you think and act. It was clear to everyone what racists believed and meant when they used the n-word.  That had the benefit of letting the rest of us identify them.