What Do The Democratic Candidates Have To Offer Black Voters? We’ve Got Over a Year To Find Out.
by Jacqueline Luqman
In my recent appearance on The Real News Network, I began what I hope will be lots of very in-depth conversations about the lead up to the Democratic primaries, and what the policies of these potential Democratic candidates mean for BLACK PEOPLE in particular.
I began this conversation — that I hope we’re going to expand throughout the year right up until the Democratic National Convention in July 2020 (and maybe beyond) — saying that AS OF NOW, Bernie Sanders is the front-runner in a field of more than 20 possible Democratic candidates for who Black people have the best shot at having some of our economic and social issues addressed with.
I did not say he’s The One, because Luqman Nation’s goal is not to tell Black voters who is or is not The One in regard to electoral politics — especially on a national level, and especially as a representative of one of the two major (corrupt) political parties. What we want to do is examine the policies of all of these potential and eventual Democratic contenders, so Black voters, who still vote mostly Democratic, can decide for themselves who deserves their vote or not, and why. Of course, there is a separate conversation to be had regarding whether Black people SHOULD keep voting for either of the two political party candidates, and we do have these discussion on our own platforms, but we’re focusing on the Democratic Primaries in these talks elsewhere, because we cannot deny that Black people are still very married to the two-party system (as are most Americans), and we have to do something with those folks until we can educate people to think politically otherwise, or until this systems falls crashing and burning to the ground (don’t have a preference for which happens first).
So I said that in my VERY EARLY ESTIMATION, Sanders — who hasn’t even declared he’s running yet — has a pretty strong start. It looks like he’s expanded his racial justice platform from 2016 (I don’t remember it being this expansive, but two years ago seems like forever) to include some very promising solutions. His inequality town hall from last year featured ideas from economist Darrick Hamilton, who Luqman Nation became more familiar with through this groundbreaking study addressing the myths about, and some real solutions to, addressing the racial wealth gap that he co-authored with Professor William Darity, Jr., Antonio Moore, Mark Paul, Anne Price, Alan Aja, and Caterina Chiopris.
This is all very positive and interesting, but honestly, we’re just beginning to examine the policy impacts of these potential candidates on Black people’s lives, and we’ve got a long road ahead of us before the Democratic National Convention in July 2020. So as excited as some people might have been that I said Sanders is at this moment the front-runner for specific reasons in a crowded field of potential Democratic candidates for a nomination that is over a year away, I would respectfully ask people to calm down. And that is for all of the people who were angry that I didn’t mention Tulsi Gabbard in that discussion, too. Y’all, CALM DOWN. We’re not even fully out of the starting gate with this primary race yet!
On the other hand, some people were less than excited that I expressed positive opinions about Sanders in regard to Black people, because I did not identify specific policies he has for addressing reparations for African Americans. Again, I would caution people to remember that it is JANUARY 2019. Nobody is voting for anybody next month, so we have plenty of time to continue to expand on a conversation that we need to have about reparations in the realm of electoral politics on a national level. But since I started with Bernie Sanders, and since people brought up reparations…
It is true that Sanders is absolutely weak on that specific issue, as were Obama and Clinton, and as most politicians are. Even as Sanders’ racial justice policies that include economic and legal remedies seems to have matured, his terse dismissal of the discussion of reparations was a very thorny issue in his 2016 campaign. As we go forward in these discussions, we’ll find that there are few candidates in the Democratic Party who support reparations, and even fewer (probably none) in the Republican Party. So what Black voters are faced with is asking these candidates — Bernie Sanders and all the rest who want our vote — what they plan to do about an issue we will not let go of. Because, reparations is a particular and unique point of justice for African Americans, and it is not one that we should abandon. But I do not think we can just ask what the candidates plan to do about it; I think we have to be prepared to challenge them on this issue in a way that is strategic and proactive, rather than merely reactionary.
I think if candidates say that they cannot or do not fully support reparations now, then we should ask if they understand reparations. They do, by the way. What I think we need to understand is that politicians’ opposition to reparations is rarely based on their views about the feasibility of reparations or whether they are justified. Rather, politicians’ opposition to reparations is almost always POLITICAL, because the concept of reparations for Black people has always been framed as giving Black people free things we don’t deserve. The centuries-old and persistent stereotype of Black people wanting “handouts” we don’t work for is at the core of the unpopularity of any political measure to specifically address Black people’s persistent economic issues. Another contributing factor to the political resistance to reparations is that White people have been told that they would lose what they have in order for Black people to be made economically whole.
So the fact is that reparations isn’t a reality not because it is not a good idea, not because it is not a valid idea, and not because it is not a plausible idea. Rather, reparations is not a reality because Americans have been trained to have an emotional objection to the idea. That emotional objection is absolutely based on the whitewashing or outright dismissal of history and the denial of the reality today that history created, but the visceral opposition to reparations is emotionally manipulated nonetheless. And that means that even well-meaning “good” White politicians — and quite a few Black ones — simply do not want to make White voters angry and turn their potential vote away by supporting reparations.
That attitude is not something we can change with policy, but what I think we can to do is show how Black people’s forced and free labor built the wealth of this country, how all the subsequent generations of the descendants of slaves have been denied the benefit of that wealth, and how that impacts the current generations of African Americans today. We need to make the connection between how American policies and practices from the past created the inequalities we face today, which would validate the case for why American policies — not forgetting about the past and being thankful we have made the progress we have — are needed to remediate them. What I think we need to do if we’re serious about making reparations a litmus test for politicians (and I think we absolutely should) is to push them to support H.R. 40.
Former Rep. John Conyers has sponsored and introduced H.R. 40 — legislation to form a Commission to study and consider reparations proposals for African Americans — in every single Congressional session since 1989. In discussing the bill, many proponents are unintentionally remiss in pointing out the key to its importance — the symbolism of the bill’s number. The “40” in H.R. 40 represents the “40 acres and a mule” idea that was for years incorrectly attributed to Union Army Gen. William T. Sherman. “40 acres and a mule,” more formally known as Special Field Order №15, would have allocated land (the mule to each family loaned from the Union Army would have come later) to emancipated people at the end of the Civil War. But the ideological importance of the bill’s number lies in the actual origin of the idea for this first plan for reparations for slavery. This is critical to highlight, because had this order been honored and expanded to include all formerly enslaved people in the United States at the time, the economic condition of their descendants would be vastly different from what it is today. Had the demands for those first reparations been honored, and had that original group of emancipated people been allowed to tend and develop that land without interference from outside forces, we most likely would have no need of a protracted fight to recognize the need for reparations today. If they’d been left alone, our ancestors would have built a different society for themselves, and we definitely would have a different society as a nation today. But that is not what happened (at this point, if you haven’t read the article linked above, you need to go back and read it). And it is the difference between what could have been, and what actually was done and what it has wrought, that makes pursuing reparations vitally important today.
So Rep. Conyers has introduced this bill every year for 30 years, and it has never gotten out of committee. It has had no support from most Democrats who have even claimed to want racial justice. Since Rep. Conyers’ retirement in 2017, the legislation’s sponsor has been Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, who has taken up the mantle of introducing the legislation for a vote in each session. Rep. Jackson-Lee says of the importance of H.R. 40:
“The impact of slavery and its vestiges continues to effect African Americans and indeed all Americans in communities throughout our nation. Which is why I am pleased to introduce H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans Act. This legislation is intended to examine the institution of slavery in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present, and further recommend appropriate remedies. Since the initial introduction of this legislation, its proponents have made substantial progress in elevating the discussion of reparations and reparatory justice at the national level and joining the mainstream international debate on the issues. Though some have tried to deflect the importance of these conversations by focusing on individual monetary compensation, the real issue is whether and how this nation can come to grips with the legacy of slavery that still infects current society.”
Of course, open opposition to legislation to even convene a commission to STUDY and recommend remedies for the impact of slavery and continued discrimination against African Americans is robustly opposed by the obvious conservative corners, for all the obvious emotionally manipulative reasons previously discussed. But if we of the more “progressive” political vein are looking to push politicians who are more likely to support a program of economic redress for African Americans, I think our focus needs to be not on convincing Conservatives that they’re wrong, but on demanding of Democrats/Liberals/Progressives to back the legislation that will prove that the case for reparations is legitimate. All emotion aside, our focus needs to be on asking every Democratic candidate where they have stood on H.R. 40 in the past; if they haven’t supported it, why; demand that they vote for it now; and if they will not support it — if they do not want to at least do better than the conservatives in this regard — THEN we push them off to the side and move on to the next. This is just Luqman Nation’s perspective on engaging politicians in this current election cycle on this one pressing issue for Black voters. And it’s not even an original one, to be honest, as various organizations such as N’COBRA have been fighting to get H.R. 40 passed and reparations for African Americans addressed for decades.
But even as we must make how all of these candidates deal with the issue of reparations in this and every subsequent election season, there are still other considerations to keep in mind as we parse through these candidate platforms.
The demand of Democratic candidates that they include a robust, comprehensive, and extensive racial justice platform that reflects solutions to current issues we face in every aspect of society today, from correcting the lack of equitably funded public schools to addressing discrimination in private sector employment to implementing real criminal justice reform, is still and always will be on the checklist for vetting candidates for Black voters. Luqman Nation believes that we not only demand that candidates who want our vote be committed to shaping a more equal and just society that produces a better future for our posterity through legislation to address current issues; but we also demand that the centuries of oppression, exclusion, and marginalization finally be recognized and documented, their impact be measured and quantified in relation to addressing our material condition in this country. What we caution against is accepting politicians who continue to push a color-blind, feel-good, “unity”-focused platform that does not specifically address issues that disproportionately affect Black people. Black people cannot afford to vote for any more symbolic representation in the White House, the statehouse, the city council, the school board, or in any elected office in this country. So we can certainly decide who we believe will offer us the best chance at achieving some shorter-range change going forward, but we have every right to demand that the same people take seriously the need for the past that created these conditions be properly and justly reconciled.
Do not think for one second that just because I did not have the time to broach all of this in a 17 minute conversation on The Real News that it is not an issue I know Black people in America need to have addressed by the people who claim to represent our interests, and who expect our vote. At the same time, if reparations is a deal-breaker in regard to electoral politics on a national level (state and local politics is a whole different discussion, as is organizing and mobilizing outside of electoral politics altogether), then it is necessary to be prepared to employ a strategy for how to advance that agenda when applying the test to those politicians.
As I said before — this 2020 Democratic primary conversation is just getting started, and it is sure to get more interesting and heated in the months to come. Luqman Nation intends to do quite a bit of examining candidates’ past stances, policies, and platforms in relation to what we think they mean for Black people. We certainly do not know everything, but like everyone else, we’ve got opinions on lots of things, which we try to back up with data and history. As objective on most topics as we try to be, we’re sure we will piss off some folks along the way with our views. That’s OK. Because what Luqman Nation wants to do in the coming months is not to tell people who to vote for, but we want to help voters be more aware of what these politicians’ policies might mean for the least among us, and why those policies should ultimately matter to everyone else.
