It was a feel-good moment for the Democratic Party. During Saturday’s debate, Democratic candidates for president were asked one question apiece about issues intertwined with racial justice. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley finally seemed prepared to answer questions about race, punctuating an answer about law and criminal justice with an emphatic, “Black lives matter,” whereas in the past he was criticized for replacing the phrase with “All lives matter.” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders took a rather open-ended question about what he would say to a black man and give a solid presentation of race-related campaign items. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not quite address the question about Missouri protesters that was pitched to her, but did take the time to outline her bonafides.
Although these were only three questions, and although each candidate did not directly answer the question in front of them, the debate did represent a drastic turnabout since Black Lives Matter protesters first crashed Sanders and O’Malley speeches at Netroots Nation. Since then, Sanders and O’Malley have unveiled more concrete racial justice plans, O’Malley has (via hypnosis or other means) overcome his aversion to saying, “Black lives matter,” and Hillary Clinton has endeavored to meet with the families of several victims of police violence. The debate saw each Democratic candidate turn out polished, platform-ready answers to tough questions about racial justice.
But it just wasn’t enough.
The questions simply did not get to the heart of anything, and each candidate could simply out-talk the scope of the question until meaning was lost. There are still serious questions about each Democrat’s plans and credentials and whether the Republican field will even do anything other than insult black protesters. Sanders has enjoyed his status as the first to recognize and align platform items with some of those of several Black Lives Matter groups. However, his platform has failed to address some activists’ concerns outside of the realm of criminal justice reform and many are still eager to see him engage in more discussion about race as a concept independent of broader class assertions. The thorn in O’Malley’s side is still Baltimore, where he was mayor and presided over a brutal police city-state that targeted minorities and led to today’s conditions in the city. Hillary does not yet have a comprehensive plan, seemed uncomfortable speaking about actual student protesters, and her name-dropping of her own efforts to meet families of high-profile victims seems like a smokescreen for that deficiency at times.
Of course, Republican candidates have by and large decided that attacking Black Lives Matter protesters is the prudent choice of action as opposed to actually recognizing that racial injustices exist. Carson, Trump, Christie, and Walker have taken turns hurling invective at activists. Jeb Bush’s dealing with activists have been bumbling and tepid. The only Republican candidate with an evidenced plan for racial injustice is Rand Paul, who has actually admitted to agreeing with or understanding some activists’ frustrations.
Paul endorses GOP involvement in a Black Lives Matter town hall, which both the DNC and RNC gave their blessing to after ColorofChange.org, a group associated with Black Lives Matter, started a petition to launch a separate Black Lives Matter debate. The town hall, which activists are organizing now, represents a step down in formality and responsibility for those hoping for a full-fledged debate. And while it will provide a very valuable tool for underrepresented voters to voice their concerns and hear from candidates about the issues important to them, the pressure to actually attend will be lower, as will media attention and rigor of candidate answers. Even if GOP candidates do attend this or other racial justice town halls, it leaves some things on the table for understanding concrete policy positions and ensuring that they are broadcast to all interested parties.
The right answer is still a separate topical debate, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, in addition to the town hall. Generally, broad, immediately important issues like national security, the economy, or health care are given debate status. But what could be more broad and immediately important than the Black Lives Matter movement? Stories of police killings of black civilians dominate media spaces, as do protests in places like Ferguson and Columbia, Missouri, as well as Baltimore and Minneapolis. And criminal justice, the vehicle of racial injustice that dominates much of the conversation, is not a niche issue, but an evergreen debate that shapes the fabric of the country. It is clear that the only way to accomplish a substantive political debate among candidates and among voters about black lives is not by peppering a few general debates with a handful of questions, but by establishing entire forums devoted to the most rigorous kinds of political conversation in presidential races. If campaigns and conventions say that Black Lives Matter, they should add those forums to the calendar.