Portland’s Fluoride Fight Previewed Bernie vs Hillary Divide
Four years ago voters in Portland, OR overwhelmingly voted against adding fluoride to their pristine Bull Run water supply. The fight was a strange one, but layed out the current divide we’ve seen between neoliberal Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton and the progressive socialists who support Bernie Sanders.
National mainstream media outlets blasted Portland as some sort of backwards conspiracy theory town. Their main argument seemed to be that since they’d grown up drinking fluoride, it certainly must be harmless.
Proponents of fluoridation cited a nonexistant dental crisis that upon FOIA request proved to be entirely falsified. Backers were using statewide data and calling it Portland metro data. In reality, unfluoridated Portland had a lower rate of dental decay than most cities that do fluoridate.
This crushing defeat must have felt like a slap in the face to wealthy white liberals who considered themselves the vanguard of healthcare issues for communities of color. When the final votes were counted, Portland’s black and Latino communities voted against fluoridation by 70–90%.
Many local organizations opposed fluoridation, including the NAACP’s Portland chapter. They cited compulsory medication and the precautionary principle as their reasons.
The local Sierra Club chapter also opposed, saying, “[We] oppose fluoridation because it would degrade some of the purest drinking water in the world. Kids are already bombarded with multiple toxins from plastics, pesticides and air pollution.”
Columbia Riverkeeper also opposed, “What we add to our drinking water, we add to our rivers and our salmon. Fluoride is a toxic pollutant that harms salmon and other aquatic life. At a time when many families continue to rely on the Columbia’s fisheries as an important source of nutrition and employment, we are concerned about a new source of toxic pollution into the Columbia River.”
In total, eleven environmental groups supported keeping Portland’s water untainted. The organizations who supported fluoridating were mostly lobbying groups with ties to state agencies or other political organizations.
The logic fluoride proponents employed seemed to be more about self-identifying as the noble whites who care about poor people, yet didn’t want those very people to have a seat at the table in making decisions for themselves.
This dynamic mirrors the Bernie/Hillary paradigm, where liberals were convinced that they were representing the best interests of voters of color, only to find later that Bernie Sanders is far and away the most popular representative in the nation, especially among black voters.
Or look at the classic debate moment when Hillary gave an incoherent, rambling answer about fracking that left viewers totally unclear as to whether she supported the reckless mining practice or not. Bernie’s answer was a simple, logical, “No.”
For progressives and environmentalists, there’s no hair-splitting to be had here. If it blatantly pollutes the planet, you don’t do it. Period. Liberals in Portland who wanted fluoridation admitted there was significant risk, but this risk was marginal and worth taking anyway. To progressives, this rationale was horrifying.
In the end, Portland voters rejected fluoridation by a 21 point margin. The pro side had hired the city’s highest paid consultant, as well as a campaign manager who’d just gotten a new regressive mayor elected. It wasn’t enough, not even close.
Now we see the same big money arrogance failing against populism. The people want authenticity, the people want progress. Bernie Sanders is leading a movement that can’t be bought. Call it a purity test if you want, but it’s truly a morality test. Voters are done with corrupted Wall Street/Walmart politicians. It’s about damn time.
•••
For a deeper look into Portland’s fluoride fight, check out the articles I wrote at the time linked below.
