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. 

AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS: DEMOCRACY, THE N-WORD, AND THE NEED FOR ALLIES

 

We see a new iteration of the n-word at the forefront of our current political discourse.  For

anyone who leans progressive, as each of us does to varying degrees, the last few weeks haven’t been pleasant. We’ve seen plenty worthy of being unhappy about recently:

·    An unending campaign in some states that would take us backward on electoral fairness
through voter suppression laws and redistricting plans that threaten (perhaps assure) permanent Republican rule despite demographic change that should swing legislative representation toward Democrats.

·  The dwindling stature of the Biden presidency, burdened as it is by falling poll numbers and bickering among Congressional Democrats that imperils his domestic agenda and the party’s prospects in the 2022 midterms.

·    Relative public indifference to Republican obstruction of a full-fledged investigation into
the January 6 attack on the Capitol, amid hints the Biden Justice Department may go easy on some insurrectionists out of a misguided fear of further radicalizing them; and

·    Misogyny, racism, and homophobia at high levels of the nation’s most popular professional sport.

Given this list, we almost find ourselves asking, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theater?”

Historical Parallels

We acknowledge the nation has found itself in such a dark place before. About the tumult of 1968, journalist David Halberstam wrote that he  saw thecountry on the “verge of a national nervous breakdown” because of Vietnam and racial turmoil. Perhaps we’re not there now, but disarray abounds. Many supporters of former President Donald Trump appear willing to abandon democratic norms and institutions so he can wield power again.  

After Barack Obama’s 2008 victor some saw the ugliest of our racial conflict as behind us, a feeling that was clearly premature. Even six years ago, before Trump’s rise, many wouldn’t have believed the acquiescence of mainstream Republicans to this abandonment of democracy. 

We don’t know where this is going. The 1960s

precedents may or may not apply. After the civil rights marches Congress passed laws that improved the legal, social, and economic lives

of people of color. Yet, we have today’s political polarization, much of it rooted in racial division.

We moved in a different direction in foreign policy,

or appeared to for a while. Still, despite our Vietnam experience, we fought a 20-year war in Afghanistan from which we’ve only now extricated ourselves, complete with messy consequences for the current administration. We can’t say this will all come out right.

The Race Thing

We find nothing so disconcerting as the direction in which we seem headed on race. Barack Obama got

elected president. Kamala Harris got elected vice president. Those are positives, but look at what’s happening on the other side of the ledger.

Across the nation angry white parents attack school boards and teachers in seeking assurance their children will never learn, at least in school, the country’s terrible racial history. They’ve

found a convenient whipping boy by distorting an obscure old academic approach to race discrimination called Critical Race Theory and made it a boogey man that has become the basis for whitewashing America’s past. Meanwhile, in some states Republican legislators demand that their black and brown colleagues (and white ones so inclined) never refer to racism in legislative debates, even if a third grader could see the racist intent in voter suppression proposals and gerrymandered redistricting plans.

These Republican legislators and their right wing media comrades squeal long and loud if anyone calls out their behavior. Me, a racist? How dare you! We suggest they read Robin DiAngelo’s bestselling book White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to talk about Racism. She could have subtitled the book Why So Many White People Refuse to Talk About Racism.

                                

We’ve wondered what difference really exists

between these modern deniers of racism and their Jim Crow predecessors. It’s true, they don’t regularly use the n-word in public. At least we knew where old time segregationists stood, men like Jim Eastland and Ross Barnett, many of whom used the n-word in public. Former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden didn’t in his now famous

e-mails, but the message was the same. Wouldn’t we live in a more honest, transparent society if descendants of the segregationists—the Grudens, the Greg Abbots, the Brian Kemps – discarded the fake civility and talked like they feel and act?

Not Devoid of Hope

Woodson tells of a white friend who told him the story of a young man of color – a fifth or sixth grader – with whom at school he developed a close friendship as a youngster. One day, no one could find the young black man.  His friend discovered him crying in a restroom because someone called him by the n-word. He’d been taught that if he lived righteously and played by the rules people would accept him.

The incident demonstrated that wasn’t always the case, seemingly yet another reason for despair. The

white student, now an adult, said 

that was when he first realized his black friend’s life experiences differed radically from his own. Now, as an adult, this white man attends a multi-ethnic church and has committed himself to racial justice. 

The story illustrates that bad people inhabit the world and we must face them individually and

collectively. It also shows we can find hope when we find allies. Fellow travelers abound. Kindred spirits of all colors inhabit the world. They don’t hide behind false civility and will engage in good faith discussion and debate. Henry reminds us that in the past we’ve always had enough people who believed in this vision that we could keep it alive. Do we have enough now? We shall see. 

JWW ON CRITICAL RACE THEORY PART II: TAKING ON THE MYTHS

Our last post laid out the definition of critical race theory (CRT) as developed by the legal scholars who’ve led and participated in the CRT movement since its inception in the mid-1980s.  We explained the differences among us about interpreting the definitions offered bythose scholars and we set out CRT’s six most fundamental principles for considering racial issues in legal contexts. Now we take on perhaps a bigger task – sorting through the misinformation about CRT perpetrated not only by right wing zealotseager for an attack on any effort at understanding the true history of race in America and its impact on our laws and norms, but also by ordinary people who’ve bought into the disinformation campaign now swirling around CRT.

CRT has become shorthand for every program, every effort aimed at uncovering America’s true racial history. Those

squawking loudest about CRT don’t want to uncover that history in hopes of maintaining the status quo. We think it important that Americans know CRT isn’t the enemy and that laws aimed at keeping the truth about our history hidden do liberty, justice, and equality no favors.  

The Myths

As we explained last time, right wingcommentators like Tucker Carlson and Mark Levine have blasted out dire warnings about what CRT could do to our society. Those warnings rest on falsehoods and myths the right has pushed about CRT:
·    Schools are using CRT to teach childrento hate America – as we pointed out, hardly any elementary or secondary schools incorporate CRT into their curriculum. More importantly, CRT does not advocate hating America. Only law schools (and maybe a few graduate schools) would dare trying to teach the complicated concepts that go with real CRT. We’ve watched the eyes of college graduates glaze over when we’ve delved into detailed CRT analysis. This may represent the most dangerous and outrageous falsehood ginned up in the current craziness.  

·    CRT “disregards” the idea all people are created equal -- buying into this mythdemonstrates the distinction between CRT’s real focus and what the right claims it does. Our study of original works describing or applying CRT makes clear this notion hasno basis in fact. We suggest anyone adhering to this idea read Derrick Bell’s Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. The book endorses no such idea. Bell helped popularize the concept of CRT in the American lexicon during his distinguished academic career. 

·    CRT is inherently divisive – parents objecting to CRT have advanced this noble sounding idea in opposition to teaching CRT in schools.As we’ve pointed out, nobody is teaching CRT in schools, except perhaps colleges, law schools, and professional schools.  We suspect this kind of criticism actually aims at preventing a more honest picture of America’s racial history. Those who object to such honesty should at least get their facts straight. If they don’t want more honesty about America’s racial history, they should say so, not blame a theory they understand marginally or not at all.

CRT has come to encompass all efforts at greater honesty about America’s history withrace. Conservatives have tried equating CRT with the 1619 Project, an award-winning journalism program developed by the New York Times that promotes a more realistic look at how slavery,in particular, actually unfolded and affected race relations in America. The right hopes Americans can’t tell the difference between CRT and other anti-racism efforts.

What the Fight Really Means

We see it as unfortunate that CRThas become a  bogeyman/whipping boy in the culture wars. CRT has a meaningful place in legal scholarship. It represents the work of some of America’s best legal minds on a topic that has troubled this nation since its inception. If our grandchildren attend law school, we know they’ll still learn about the law and the impact of racial considerations on the law. They may find CRT useful in grasping that subject.

By grabbing on to CRT, an obscure, decades-old legal theory that only the most elite academics fully understand and making it the whipping boy for simmering racial grievance, the right has found a way to take attention from its failings of leadership and its lack of ideas for governing.   Republicans apparently have given up on being a party of ideas. They offer nothing at the federal level

and only voter suppression at the state level. Republicans now care about little more than acquiring and keeping power. If they have ideas about moving America forward on tough issues that affect people’s lives – health care, finishing the job on the, pandemic, infrastructure, climate change – they aren’t telling us about them. Instead, they’ve ginned up this CRT dust storm.  Such side shows demonstrate their immaturity and unfitness to lead.

 

·  CRT involves making white students hate themselves and their ancestors – CRT tools and principles offer methods of analysis of how law operates in our society and how racism often influences law. That’s a far cry from indoctrinating someone to hate themselves.

 

What they won’t find helpful is the debate that erupted over CRT in 2021. That debate concerns politics, not legal analysis. Republicans, looking at a shrinking portion of the electorate (remember, they’ve lost the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988 except one) apparently feel they must do two things : (1) keep their base agitated and (2) troll for more angry white voters potentially attracted to their grievance politics. Misrepresentations about the meaning and purpose of CRT offer the best possibilities.

People say America needs two vibrant political parties. At some level, that’s true. It doesn’t need this Republican Party.