The Squeaky Party Gets the Blog
This week’s update focuses solely on the Democratic side of the ledger, one of many headlines the party earned over the last few days.
The primary for the Democratic nomination for governor of Georgia saw it’s first fireworks over the weekend. Stacey Evans, one of two Democrats running for the office, was shouted down as she attempted to speak to a gathering of progressive activists at the Netroots Nation conference in Atlanta.
Evans was scheduled to speak on Saturday morning, but when she tried to speak she was drowned out by shouts of “support black women”. Demonstrators also stood in front of Evans just off stage holding up signs while she was attempting to speak, according to video tweeted out by the AJC’s Greg Bluestein.
While the Democratic party has been debating its differences since Donald Trump won the White House, this fracas was more reminiscent of the bloody political fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008 than the more familiar Sanders-Clinton fights of the last year. And if this fight set the tone for what we’re likely to see for the rest of the primary, then it’s time for the Democrats to find their seatbelts and the Republicans to pop their popcorn.
Why were Progressive activists protesting Stacey Evans’ speech?
Differing accounts emerged of why progressive activists protested Evans’ speech. The AJC reported that one activist, Monica Simpson, said she could not name a policy position that led her to protest Evans’ speech. Simpson simply concluded that she supported a candidate who “truly speaks to my community”.
However on Twitter activists and observers connected the protest to votes that Evans had taken on education bills in the legislature. In a flier circulated at the event, Stacey Evans was compared to current education secretary Betsy DeVos, a figure reviled on the left for her support of private schools over public schools.
The actual details on the flier are a mess. It does not provide a citation for the 2013 vote (though it appears to be referencing House Bill 123 from 2013, a bill Evans voted for but was withdrawn by Rep. Ed Lindsey after passing the House). It also includes a reference to a vote in 2017, but makes no 2017 claims.
However, the claims made in the flier are not false. Evans did support both versions of the Opportunity School District (OSD), the 2013 parent trigger bill, the 2012 bill establishing state authority to approve charter schools, and the 2011 bill creating the student scholarship organization program.
In her speech from the well of the House in support of the first version of the Opportunity School District (the constitutional amendment), Evans noted imperfections in the enabling legislation but said the House was “simply sitting on the shore watching kids drown debating over whether we should throw them a line or buy them a boat… we ain’t got time for that, y’all.”
Missing from the flier is the 2017 vote on the second version of the Opportunity School District. Both Abrams and Evans voted for the bill in two house votes while the most visible progressive group in Georgia, Better Georgia, opposed the bill. Better Georgia characterized the bill as School Takeover 2.0, saying it “still silences parents and educators”, “still takes away local control”, and was a choice between drinking gasoline and kerosine (the last comment comes from the leader of the Georgia Federation of Teachers here).
According to AJC reporting, Abrams encouraged members of her House caucus to support the second OSD proposal, saying this version was more collaborative and less punitive to schools.
Abrams Frames Why She Will Win Around Race
Abrams has made issues of race and diversity central to her argument for her candidacy. In her speech to Netroots, she said that she could win the Governor’s office without changing her hair or her race (she also mentioned gender and beliefs). In refuting Roy Barnes’ early endorsement of Evans, Abrams argued that a strategy of winning white moderates who have long since defected to the Republicans was a poor one. And in her appearance on the feminist podcast, Hellbent, Abrams made the case for courting a more diverse Democratic electorate this way:
“I think it’s important to understand the demographics of Georgia. Georgia today, unlike every other Southern state, is 53 percent white non-hispanic, 47 percent people of color. Yet the last 5 elections we have run, we have targeted only the white part of our demographic. We have generally ignored people of color. We look at them as turnout targets, but we don’t look at them as active, credible voters who need to be engaged just as early… When you’ve hyper focused on a single community like the white working class, you do it to the exclusion of the other people who also live your community. And so yes I’ve pushed back very hard because I’ve watched our elections. We keep losing because we keep trying to convince people who’ve told us now since 2002 they don’t want to be here anymore. It’s like chasing someone you dated who broke up with you… they’re just not that into you! So let’s go find the guy who’s been waiting at the coffee shop for us to walk in.”
Certainly all of these points are in bounds. Abrams shouldn’t have to be white to win. Democrats (and Republicans) should represent the interests of racially diverse communities that have historically been marginalized in the state’s politics. And what kind of coalition state Democrats should focus their resources on to win is at least a fair debate to have.
But this frame has also been used to question Evans’ right to be in this primary. It’s not a case explicitly made by Abrams, but has been made by national progressives who support her candidacy.
In The Nation, Steve Phillips argues that the only purpose of more Democrats in the race for Governor would be to block Abrams’ path and that Evans should be persuaded to run for Lieutenant Governor as to avoid “squandering precious resources”. He also calls on the progressive community to make electing Abrams a national crusade and to rally to the cause by removing any “unnecessary obstructions”. Resistance to Abrams candidacy, Philips argues, highlights some of the reasons America has failed to elect an African-American woman governor.
And at Netroots, the protesters weren’t only chanting about public education. Reporting from the event indicates they were chanting “support black women” and their signs read “trust black women” and “our votes matter”.
Abrams statement responding to the protest said the mantra “trust black women” was “an historic endorsement of the value of bringing marginalized voices to the forefront, not a rebuke of my opponents race.” But she didn’t explain why Evans, a woman who overcame a childhood in poverty and was a first-generation college student, wasn’t also a marginalized voice worth bringing to the forefront. The protest of her speech had the opposite effect by not allowing Evans’ voice to be heard.
“This isn’t how Democrats want this primary race to be conducted”
The protest of Evans’ speech, and Abrams’ statement in response, wasn’t greeted with an outpouring of support from true progressives across the state. Instead, it was widely criticized on social media and in the press.
State Representative Scott Holcomb called the protest disappointing and called on Abrams to rebuke the demonstration. “This isn’t how Democrats want this primary race to be conducted”, Holcomb told Greg Bluestein. On Twitter, observers noted the wreckage protesters have left Georgia Democrats to deal with, that the protesters do not represent Georgia or Georgia Democrats, and that Georgia Democrats saw Michael Williams’ press conference debacle and said, “hold my beer”. (You can judge for yourself from the responses to Abrams’ statement on Facebook here).
Republicans on the other hand couldn’t have been more entertained:
They would probably appreciate the distraction given the leader (of at least some fraction of) their party blamed “both sides” for a terror attack and other violence precipitated by actual Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia later that day.
It’s still early in the race, and certainly there will be more time for substantive differences between the candidates to shape how Democrats view this contest. But if this is a preview of the race to come, Democrats should buckle up.
