The polling data, media coverage, and recent Netroots event highlight a key question: which presidential candidate is the best for women and minorities?
Two things are important to establish off the bat. First, the Republicans are not in the ballpark, and are thus excluded from this discussion. Second, it is still early in the race.
Hillary’s high polling among African Americans and championing by women, including EMILY’s List, are often viewed as signs of her strong support from minorities and women (and many who are both). But should they support her? Bernie Sanders comes under criticism for being from a primarily white state and not for campaigning on racial issues. Green candidate Jill Stein receives little media attention. Yet they both promote platforms that are much better for the security and opportunity of these groups.
Four facts are critical to consider.
First, particularly in the case of a gridlocked Congress, the president often has the greatest opportunity to affect minorities – and the fate of the nation – through executive action and international policy.
Second, the guiding philosophy of an individual often shapes their positions on most issues. Bernie Sanders, by defining himself as a Democratic socialist, provides key insight into his focus on the public good, even in areas where he hasn’t endorsed specific positions. Second-time Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein speaks from what have become broader party priorities, to similar effect. In contrast, Hillary Clinton’s background, of corporate partnership and hawkish (for a Democrat) behavior, is inconsistent with a humanist or environmentalist core.
Third, protestors were right to speak up at Netroots Nation, raising issues echoed by Ta-Nehisi Coates new book “Between the World and Me” written to his son about being black in America, including the basic struggle for bodily safety. But protest should not be the only way to push candidates address critical issues. And the on-the-spot answers by Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley should be judged less harshly than Hillary Clinton’s scripted “all lives matter” in a Ferguson church last month. More to the point, the difficulty most candidates have in saying these words and framing them within a policy debate makes the case for the movement even more strongly. This also demonstrates the importance of early multi-party debates, rather than late FEC-engineered ones.
Fourth, an obvious point, although one often forgotten today, is that an individual’s identity may not significantly shape his or her political priorities. Hillary’s support of early childhood education, child care, and equal pay should be lauded. Yet, her policies across the board – ranging from Wall Street to climate change to the TPP to international affairs – probably do more to undermine the human rights of minorities and women. However an excellent female candidate with forward thinking, human rights based positions does exist: Dr. Jill Stein.
Finally, this decade has much in common with the 1960’s, including expanding and unwinnable wars; a fraying social safety net; brutal racial violence; and a struggle to keep women from reaching their true potential. The response to populist candidates indicates strong (even false) narratives and bold solutions to these problems resonate with the American public.
Eight key issue areas may substantially alleviate poverty and suffering for minorities and women, and create opportunity and security for them. Stars represent positions that effectively serve these Americans, and often the broader public good.
Wall Street Reform – Seven years ago Wall Street caused a financial crash that led to a doubling of the wealth gap between minorities and whites. The poor and middle class also suffered from the crash-driven economic downturn. It was a major cause of a growing deficit which helped make the (misguided) case for damaging, counterproductive austerity measures on food stamps, public education, and other spending with high social payoffs.
Bernie Sanders* is teaming with Sen. Elizabeth Warren to co-sponsor a bill that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, separating commercial and investment banking activity. He has also sponsored a tax on financial transactions that would target the very wealthy. Jill Stein* also favors breaking up the big banks, and supports publically run local banks and “fair taxation” of Wall Street. Hillary Clinton, seemingly on the defensive, just used Facebook (?!) to support cracking down on individual criminal bankers and expanding Dodd-Frank protections. But would those positions prevent the next crash?
International Affairs and War – Expanding war where the world is, increasingly, our battlefield is a failed foreign policy. We’ve also seen major diplomatic wins under Secretary of State John Kerry: normalizing relations with Cuba and the now UN-endorsed Iran nuclear deal. Our wars have resulted in US weapons being used against us, drone bombings creating enemies, the death of (proportionately) the equivalent of everyone in Los Angeles and New York after an illegal invasion, and violent extremism by ISIL, Al Qaeda and Al-Shabab. Female and minority soldiers and their families serve and suffer. Even worse, these wars legitimize the dehumanization of and violence towards dark-skinned people and women. Furthermore, the enormous expenditures could be redirected towards revitalizing the inner city, job training, and social programs to substantially improve the lives of women and minorities.
Hillary Clinton has a history of hawkish behavior as Secretary of State that she has continued in her run, although she supports the Iran deal. Bernie Sanders opposed the war in Iraq and argued for a limited US role currently, but has largely failed to spell out foreign policy priorities. Jill Stein’s* foreign policy would be grounded in “international law, human rights and diplomacy,” including ending weapons sales to human rights violators. She favors cutting military spending in half, and redirecting to other public priorities.
Climate Change – We are currently on a path to apocalyptic climate change. The phenomenon disproportionately affects women and the poor. Globally about 60 million individuals were displaced in 2014, in part due to the climate. Related conflicts and insecurity are forcing women and the dispossessed to extreme measures. The ensuing struggle for resources is particularly challenging for the vulnerable, particularly in places that do not guarantee human rights like housing and water, like America.
Jill Stein* of the Green Party supports a “Green New Deal”: a transition to 100 percent wind, water, and solar energy by 2030. She supports an end to mountaintop removal, fracking, and tar sands. Bernie Sanders* opposes the Keystone XL pipeline (while Hillary Clinton was “inclined” to favor), supports divestment of fossil fuels companies and won’t take money from them. He sponsored a carbon tax in the Senate. Hillary Clinton has been mostly mute on effective solutions, favoring more fees and royalties on fossil fuel companies.
Human Rights – In the rich nation of America, people struggle for housing, access to clean water, safe and nutritious food, and affordable health care (the last is discussed in the next section). These issues are seminal given corporate influence over government, rising inequality, and climate change. This is especially true for minorities and women who, on average, hold less wealth, earn less, and have more insecure lives.
Jill Stein* supports granting of these rights through living wage jobs and an endorsement of these rights, as well as anti-poverty programs. As a Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders* is similarly supportive of human rights. Hillary Clinton questions what a “good job” is (even while working with those who undermined protections for workers). She also spoke of corporate profit sharing through tax credits, even as corporations aggressively outsource jobs and replace individuals with robots, which many Americans hate. She has largely shied away from fundamental issues of basic social justice, relying on key policy phrases that she has yet to truly champion.
Other Domestic Issues - Rev. William Barber was right to call for a fitting legacy to the murders of Senator Clementa Pinckney and 8 others: an omnibus bill to provide Medicare-for-all, voting rights, less gun proliferation, a living wage and more police accountability. More could be added including a quality education for all. These are certainly issues for women too, who are frequently victims of violence, comprise more than half of college students, and live within the dimensions of a misogynistic as well as racist society.
Jill Stein supports a living wage through the creation of many jobs to create a renewable energy infrastructure. She favors free higher education, a robust public school education, an end to police brutality, and a single payer system. Bernie Sanders supports having public universities offer free tuition and a single payer, Medicare-for-all system. Hillary Clinton favors universal pre-K education, and police body cameras. All three have been much weaker on these issues, particularly those most closely associated with the #blacklivesmatter movement, than one would hope. In addition, none of them have had the courage to ask where the trillions of funding – or at least a substantial amount – is for African Americans after this nation experienced twice the murders by white supremacists as foreign terrorists.
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Other “Trade” Agreements – There are some striking similarities between war rationales and justifications for trade agreements: don’t look at past history, we’re told, or what’s behind the curtain. The TPP’s attempted expansion of corporate rights has little to do with trade. It would likely increase climate change due to chilling and direct effects from an investor state dispute clause that allows companies to hold countries responsible in new international courts for future profits lost due to environmental action, including climate change agreements. It also could outlaw “Buy American” policies to boost adoption of renewable energy. Claims it will boost American jobs are dubious as previous unfair trade agreements resulted in the massive outsourcing of good jobs. It could worsen food safety, roll back reforms on Wall Street, and increase surveillance (never good for activists). Such agreements could have a major effects especially on women and minorities. The next president will also have significant power to negotiate such treaties that can’t be amended by Congress (through fast track authority.)
Jill Stein* wants to “replace corporate trade with fair trade agreements.” Bernie Sanders* rejects the TPP. Hillary Clinton imposes criteria for approval including “strengthening national security,” although what greater threat to national security could there be than climate change?
Election financing – With a level of inequality that virtually no one favors, the Citizens United decision and other election financing, the wealthy and corporations have undue influence in shaping our nation. White, male-run institutions (and wealth) dominate our “democracy,” shifting power from poor and middle class minorities and women, who comprise majority of these categories, as they do for all Americans.
Jill Stein* does not take corporate money and favors public campaign financing. Bernie Sanders*, who had raised more than any Republican candidate, also does not accept corporate money. Hillary Clinton is raking in Wall Street money, while struggling to get grass roots donors.
Partners – Bill Clinton was famously called “the first black president” by author Toni Morrison. But, if Hillary Clinton wishes to run in part on his record, it’s sensible to look a little closer. Bill Clinton deserves some credit for the economic recovery. But he also promoted “anti-crime” legislation that contributed to mass incarceration, for which he has recently apologized, although belatedly. He pushed the Democrats to dismantle the Glass-Steagall Act and deregulate derivatives through the Commodities Future Modernization Act, both which contributed to the 2008 worldwide depression that affects us today. Hillary Clinton also served on the board of Wal-Mart a company notorious for outsourcing manufacturing, and crushing unions and better-paying local companies. She has worked with questionable donors and partners through the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation.
Bernie Sanders* and Jill Stein* do not appear to have such conflicts of interest, and their rejection of easy money lends credibility to their avowed, specific priorities within a humanist vision.
Today, our country needs strong and bold leadership. The evolving examples of Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders show promise. Conversely, a campaign of extraordinary resources like Hillary’s does not inspire confidence. She poorly frames and champions effective solutions to challenges facing women and minorities. Would she cast off her connections and prior positions and do so in the future?
Hillary’s candidacy has often been supported by Democrats as “the lesser of two evils.” But where in the constitution does it set such low aspirations? Alternatively, we hear that one needs corporate money to run and win, despite a largely grassroots campaign by Obama in 2008. Finally, why should voters sigh with resignation while contemplating an unenthusiastic march to the ballot box?
The French diplomat Joseph de Maistre stated, “In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.” To get the President that we deserve, let’s have a race, let’s have debates, and let’s have a competition for critical components of our electorate, without which the presidential election cannot be won. Democratic Presidential candidates tell us what you’ll do for us. Earn our support.
Not demanding a true democracy and humanism shortchanges our country. We sell out ourselves and our promise for lives of security, opportunity, and true happiness.