During the Charleston debate on July 24th, Dennis Kucinich said that he was for reparations for victims of slavery. This was in contrast to John Edwards and Barack Obama who seemed to give different answers. Some people have taken this as evidence that Kucinich was more daring, more honest, more progressive, at least on reparations (This diary, "Justice's Lonely Voice: Kucinich is Right on Reparations," for example). After looking at what Kucinich actually said, I disagree. In fact, Edwards and Obama end up looking pretty good.
What Kucinich actually says.
"Will," from Boston, Massachussets asked: "Is African-Americans ever gonna get reparations for slavery? I know y'all gonna run-around this question, dippin' and dodgin'." Before the candidates answered, Anderson Cooper modified the question and asked if African-Americans should get reparations. Edwards said "no" but there are things we must do to help. Cooper asked Obama a slightly different question, asking for his "position on reparations." Obama explained that reducing inequality and expanding opportunity are the reparations that must be made. Then Anderson Cooper asked, "is anyone on the stage actually for reparations, for slavery, for African-Americans?" Kucinich said answered yes. But what did he mean?
Kucinich says, "I am .... Yes I am for repairing the breach, yes I am for reparations." In between saying "yes," however, is a Biblical reference and then a virtual restatement of things Edwards and Obama said:
I am. The Bible says we shall be, and must be, repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred and we have to acknowledge that. It's a breach that has resulted in inequality in opportunities for education, for healthcare, for housing, for employment. And so we must be mindful of that. But it's also a breach that has affected a lot of poor whites as well. We need to have a country which recognizes there is an inequality of opportunity and a President who is ready to challenge the interest groups be they insurance companies or mortgage companies or defense contractors who are taking the money away from the people who need it. Yes I am for repairing the breach, yes I am for reparations
That's it. That's his entire answer.
In my eyes, that's beautiful. But in my eyes, the content is exactly what I see and value in the positions espoused by John Edwards and Barack Obama. And of course Dennis Kucinich might be "better" on various issues than Edwards, Obama, or anyone else. On reparations though, I don't see a difference. So I looked elsewhere.
My google search for "Kucinich reparations" yielded a bunch of commentary about how great or crazy or controversial or unrealistic Kucinich is for saying "yes" to reparations. I did, however, find two efforts to expand on Kucinich's policy on reparations.
The first is this post-debate article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website, Cleveland.com. Here's what they report on Kucinich's reparations policy:
When The Plain Dealer asked Kucinich campaign spokesman Andy Juniewicz for more details on Kucinich's slavery reparations stance, he replied via e-mail: "Thank you for your interest in the Presidential campaign of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. It is deeply appreciated. Be assured that we will continue to provide you with information about the campaign and the opportunities to be part of this growing movement."
Kucinich backs a congressional resolution that calls for an official House of Representatives apology for slavery, though he has not co-sponsored a bill authored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers that would set up a commission to study whether "any form of compensation to the descendents of African slaves is warranted."
Not very helpful.
The other source is from a website, ontheissues.org, that appears to compile candidates' policy statements from various sources. Here's what they got from the Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A:
Q: What is your position on reparations for Africans in America?
A: The Bible tells us we must be "repairers of the breach". The institution of slavery created a breach in our society, which still remains today. That breach is evident in the disparities which exist in educational opportunities, health care, employment opportunities, housing and other critical areas for people of color. The question is not whether or not there should be reparations. There must be. The question is what form will such reparations take? I believe a broad based program of social and economic reforms which consciously works to lift the conditions for people of color will lift up everyone. It is said a rising tide lifts all boats. We must create the advancing tide with health care for all, jobs for all, educational opportunities for all, housing opportunities for all.
Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A
This seems to confirm that Kucinich's "reparations" are basically "Obama's reparations" which are basically things Edwards advocates but doesn't think of in terms of "reparations for African-Americans for slavery."
So what?
Kucinich seems to agree with Edwards and Obama on policy regarding reparations. Each agrees that people have suffered and that we have both the moral obligation and the ability to, as Kucinich puts it, "repair the breach." Each agree that this should be done by creating a more humane, inclusive society through broadly liberal/progressive social and economic policies. Consequently, if you're looking to draw distinctions between the three based on policy, reparations isn't the place to look. They do differ in terms of other policies and in how they present themselves.
Kucinich has a reputation for being farther left than the other candidates on most issues. In this case, his answer reinforced the perceptions that he is willing to boldly go where other candidates won't. For some, that is taken as a sign of his being less realistic, more honest, less serious about winning, and/or more progressive. Perhaps some will take his answer as spin or outright deception. For me, it depends on what he (and his supporters) do with this. Will they acknowledge that the differences between the candidates on reparations are superficial or take a more nuanced position that the policies are the same but that labeling, i.e. calling liberal social policy "reparations," is an important thing to do? Or will they try to sell cosmetic differences as something else?
As for Edwards, I hope people give him credit for giving a clear answer and for having a policy on reparations just as progressive (and bold) as Kucinich's. Obama, I'm sure, will be criticized by some for seeming to evade the question since he didn't say "yes" or "no." In fairness, though, Cooper reframed the question to Obama as "what is your policy on reparations." Obama's answer was the truth: the way he would repair the damage done to African-Americans by slavery would be to fulfill the promises this nation makes but does not keep as long as people are held back by poverty, discrimination, savagely unequal education, etc. Everyone knows his stance; charges of evasiveness on this issue just don't hold water.